Fox New Program on Obama - Sunday night 10/12

• Fox New Program on Obama - Sunday night 10/12 - see message
  • Recycled smear, some of it 2 years old. - It didn't work then. sm
    • Obviously old news that bears repeating... - for those poor lost souls.....nm
    • That's right.. Just keep that wool pulled real tight down over your eyes. - libby
      • Pubs are the ones with blinders on. - McC eco plan = W's eco plan = Nov 4 losers.
        • Pubs - not one 'em

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

flag pin on and McCain did not?  

In light of the breaking news this weekend with AIG and their now planning to pay millions in bonuses to the crooks of their corporation and the news from their lips that they have sent their taxpayer bailout money to overseas concerns, I thought this article too, too pertinent to ignore.  Below are some excerpts.  Full article can be read at

http://bible-prophecy-today.blogspot.com/2009/03/sunday-satire.html

American intelligence experts are analyzing a new terror video from the American International Group (AIG) in which the leader of the shadowy organization demands billions of dollars from the United States.  "If we are not paid billions more in bonuses and corporate golf retreats, America will be made to suffer," the man threatens.

Reacting to the video, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano raised the nation's terror alert level to orange, meaning "taxpayers are about to get reamed again."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also released a response to AIG's latest demands, but intelligence experts said they would need several weeks to decipher Mr. Geithner's response.

 

I would strongly recommend watching this program.  It's on CNN Saturday and Sunday nights.  It describes just how and why Bush went to war in Iraq and how nothing was going to stop him and how he was DEAD WRONG.

I feel so bad for Colin Powell, a man of real honesty and integrity, who got mixed up with the *wrong crowd* in Washington.

I am looking forward to watching this interview because I am truly interested in hearing what this man has to say.

I can recall as a child growing up to the tune of We have to fight Vietnam because the Communists want to take over the world.  During those times, the worst thing a person could be called in the USA was a Communist. 

It seems to me these days the USA is the one that wants to take over the world.  It has no respect for any government that cares about its poor people or even America's poor, for that matter.  (For example, Chavez tried to provide cheap oil to the poor last winter while Bush didn't care if poor Americans froze to death.)  Any country that removes the profit incentive from medicine or education for its citizens is a terrorist nation in Bush's eyes.  We're quickly approaching the day when most of us will be poor as the middle class continues to disintegrate before our eyes.

I am suspect of everyone Bush labels as terrorist these days, and I want to hear both sides.  Bush refuses to sit down diplomatically and listen to what Ahmadinejad has to say, so I'm grateful that Mike Wallace took the time to do so.

Making Home Affordable will offer assistance to as many as 7 to 9 million homeowners, making their mortgages more affordable and helping to prevent the destructive impact of foreclosures on families, communities and the national economy.

The Home Affordable Refinance program will be available to 4 to 5 million homeowners who have a solid payment history on an existing mortgage owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Normally, these borrowers would be unable to refinance because their homes have lost value, pushing their current loan-to-value ratios above 80%. Under the Home Affordable Refinance program, many of them will now be eligible to refinance their loan to take advantage of today’s lower mortgage rates or to refinance an adjustable-rate mortgage into a more stable mortgage, such as a 30-year fixed rate loan.

GSE lenders and servicers already have much of the borrower’s information on file, so documentation requirements are not likely to be burdensome. In addition, in some cases an appraisal will not be necessary. This flexibility will make the refinance quicker and less costly for both borrowers and lenders. The Home Affordable Refinance program ends in June 2010.

The Home Affordable Modification program will help up to 3 to 4 million at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosure by reducing monthly mortgage payments. Working with the banking and credit union regulators, the FHA, the VA, the USDA and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Treasury Department today announced program guidelines that are expected to become standard industry practice in pursuing affordable and sustainable mortgage modifications. This program will work in tandem with an expanded and improved Hope for Homeowners program.

With the information now available, servicers can begin immediately to modify eligible mortgages under the Modification program so that at-risk borrowers can better afford their payments. The detailed guidelines (separate document) provide information on the following:

Eligibility and Verification

Sorry, I'm still venting from the SCHIP garbage that was on today. They absolutely want to pass this immediately without looking at amendments, etc. They want an additional 11 million children covered ( nothing wrong with that) EXCEPT they want to put it on the smokers to pay for it. Now, with the way they are trying to get smokers to quit, I would think that's a stupid and absolutely wrong idea.

