Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

If customary deference to a sitting president by president elect

Posted By: is an excuse, then yes....sm on 2008-11-12
In Reply to: That's the best excuse you have for the - incoming president? pleeeze

for the rest of us who understand such concepts as respect and traditional protocol, it would qualify as a darned good reason.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

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


Other related messages found in our database

he isn't a sitting president
don't you think he's a getting a little ahead of himself? I find it arrogant to be talking 2nd term when you aren't in the 1st term yet.
The sitting president....(sm)

is doing just that...sitting on his a$$ and not doing anything.  Meanwhile the economy has been going down the tubes.  Yeah, it's much more important to kiss Bush's butt than to actually address the situation we are in and get people working again.  Have you ever heard of the word *priorities?*


And speaking of rude, how about that Blair house thing?  How petty is that?


I think that what a president-elect does ......
does in the first days of his president-elect days, is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than the 10000 series of the soap opera 'Days of our lives', or whatever......
He's not even president elect yet
So it's just posturing. Oooohh....he's assembled a panel. I'm impressed.

Not.

Actually he's not president-elect yet
I know it's odd to think of it, but he has not yet been nominated by the electoral college, therefore is still just a citizen. Once the electoral college votes on Dec 13th, then in January the congress votes. Then if he is elected then he will be president elect. Until then he is still just a citizen. This is why they are trying to clear up whether or not he is elegible to become present. There are many many lawsuits, several in many states who are filing a lawsuit because he won't show proof of his eligibility. So until the congress votes in January Obama is still just a citizen and not president elect yet.
Never before has a president-elect...sm
Sought to elevate himself to POTUS status before actually occupying the Oval Office. Obama has put himself in the media forefront by trying to enact policy before taking office, therefore making himself a target for criticism. As Bush said in his last press conference, he knows there are people who dislike him and people who disagree with him; it's just part of the job. No President in history has been able to escape the slings and arrows of his constituents simply because of the nature of his job and the fact that people will always find something to complain about; it's just in their nature. Obama will be under scrutiny, yes, but I doubt it will be any more critical an examination than Bush has had to endure.
What sitting president doesn't run for a second term? nm
nm
Office of the President Elect...

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_president_elect_/2008/11/10/149643.html











Obama Invents 'Office of the President-Elect'














Barack Obama has created a stir by proclaiming that he heads “The Office of President-Elect” — an office that does not officially exist.


At his first news conference on Nov. 7, Obama stood at a podium bearing a sign that read: “Office of the President-Elect. Also, his Web site, Change.gov, bears the words “Office of the President-Elect” at the top of its home page.


Writer Larry Anderson referred to the “made-up little title” on the American Thinker Web site, and declared: “I nearly busted a gut ...


“Once again, [Obama] can’t wait to invest himself with the trappings of office.”


Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin wondered: “What other make-believe offices are they going to invent between now and Inauguration Day? I can’t ever recall in my lifetime any mention of such an office.”


Technically speaking, Obama may not even be the President-elect, according to the American Sentinel Web site.


“Megalomaniac Obama’s ego grows even more insufferable,” a weekend posting reads.


“Yes, he will be [president-elect]. But he’s not officially yet, until the Electoral College votes.


“The Constitution provides that on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, electors convene in their respective state capitals. It’s then that they formally elect the President of the United States, based on the general election results.”


The Nov. 7 news conference did not mark the first time Obama has created controversy with a podium.


Back in June, he spoke at a podium bearing a new seal that altered the official presidential seal.


The seal did include the American bald eagle clutching arrows and an olive branch, but the Latin phrase “E Pluribus Unum” was changed to “Vero Possumus,” a rough translation of the Obama campaign slogan, “Yes we can.”


Obama’s seal also removed the shield over the eagle’s breast, representing the president’s oath to defend the Constitution, and replaced it with the letter “O,” presumably for Obama, and the image of the rising sun.









© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.




I have no doubt at all that Republicans would have defended the sitting President.
You are way out of touch with the Democrats, but I guess that's because you are a leftist.  That does not surprise me.
Get over it. He is the president elect by a majority vote. nm
.
He is not supposed to attend since he's only the President-elect.
This summit is for leaders of the country, not leaders that will be.
Rahm Emanuel is not the president-elect....(sm)

If you pay attention to what Obama is doing right now this might make sense.  Obama is filling his cabinet not only with people who agree with him, but also people who disagree with him.  Presumably he's following the lead of Lincoln who did this with his cabinet members.  The conclusion I come up with is that just because Rahm said it doesn't necessarily mean it will be law.


PRESIDENT ELECT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ! ! ! ! ! !
x
Get it right...President-elect Barack Obama stated it
was people's choice if they chose to have an abortion.  Nevertheless, you live in america and he is your president as well, just go ahead and face the fact.  It does not matter whether you trust him or not, he is your president, RESPECT him as such!!!!!!!
technically not even president-elect until electoral college meets. nm
.
I found a Freudian slip too - present elect Clinton (not president erect)
HA HA HA - but then if the shoe fits. HA HA HA
I would if he were president now...nm
x
Why does President need help with a way out?
That's really scary. I do think if we have any troops come home, it'll be before elections - and not a minute before necessary to have the greatest impact on election results. Wallace should wonder if the families of fallen soldiers would be offended at THAT kind of rank political maneuvering. I know I am.

And what happened to SPREADING DEMOCRACY (like margarine?) in Iraq? Chalabi just appointed the head Taliban judge to office in Iraq, the one who outlawed female education in Afghanistan and sponsored public executions for not wearing burkhas. Is that what we promised the Iraqi people? The whole thing is a huge mess. All the billions and billions Congress authorized for rebuilding Iraq went into Halliburton and other crony pockets and the job was never done. We can't train more Iraqi police units because as soon as we give them guns and tanks they use them on our soldiers. That's why Bush can't tell the truth about how that's going, but that doesn't stop him from continuing to fudge the numbers.

Sadly, Bush won't take any help even if it's offered - not in his game plan apparently.



We need this man as our next president
Someone who can speak so elequently without having to read word from word from notes or prompters.

Someone who knows what the different races are about, understands, and embraces heritages of all backgrounds.

Someone who can meet with our enemies to try and stop the violence and come to agreements.

Someone who is intelligent.

Someone who isn't married to "bad baggage" that will disgrace our white house.

Someone who isn't a war mongerer or voted for the war.

Someone who is truthful to the American people and not deceiptful (sp?) trying to hide things they have done.

Someone who doesn't think they should just be annointed to the white house but actually needs to "earn" the publics vote.

Someone who doesn't believe they should win just because they are from a certain race or gender.

Someone who is calm under fire, can think and act with a clear mind, and doesn't lash out, spew racial or ethnic slurs.

Someone who wants a better country for all people and not just themselves and their close friends and family.

Someone who is relatively "new" to Washington and not the same ol "stuff".

Someone who is working towards our future and not living or trying to live in the past.

Comment: Who cares that people Obama knows (but clearly doesn't share the same viewpoint of which he has had to say over and over and over and over) throws out biggoted or hateful things. You have them on all sides. Hillary's got her people (Ferraro and others) coming out with biggoted and hateful statements and you've got John McCain's people (Cunningham and others) coming out with their biggoted and hateful statements and they too have had to distance themselves. Unfortunately they die away quickly but Obama has to keep repeating himself on the same story. I have a good relationship with my minister, but it doesn't mean I agree with everything he says and if he said terrible things just because I have a good relationship with him doesn't mean I agree with him. - Just get tired of Obama having to repeat the same things over and over. Kind of reminds me of the line in a movie I heard once. "I don't know how many different ways I can tell you the same story." - and - "Have IQ's just dropped sharply since I've been away".

It's true we are not going to be able to change a true biggot. Some people will just not vote for him because he's part black, just like some other people will also not vote for Hillary because she's a woman. I just hope there are enough good Americans to overcome that and do the right thing (at least what I believe is the right thing). But it is getting tiring listening to the opponents stir up a bunch of hateful things trying to get the people to vote against him and time and time again I read this board and will read the same comments over and over "did you hear what Obama's minister said". It's like listening to a broken record and I always think - they're not actually bring this up again???