Like James Webb (NC) stated, "Do we really want an unhealthy habit to pay for a healthy habit?"What happens when the smokers quit because of all the taxes they have to pay to keep these programs going? Who is going to pay for it if every smoker quits? You have nothing to back it up. There would be a black hole and eventually, every citizen would have to pay for it.

I agree totally with his statements.  Why is it they expect an unhealthy habit to cover healthy habits? It makes no sense. At least this rep has his head together, yet the others don't think about the future costs.

When are the  American citizens going to wake up and start thinking for themselves? Why, oh why, do we keep voting in people who don't even think for themselves, just vote by party affiliation?

Glenn Beck stated we have to keep the phone lines to Washington and keep calling in to our reps to stop the nonsense (sp). I agree.

I watched the jerk put in the Senate by fellow voters from my state today and I had to turn him off  (I didn't vote for him-he knows nothing). I am going to write to the newspapers in that area and ask them WHY did they vote for him? Betcha my answer will be "He gave us so much money to get our projects done." "He's the son of our late governor." "He's from our area." That's no reason to vote for somebody. If it is, then I must be totally wrong for voting the way I do. I vote who I think will do the best job, not if he's from our area. That's part of  the problem with politics today.

I'll get off my  now. Thanks for reading. I promise no more venting today.

The Other Big Brother
The Pentagon has its own domestic spying program. Even its leaders say the outfit may have gone too far.

By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek

Jan. 30, 2006 issue - The demonstration seemed harmless enough. Late on a June afternoon in 2004, a motley group of about 10 peace activists showed up outside the Houston headquarters of Halliburton, the giant military contractor once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. They were there to protest the corporation's supposed war profiteering. The demonstrators wore papier-mache masks and handed out free peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches to Halliburton employees as they left work. The idea, according to organizer Scott Parkin, was to call attention to allegations that the company was overcharging on a food contract for troops in Iraq. It was tongue-in-street political theater, Parkin says.

But that's not how the Pentagon saw it. To U.S. Army analysts at the top-secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), the peanut-butter protest was regarded as a potential threat to national security. Created three years ago by the Defense Department, CIFA's role is force protection—tracking threats and terrorist plots against military installations and personnel inside the United States. In May 2003, Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy Defense secretary, authorized a fact-gathering operation code-named TALON—short for Threat and Local Observation Notice—that would collect raw information about suspicious incidents. The data would be fed to CIFA to help the Pentagon's terrorism threat warning process, according to an internal Pentagon memo.

A Defense document shows that Army analysts wrote a report on the Halliburton protest and stored it in CIFA's database. It's not clear why the Pentagon considered the protest worthy of attention—although organizer Parkin had previously been arrested while demonstrating at ExxonMobil headquarters (the charges were dropped). But there are now questions about whether CIFA exceeded its authority and conducted unauthorized spying on innocent people and organizations. A Pentagon memo obtained by NEWSWEEK shows that the deputy Defense secretary now acknowledges that some TALON reports may have contained information on U.S. citizens and groups that never should have been retained. The number of reports with names of U.S. persons could be in the thousands, says a senior Pentagon official who asked not be named because of the sensitivity of the subject.

CIFA's activities are the latest in a series of disclosures about secret government programs that spy on Americans in the name of national security. In December, the ACLU obtained documents showing the FBI had investigated several activist groups, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Greenpeace, supposedly in an effort to discover possible ecoterror connections. At the same time, the White House has spent weeks in damage-control mode, defending the controversial program that allowed the National Security Agency to monitor the telephone conversations of U.S. persons suspected of terror links, without obtaining warrants.

Last Thursday, Cheney called the program vital to the country's defense against Al Qaeda. Either we are serious about fighting this war on terror or not, he said in a speech to the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. But as the new information about CIFA shows, the scope of the U.S. government's spying on Americans may be far more extensive than the public realizes.

It isn't clear how many groups and individuals were snagged by CIFA's dragnet. Details about the program, including its size and budget, are classified. In December, NBC News obtained a 400-page compilation of reports that detailed a portion of TALON's surveillance efforts. It showed the unit had collected information on nearly four dozen antiwar meetings or protests, including one at a Quaker meetinghouse in Lake Worth, Fla., and a Students Against War demonstration at a military recruiting fair at the University of California, Santa Cruz. A Pentagon spokesman declined to say why a private company like Halliburton would be deserving of CIFA's protection. But in the past, Defense Department officials have said that the force protection mission includes military contractors since soldiers and Defense employees work closely with them and therefore could be in danger.