I believe our country needs a lot of healing. We've got a long way to go on the racial issues/hatred towards one race or another. We've got to try to make amends with the people who we fear and call our enemies, when in fact the people we should be fearing is our own government. We've put years and years into believing our government is going to be truthful with us, but when you have a VP who says "so" when he is told that 2/3 of Americans don't believe in the war and feel we should have not gone to war (DH and I sat with our mouths open), those are the people I consider terro**rists by putting fear in the American people's mind where there should be no fear.

So for that and all the reasons I listed above that is why I'm voting for Obama.
He is NOT my president ...
I didn't vote for him .. Another thing, I will NOT vote for McBush (errr ... McCain).  I was a Hilary fan all the way until she couldn't get the nomination .. now I'll switch gears to Obama.  Frankly, I think I would could do a better job than Bush .. at least I'd use my common sense!!
This is who we want for President?
When you look at this video (link below), I promise  you
> will NOT BELIEVE your eyes and ears. Take a look at the You

> Tube link below and pass it on. This is a view of John

> McCain that you probably won't see on the Network news.

> If it weren't serious, it would be hilarious.

>



> p;nb sp;

Probably for the best. Once someone becomes President,
it seems like even if they are an excellent choice, they have to use far too much of their time, skill and energy just defending themselves from the other side. No one ever really wins, least of all, US.
Either way, the next president is
only in for one term. McCain will simply be too old and by then health will be a major factor. Obama, on the other hand, simply will not be able to come through with all of his promises due to the current situation with our economy. I do believe if he is elected that many who voted for him will see him for what he truly is, an inexperienced leader who has no clue. His strings are pulled by the extreme left. Either way, we are in for a rough 4 years.
next president
The question is not what the next president HAS done, the question is what he WILL do.
That's if he becomes president. He can't
veto anything as a senator. That's the prez's job.
I did nto say he should not have run for president. I said...
that all the fuel skinheads need (which I am not one of--my hair is very long) is a black man running for president. My gosh--I knew somebody would read things incorrectly. I think skin heads are horrible people. As I said, his color is not an issue for me!
He is your president too
"To those whose respect I have yet to earn." Another question might be how far to the center he will take himself. If socialism means equality and opportunity for all Americans, if it means we can now begin to heal the division that have separated us in the past and of late, if it means that American is still the place where all things are possible, if it means we rise or fall as one nation and one people, if it means this is our chance to answer our call to progress, if it means it is our time to restore prosperity and promote the call to peace, if it means we have rediscovered the fundamental truth, that out of many we are one, and if it means we have told the world we are who we say we are, then I say bring it on.

We'll just be taking this thing one step at a time. Step number one. Try a little hope in place of the fear.
He's NOT president yet
And yet here he is giving another press conference.  He has no business giving any press conferences as though he is president.  He is NOT president yet.  Yes, he will be on January 20th but that date hasn't arrived yet.  I'm sick of him sticking his face in front of the camera giving everytime he turns around.  He is commenting on issues he has no business commenting on.  These are for the President to talk about.  Yes, I know Bush is a bumbling baboon, but he is still the president until Obama is sworn in.  This guy is just plain arrogant!  If this is how the next four years are going to be I hope they do go by fast.
One President.........sm


Washington, D.C. — Over the course of the last two months President-elect Barack Obama and the Presidential Transition Team (PTT) have replaced their campaign maxim, "Change We Can Believe In," with a new mantra: "We Only Have One President at a Time."

It is a slogan that has already worn out.

Obama and the PTT have used this phrase repeatedly in response to reporters' questions on the economy, federal bailouts, foreign policy, national security, the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the future of "Gitmo" and the Russian decision to shut down the delivery of natural gas to Western Europe through Ukrainian pipelines.


During this week's Oval Office photo-op with President George W. Bush and former Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and William Jefferson Blyth Clinton, Obama used the "one president at a time" dodge to avoid answering a reporter's hurled interrogatory about Israeli military operations in Gaza. The response from those in the lineup, and apparently most in the mainstream media, is to nod approvingly at Obama's sagacity every time they hear him say it.

The only trouble is — it simply isn't true.

While the current, former and future commanders-in-chief went off to snack and chat, Senator Joe Biden, the soon-to-be vice president of the United States, headed off to Andrews Air Force Base to commence a hastily convened, week-long "congressional fact finding mission" to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Absent from the secret itinerary divulged by Mr. Biden were other places with even more pressing problems: India — a U.S. ally still recovering from the brutal Mumbai terror attack and on the brink of attacking Pakistan. The Ukraine — a NATO applicant, threatened by interference from Moscow and this week's natural gas cutoff. And Israel — an American ally facing the threat of U.N. sanctions for acting in self defense to protect its citizens from Iranian-supplied rockets and mortars being fired from Gaza by Hamas, and which now faces attacks from Iranian-supported Hezbollah terror in Lebanon.

While the potentates of the press gush over the forthcoming "history-making inaugural," the Biden "Codel" — Washington-speak for "congressional delegation" — to select trouble-spots has made some little-noted history of its own. Unlike Obama, Biden did not surrender his Senate seat. This week, when Congress reconvened, Biden insisted on being sworn in as Delaware's senior senator and retaining his position as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Unlike Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Dan Quayle and AL Gore — who all ascended to vice presidency of the Unites States from the Senate and did nothing to interfere in diplomatic issues between election and inaugural — Biden is now dabbling about in the affairs of state.

Biden defends his actions by pointing to the company he is keeping on this trip: fellow Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., Jack Reed, D-R.I., Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lindsay Graham, R-S.C. Earlier in the week, perhaps forgetting the post he will occupy on Jan. 20, Biden said, "I'm a still a Senate man." None of the media all-stars covering the PTT thought to ask Obama what he thought of this response. Notably, Hillary Rodham Clinton — soon to become the next secretary of state — was neither included in the CODEL nor available for comment about the propriety of such an unprecedented adventure.

None of this bodes well for the new administration or for America's interests in a very dangerous world. The situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are certainly important. But so too are outcomes in Gaza and Lebanon, our relationship with India and the effects of an increasingly tense standoff between Russia and Ukraine. All of these places and problems matter to U.S. national security, and all are perhaps in more urgent need of attention.

Obama can't have it both ways. He cannot claim on the one hand that "we have only one president" and then dispatch his future vice president on a thinly-disguised CODEL to diddle in diplomacy without having world leaders take note of what the incoming administration considers to be important. In permitting the Biden CODEL to go forward and approving the itinerary, Obama has sent a signal — intentionally or not — to allies and adversaries alike.

From Moscow to Tehran, Caracas to Beijing, London to Delhi, in virtually every world capital, foreign leaders and their intelligence services are now making judgments about the next leader of the free world. They learned something about his wisdom, seriousness and maturity this week when he picked Leon Panetta, a man with "intelligence deficit disorder," to head the CIA. Perhaps they also had a little chuckle when he chose a TV celebrity doctor to become surgeon general to deal with bio-terrorism and possible pandemics. Hopefully the Biden CODEL trip to Southwest Asia did not lead them to conclude that Obama is not a man of his word.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478606,00.html
Maybe because THIS president knows which
He isn't trying to clean up the mess daddy left behind when he left office.

Obama is a MUCH BETTER president in 3 months than GW Bush ever was. Period.
The president SAID
WORDS WORDS WORDS that's all he used. Smooth talking, sweet, pretty words.

Don't be fooled. What government says and what government does are two very very different things.
Sorry...but he is not MY President. He is THE President....
that little distinction is important to me, I don't much care if not important to anyone else. Yes, it would have been better if he had just said ANYthing just a wee bit strong...hey Mahmoud...couldn't you just stop beating the crap out of protestors in front of the TV cameras? Bad form old boy. Makes you look bad.

Bomb Iran? Barack Obama? If they launched a nuclear strike and obliterated Israel (sorry, palestine, collateral damage), what do you think Barack Obama would do? That is a serious question now.

My alternative would be as I stated above...say something strong or just don't say anything at all. The more he positions himself as, to use the original poster's words, a wimp...only emboldens an already dyed in the wool nutcase. "Undermine" the protestors...you mean shooting them dead and beating them senseless? They are already doing that. They don't need a hand slapping from the US as a "reason" to do so. lol. Sigh.
Thank you Mr. President - well said
Seeing as no other station seems to be reporting on the current events happening as we speak, I have been watching Fox news. As usual both MSNBC and CNN are not reporting major news events happening. What is going on in Iran is super huge. It affects so many people.