CIFA researchers apparently cast a wide net and had a number of surveillance methods—both secretive and mundane—at their disposal. An internal CIFA PowerPoint slide presentation recently obtained by William Arkin, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst who writes widely about military affairs, gives some idea how the group operated. The presentation, which Arkin provided to NEWSWEEK, shows that CIFA analysts had access to law-enforcement reports and sensitive military and U.S. intelligence documents. (The group's motto appears at the bottom of each PowerPoint slide: Counterintelligence 'to the Edge'.) But the organization also gleaned data from open source Internet monitoring. In other words, they surfed the Web.

That may have been how the Pentagon came to be so interested in a small gathering outside Halliburton. On June 23, 2004, a few days before the Halliburton protest, an ad for the event appeared on houston.indymedia.org, a Web site for lefty Texas activists. Stop the war profiteers, read the posting. Bring out the kids, relatives, Dick Cheney, and your favorite corporate pigs at the trough as we will provide food for free.

Four months later, on Oct. 25, the TALON team reported another possible threat to national security. The source: a Miami antiwar Web page. Website advertises protest planned at local military recruitment facility, the internal report warns. The database entry refers to plans by a south Florida group called the Broward Anti-War Coalition to protest outside a strip-mall recruiting office in Lauderhill, Fla. The TALON entry lists the upcoming protest as a credible threat. As it turned out, the entire event consisted of 15 to 20 activists waving a giant bush lied sign. No one was arrested. It's very interesting that the U.S. military sees a domestic peace group as a threat, says Paul Lefrak, a librarian who organized the protest.

Arkin says a close reading of internal CIFA documents suggests the agency may be expanding its Internet monitoring, and wants to be as surreptitious as possible. CIFA has contracted to buy identity masking software that would allow the agency to create phony Web identities and let them appear to be located in foreign countries, according to a copy of the contract with Computer Sciences Corp. (The firm declined to comment.)

Pentagon officials have broadly defended CIFA as a legitimate response to the domestic terror threat. But at the same time, they acknowledge that an internal Pentagon review has found that CIFA's database contained some information that may have violated regulations. The department is not allowed to retain information about U.S. citizens for more than 90 days—unless they are reasonably believed to have some link to terrorism, criminal wrongdoing or foreign intelligence. There was information that was improperly stored, says a Pentagon spokesman who was authorized to talk about the program (but not to give his name). It was an oversight. In a memo last week, obtained by NEWSWEEK, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England ordered CIFA to purge such information from its files—and directed that all Defense Department intelligence personnel receive refresher training on department policies.

That's not likely to stop the questions. Last week Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee pushed for an inquiry into CIFA's activities and who it's watching. This is a significant Pandora's box [Pentagon officials] don't want opened, says Arkin. What we're looking at is hints of what they're doing. As far as the Pentagon is concerned, that means we've already seen too much.

© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.

U.S. program unveils man behind Iraq weapons story

He's on again at 9 p.m. EST. I'm watching it now and it's very interesting. Watch if you can.

They have stated repeatedly it is for energy. 

I have a real difficult time knowing who to believe.  Bush has paid the media to present his point of view.  This tactic used to be called propaganda when it referred to Communists.  Communists were supposed to be the ones who wanted to take over the entire world and force their form of government on everyone.

Today it's America doing the very same thing.

It's not difficult to find an ever growing list of Bush lies.

If you can provide me with a similar list of lies told by Ahmadinejad, I'd love to read it. 

The issue here is credibility and who has the biggest history of lying.  Unfortunately, a pack of lies is what got us where we are in Iraq today.  To me, it looks like Bush is trying the very same tactics to get us into a war with Iran. 

Although Ahmadinejad is a terrible, psychotic, murderous, dangerous individual, Bush is the person who has the five-year history of lying to the American people and to the world.

Quite frankly, if I were the president of Iran and saw my neighbor, Iraq, invaded based on a pack of lies, I believe I'd want to flex my muscles and try to scare the USA into backing off and not attacking my citizens as they did in Iraq. 