Fox news has been doing an excellent job of reporting - Shepard Smith is an excellent anchor man. Anyway...they have been reporting statements from the President as it happens. Here is the president's statement - Thank you Mr. President. Very well said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/20/republicans-pressure-obama-support-iranian-protesters/
Memo for the President
Memo for the President
    By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
    t r u t h o u t | Statement

    Wednesday 24 August 2005

    Memorandum for: The President

    From: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

    Subject: Recommendation: Try a Circle of "Wise Women"

    By way of re-introduction, we begin with a brief reminder of the analyses we provided you before the attack on Iraq. On the afternoon of February 5, 2003, following Colin Powell's speech before the UN Security Council that morning, we sent you our critique of his attempt to make the case for war. (You may recall that we gave him an "A" for assembling and listing the charges against Iraq and a "C-" for providing context and perspective.) Unlike Powell, we made no claim that our analysis was "irrefutable/undeniable." We did point out, though, that what he said fell far short of justification for war. We closed with these words: "We are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."

    To jog your memory further, the thrust of our next two pre-war memoranda can be gleaned from their titles: "Cooking Intelligence for War" (March 12) and "Forgery, Hyperbole, Half-Truth: A Problem" (March 18). When the war started, we reasoned at first that you might had been oblivious to our cautions. However, last spring's disclosures in the "Downing Street Memo" containing the official minutes of Tony Blair's briefing on July 23, 2002 - and the particularly the bald acknowledgement that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of war on Iraq - show that the White House was well aware of how the intelligence was being cooked. We write you now in the hope that the sour results of the recipe - the current bedlam in Iraq - will incline you to seek and ponder wider opinion this time around.

    A Still Narrower Circle

    With the departure of Colin Powell, your circle of advisers has shrunk rather than widened. The amateur architects of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, seem still to have your ear. At a similar stage of the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson woke up to the fact that he had been poorly served by his principal advisers and quickly appointed an informal group of "wise men" to provide fresh insight and advice. It turned out to be one of the smartest things Johnson did. He was brought to realize that the US could not prevail in Vietnam; that he was finished politically; and that the US needed to move to negotiations with the Vietnamese "insurgents."

    It is clear to those of us who witnessed at first hand the gross miscalculations on Vietnam that a similar juncture has now been reached on Iraq. We are astonished at the advice you have been getting - the vice president's recent assurance that the Iraqi resistance is "in its last throes," for example. (Shades of his assurances that US forces would be welcomed as "liberators" in Iraq.) And Secretary Rumsfeld's unreassuring reminders that "some things are unknowable" and the familiar bromide that "time will tell" are wearing thin. By now it is probably becoming clear to you that you need outside counsel.

    The good news is that some help is on its way. Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey has taken the initiative to schedule a hearing on September 15, where knowledgeable specialists on various aspects of the situation in Iraq will present their views. Unfortunately, it appears that this opportunity to learn will fall short of the extremely informative bipartisan hearings led by Sen. William Fullbright on Vietnam. The refusal thus far of the House Republican leadership to make a suitable conference room available suggests that the Woolsey hearing, like the one led by Congressman John Conyers on June 16, will lack the kind of bipartisan support so necessary if one is to deal sensibly with the Iraq problem.

    Meanwhile, we respectfully suggest that you could profit from the insights of the informal group of "wise women" right there in Crawford. You could hardly do better than to ride your bike down to Camp Casey. There you will find Gold Star mothers, Iraq (and Vietnam) war veterans, and others eager to share reality-based perspectives of the kind you are unlikely to hear from your small circle of yes-men and the yes-woman in Washington, none of whom have had direct experience of war. As you know, Cindy Sheehan has been waiting to get on your calendar. She is now back in Crawford and has resumed her Lazarus-at-the-Gate vigil in front of your ranch. We strongly suggest that you take time out from your vacation to meet with her and the other Gold Star mothers when you get back to Crawford later this week. This would be a useful way for you to acquire insight into the many shades of gray between the blacks and whites of Iraq, and to become more sensitized to the indignities that so often confound and infuriate the mothers, fathers, wives, and other relatives of soldiers killed and wounded there.