Israel has nuclear weapons (that I believe WE paid for).  The USA has nuclear weapons.  Why is that okay?

The real threat is Korea, but Bush is too much of a coward and doesn't have the courage to address that threat.

The propaganda machine of George W. Bush has cast Syria in a very negative light, yet Syria was responsible for saving American lives the other day by thwarting a terror attempt.

That, in and of itself, in addition to Bush's refusal to get the Taliban that were in plain view the other day, has me questioning every single word that comes out of this lying president's mouth.

Yes, I'll say it again.  He is a liar.  A LIAR!  Maybe in your neck of the woods, lying is an accepted form of communication.  Where I come from, it does nothing but destroy credibility and create distrust in the person who is doing the lying.  You can respond with all the snappy **you hate bush** and **you're on the side of the terrorists** comebacks you want (seems to be the usual conservative talking point response), but the bottom line is he is a chronic liar.  I don't hate Bush, but I sure as heck don't like (or trust) liars. 

I dont have to defend my education or knowledge of history.  I know what I have been taught.  This endless attack gets tiring.  Time to go do something more constructive than read your attacks to me.  Later Gator

This is definitely scary.  When we lose control to raise or own children......what else do they want to take away from us.  This is beyond ridiculous.

You people who cry and whine about government staying out of your uterus....well how about stay out of my home and let me raise my kids I decided to have instead of aborting.  What about those rights? 

And they wonder why people are upset and worried?

It's going to be hilarious!

For those of you who miss it, you can see clips at their website.

I don't post under a name, because when you do you are crucified by the drive-by bombers.  It's best to keep the them confused.

And Tucker Carlson is hardly a liberal.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13459509/

But first to a story horrifying even by the coarsening standards of Iraq, the brutal murder and torture of two U.S. soldiers. 

Privates first class Kristian Menchaca and Thomas L. Tucker went missing Friday after an attack on a checkpoint they were manning south of Baghdad.  Their bodies were found on Monday night.  They were reportedly so badly mutilated they were tentatively identified by tattoos and scars.  The corpses were also booby-trapped, an apparent effort to kill recovery teams.

Al Qaeda‘s new leader in Iraq has claimed responsibility for the soldier‘s slaughter. 

In the face of brutality like this, is Iraq worth the cost in American lives?  Here to answer that question, Brad Blakeman.  He‘s the former deputy assistant to the president.  He joins us tonight from Washington. 

Brad, thanks for coming on.

BRAD BLAKEMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  So we have spent untold billions of dollars, 2,500 American soldiers killed, all in an effort to bring democracy and prosperity to Iraq.  In return, they torture and murder and mutilate our soldiers.  Remind me why this is a good bargain?

BLAKEMAN:  Well, Tucker, look, this is a tough thing, and our hearts go out to every soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice so that we can live in freedom. 

But Iraq is worth fighting for.  The region is worth fighting for.  It‘s in our interest.  These terrible, brutal dictatorships must be brought down when they become a threat to our national security.  You know...

CARLSON:  OK.  But that‘s not the rationale the president has offered.  He has said now, because as you know, and not to rehash the whole war, but no weapons of mass destruction were found.  And he‘s said now this is worth doing because it‘s worth bringing freedom to the Iraqi people.  They yearn for freedom, and it‘s our duty to give them the freedom they yearn for. 

My question is how have they earned our sacrifice to bring them that freedom?  What about Iraq justifies the death—brutal deaths of American soldiers?  Why should we feel like it‘s worth it to bring these people democracy when they behave like animals like this?

BLAKEMAN:  We‘re focusing on the animals and not the good and decent people of Iraq.  The vast majority of Iraq is peaceful. 

CARLSON:  Is that right?  I don‘t think—I don‘t think there‘s any evidence of that.

BLAKEMAN:  There are 12 million people who went to—who went to the polls.  They have four successful elections.  They have a new government.  We tend only to focus on the very bad, on the insurgencies, and the evil people.  But the vast majority of Iraqis want to be free. 

You know, if we took your attitude...

CARLSON:  Is that true?  Is that true?

BLAKEMAN:  Hold on, Tucker.  If we took your attitude, we would have turned back at the beaches of Normandy when all those people...

CARLSON:  Spare me the tired, hackney, cliched World War II analogies.  Let‘s get to the war in progress, and that‘s Iraq.  There are decent people there.  I have been there.  I‘ve met decent people there.  I know firsthand. 

However, your claim that most people want peace is bosh as they say. 

Let me show you...

BLAKEMAN:  It is not.

CARLSON:  It certainly is.  A poll undertaken by the ministry of defense from Great Britain, part of the coalition, said 65 percent of Iraqi citizens support attacks on U.S. citizens. 

Our own polling, done by World Opinion, public opinion, 47 percent approve attacks on U.S. forces, 88 percent of Sunnis, 88 percent approve of attacks on U.S. forces. 

These are—are these—these are the people our sons and daughters are dying to make rich and free?  How does that work?

BLAKEMAN:  It is our responsibility.  We brought down this dictator, this evil dictator...

CARLSON:  How are we responsible?

BLAKEMAN:  ... who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people.  Now, it‘s our responsibility to bring democracy to these people.  We can‘t cut and run and defeat the dictator and then leave...

CARLSON:  Why is it our responsibility?  There are countries across the world who live in shackles.

BLAKEMAN:  We are the freest nation on earth.  That‘s why it‘s our responsibility.  We‘re the freest nation on earth.  We brought down the dictator, and now it‘s our responsibility...

CARLSON:  How does that work?  They have not done one thing for us.  Look—look, think of the implications of what you are saying.  I don‘t know if you have thought this through.

BLAKEMAN:  I‘ve thought it through very well.

CARLSON:  Nation after nation after nation, starting with Mugabe in Zimbabwe, moving all the way to communist—still communist, still unfree China, people who are living in fetters who are unfree, who are oppressed, is it our, as you put it, obligation as a free a nation to free those nations?  Do you really want to play this?

BLAKEMAN:  Is it—do you know what our obligation is?  It‘s to bring freedom to those people who yearn to be free.  And China has come a long way. 

CARLSON:  So it‘s your obligation to sent your son, my obligation...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  ... people I‘ve never met in countries that hate us?  You‘ve got to be kidding.  It‘s my obligation to do that?

BLAKEMAN:  Yes, it is our obligation.  Was it our obligation to go—was it our obligation. 

CARLSON:  Where does the obligation come from?  I didn‘t sign up for that obligation.

BLAKEMAN:  It‘s our obligation.  Was it our obligation to go—was it our obligation to go into Europe where we weren‘t attacked?  No, Europe let a dictator get so strong that collectively they couldn‘t take him down, and we had to come down. 

CARLSON:  We got in war when we were attacked.

BLAKEMAN:  We lost 400,000 Americans in that war.  We lost—a million people were wounded in that war.

CARLSON:  Right.  And there were...

BLAKEMAN:  But was it worth it?

CARLSON:  Let me just remind you, we entered that war on December 7, 1941, when our soil, the protectorate of Hawaii, was attacked by a foreign nation and thousands of Americans died.  We went to war on that day, and not before.  OK?  So the overall principle you are stating here, that we have a moral obligation to free the unfree, think it through, man.  It‘s... 

BLAKEMAN:  I didn‘t say that, Tucker.  I said when we took down the dictator, when we made an obligation to risk our soldiers to free a country, we just can‘t cut and run.  We have to establish a government for them.  We‘ve got to give them the opportunity to succeed.  That‘s our obligation.

CARLSON:  And you may be right as far as that goes.  But the blanket obligation that Bush implies, and you just stated, that we have to go free the world, to send our sons and daughters to go...

BLAKEMAN:  No, we don‘t have to free the world

CARLSON:  ... die for other people‘s freedom, people who hate us, it‘s a scary thing.

BLAKEMAN:  Well, then you know what?  Didn‘t the Japanese hate us? 

Didn‘t the Germans hate us?  Do they hate us today?

CARLSON:  They attacked us first.  We had no choice.

BLAKEMAN:  They‘re our allies.  They our allies, and they stand shoulder to shoulder with us.  Should we have waited to get attacked by the Iraqis?  No.

CARLSON:  You know, I thought—when I supported the war initially, I thought that they were capable of attacking us, and it turns out, as you know, and I‘m sad to report, that we weren‘t. 

BLAKEMAN:  They were pretty capable of attacking us if they wanted to. 

CARLSON:  Brad Blakeman, thanks a lot.

BLAKEMAN:  You are welcome.