    Names and Faces

    Here are the names, ages, and hometowns of the eight soldiers, including Casey Sheehan, killed in the ambush in Sadr City, Baghdad on April 4, 2004:

    Specialist Robert R. Arsiaga, 25, San Antonio, Texas
    Specialist Ahmed A. Cason, 24, McCalla, Alabama
    Sergeant Yihjyh L. Chen, 31, Saipan, Marianas
    Specialist Israel Garza, 25, Lubbock, Texas
    Specialist Stephen D. Hiller, 25, Opelika, Alabama
    Corporal Forest J. Jostes, 22, Albion, Illinois
    Sergeant Michael W. Mitchell, 25, Porterville, California
    Specialist Casey A. Sheehan, 24, Vacaville, California

    Mike Mitchell's father, Bill, has been camped out for two weeks with Cindy Sheehan and others a short bike ride from your place. They have a lot of questions - big and small. You are aware of the big ones: In what sense were the deaths of Casey, Mike Mitchell and the others "worth it?" In what sense is the continued occupation of Iraq a "noble cause?" No doubt you have been given talking points on those. But the time has passed for sound bites and rhetoric. We are suggesting something much more real - and private.

    Questions

    There are less ambitious - one might call them more tactical - questions that are also accompanied by a lot of pain and frustration. Those eight fine soldiers were killed by forces loyal to the fiercely anti-American Muqtada al-Sadr, the young Shia cleric with a militant following, particularly in Baghdad's impoverished suburbs. The ambush was part of a violent uprising resulting from US Ambassador Paul Bremer's decision to close down Al Hawza, al-Sadr's newspaper, on March 28, 2004.

    And not only that. A senior aide of al-Sadr was arrested by US forces on April 3. The following day al-Sadr ordered his followers to "terrorize" occupation forces and this sparked the deadly street battles, including the ambush. Also on April 4, Bremer branded al-Sadr an "outlaw" and coalition spokesman Dan Senior said coalition forces planned to arrest him as well. In sum, before one can begin to understand the grief of Cindy, Bill, and the relatives of the other six soldiers killed, you need to know - as they do - what else was going on April 4, 2004.

    You may wish to come prepared to answer specific questions like the following:

    1. Closing down newspapers and arresting key opposition figures seem a strange way to foster democracy. Please explain. And how could Ambassador Bremer possibly have thought that al-Sadr would simply acquiesce?

    2. Muqtada al-Sadr seems to have landed on his feet. At this point, he and other Shiite clerics appear on the verge of imposing an Islamic state with Shariah law and a very close relationship with Iran. With this kind of prospect, can you feel the frustration of Gold Star mothers when the extremist ultimately responsible for their sons' deaths assumes a leadership role in the new Iraq? Can you understand their strong wish to prevent the sacrifice of still more of our children for such dubious purpose?

    Perhaps you will have good answers to these and other such questions. Good answers or no, we believe a quiet, respectful session with the wise women and perhaps others at your doorstep would give you valuable new insights into the ironic conundrums and human dimensions of the war in Iraq.

    A member of our Steering Committee, Ann Wright, has been on site at Camp Casey from the outset and would be happy to facilitate such a session. A veteran Army colonel (and also a senior Foreign Service officer until she resigned in protest over the attack on Iraq), Ann has been keeping Camps Casey I and II running in a good-neighborly, orderly way. She is well known to your Secret Service agents, who can lead you to her. We strongly urge you not to miss this opportunity.

    /s/
    Gene Betit, Arlington, Virginia
    Sibel Edmonds, Alexandria, Virginia
    Larry Johnson, Bethesda, Maryland
    David MacMichael, Linden, Virginia
    Ray McGovern, Arlington, Virginia
    Coleen Rowley, Apple Valley, Minnesota
    Ann Wright, Honolulu, Hawaii

    Steering Group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity


All the President's Friends
September 12, 2005
All the President's Friends
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The lethally inept response to Hurricane Katrina revealed to everyone that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which earned universal praise during the Clinton years, is a shell of its former self. The hapless Michael Brown - who is no longer overseeing relief efforts but still heads the agency - has become a symbol of cronyism.

But what we really should be asking is whether FEMA's decline and fall is unique, or part of a larger pattern. What other government functions have been crippled by politicization, cronyism and/or the departure of experienced professionals? How many FEMA's are there?

Unfortunately, it's easy to find other agencies suffering from some version of the FEMA syndrome.

The first example won't surprise you: the Environmental Protection Agency, which has a key role to play in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, but which has seen a major exodus of experienced officials over the past few years. In particular, senior officials have left in protest over what they say is the Bush administration's unwillingness to enforce environmental law.

Yesterday The Independent, the British newspaper, published an interview about the environmental aftermath of Katrina with Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst in the agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, whom one suspects is planning to join the exodus. The budget has been cut, he said, and inept political hacks have been put in key positions. That sounds familiar, and given what we've learned over the last two weeks there's no reason to doubt that characterization - or to disregard his warning of an environmental cover-up in progress.

What about the Food and Drug Administration? Serious questions have been raised about the agency's coziness with drug companies, and the agency's top official in charge of women's health issues resigned over the delay in approving Plan B, the morning-after pill, accusing the agency's head of overruling the professional staff on political grounds.

Then there's the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, whose Republican chairman hired a consultant to identify liberal bias in its programs. The consultant apparently considered any criticism of the administration a sign of liberalism, even if it came from conservatives.

You could say that these are all cases in which the Bush administration hasn't worried about degrading the quality of a government agency because it doesn't really believe in the agency's mission. But you can't say that about my other two examples.

Even a conservative government needs an effective Treasury Department. Yet Treasury, which had high prestige and morale during the Clinton years, has fallen from grace.

The public symbol of that fall is the fact that John Snow, who was obviously picked for his loyalty rather than his qualifications, is still Treasury secretary. Less obvious to the public is the hollowing out of the department's expertise. Many experienced staff members have left since 2000, and a number of key positions are either empty or filled only on an acting basis. There is no policy, an economist who was leaving the department after 22 years told The Washington Post, back in 2002. If there are no pipes, why do you need a plumber? So the best and brightest have been leaving.

And finally, what about the department of Homeland Security itself? FEMA was neglected, some people say, because it was folded into a large agency that was focused on terrorist threats, not natural disasters. But what, exactly, is the department doing to protect us from terrorists?

In 2004 Reuters reported a steady exodus of counterterrorism officials, who believed that the war in Iraq had taken precedence over the real terrorist threat. Why, then, should we believe that Homeland Security is being well run?

Let's not forget that the administration's first choice to head the department was Bernard Kerik, a crony of Rudy Giuliani. And Mr. Kerik's nomination would have gone through if enterprising reporters hadn't turned up problems in his background that the F.B.I. somehow missed, just as it somehow didn't turn up the little problems in Michael Brown's résumé. How many lesser Keriks made it into other positions?

The point is that Katrina should serve as a wakeup call, not just about FEMA, but about the executive branch as a whole. Everything I know suggests that it's in a sorry state - that an administration which doesn't treat governing seriously has created two, three, many FEMA's.
Impeach the President!
Who cares about the troops at risk!  Off with his head!
President Bush
Surely you don't mean that. I think in years to come we will be sorry we thought such thoughts. Time will tell, maybe long after he is president. Will we apologize for attacking him or will we try and justify why we thought the way we did. He is a good president. Like the rest of us, he is not perfect. He is faithful to his family, and that should speak volumes.
Bush as president, OMG
I hear ya, Lurker.  When Bush first ran, I warned friends, this guy will ruin America, he is a dummy.  Well, he got into office..I dont believe legally..I truly believe the vote was fixed.  I have read the conclusion by the University of Chicago which did a recount and Gore would have gotten in..But,. however, we had the Supreme Court Five who decided all of our fates..Anyway, when Bush was running once again, I could not believe it..I warned my friends, family, anyone I could speak to..do not vote this guy in..He will destroy America and the world..Now, Im sitting here, three years to go with Bush and Im watching it come to reality..I fear what the next three years have to hold..God help us all.
She's as clueless as the president...nm

It authorized the President
to take action as he saw fit, including use of military force. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Again, I think it's a moot point, as the deed is done and can't be undone.
My Letter to the President

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Mr. President:


Are you proud of your accomplishments as president?  I have highlighted just a few for you below.  You and those you surround yourself with have:


• KILLED over 3600 AMERICAN TROOPS. 
• MAIMED over 25,000 AMERICAN TROOPS.
• KILLED nearly 70,000 IRAQI CIVILIANS and 650,000 IRAQIS TOTAL have died as a result of US INVASION. 
• Orchestrated WAR on IRAQ when the 9/11 TERRORISTS were MOSTLY SAUDI. 
• Allowed NO-BID CONTRACTS for IRAQ war reconstruction and MONEY UNACCOUNTED FOR.
• DESTABILIZED MIDDLE EAST, now wanting TO SELL WEAPONS to Arab “allies.”
• Incurred the LARGEST NATIONAL DEBT IN OUR HISTORY, nearing 9 TRILLION.
• Shown INCOMPETENCE and INEFFECTIVENESS in response to HURRICANE KATRINA.
• Shown DISRESPECT FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL, initially attempting to reduce veterans’ benefits for those who put their lives at risk for this country in the past and leaving those who serve in Iraq without needed supplies.
• Done nothing about NEARLY 50 MILLION AMERICANS UNINSURED.
• CUT EDUCATION LOANS and REDUCED PELL GRANTS.
• Shown DISREGARD for THE CONSTITUTION of the United States of America with the so-called Patriot Act. 
• Shown DISREGARD for the SAFETY and HEALTH of our ENVIRONMENT, for example, withdrawing the US from the Kyoto Protocol agreement and opening public land for oil drilling. 
• Shown HYPOCRISY and FAVORITISM by COMMUTING SCOOTER LIBBY’S SENTENCE.  July 19, 2005, Washington Post: “PRESIDENT BUSH SAID yesterday that he will fire anyone in the administration found to have committed a crime in the leaking of a CIA operative's name.”   
• ALLOWED Attorney General ROBERTO GONZALEZ, a representative of truth and justice, TO REMAIN in government office AFTER HE LIED about his presence at a meeting regarding the questionably-timed firings of eight US attorneys.


Past presidents during my lifetime have not always behaved admirably, but your behavior and record in office reveal a decidedly un-Christian lack of ethics and morality exceeding that of any except perhaps Richard Nixon. Where did you leave your oft-professed Christianity?  I pray the nation survives your destructive administration, and I pray you begin to live a truly honorable life from this day on.


Sincerely,


It is not our choice who becomes president
Whether we like or dislike someone, vote or not vote for them, they are not elected by the people. I totally understand when people say "so'n'so is not my President. I felt that way when Bill Clinton was in. He campaigned as one person and once he got in the office all the promises he made, all the "changes" he said he'd bring never happened. He was a totally different person than what he campaigned as and therefore he was "not my president". The same was with Hillary. All I kept thinking was great, here we go again...this country is going to be without another president for 4 years. I was hoping for the best and luckily it worked out for the country's best to not have her in there. In actuality the people who have the money control who is put in there. We saw that with the Bush/Gore campaign (even though I'm thankful Gore didn't get in). I highly doubt all of Obama's donations are from people who send in $5 and $10. Although I leaning more towards him over McCain. To call someone names (retarded, hillbilly, etc) is childish and an insult to the people who are actually "special" and hillbillies. Also calling them the antichrist is also another stupid remark put out by people who don't understand. Sure Bush is not among the brightest who have held the office. He should have been impeached a long time ago (but we have the dems Pelosi and others) who stopped that (why I don't know). So, no Bush is not the brightest, he has committed war crimes (IMO). But Clinton was no better. If there was a contest in the worst President I would not be able to decide between the two. Neither of them know or care what the regular person (me and my family and friends) are going through. They don't know we're struggling with paying bills, grocery shopping, paying for gas, etc. Hillary Clinton fortunately is out of the race. I sweated that one. We won't even begin to go into all the lies and crooked campaigning she did. Why people don't remember what it was like when she and Billy were in there I can't understand. Clinton's presidency was the worst ever. Each time a President gets in their the economy gets worse. We end up more in debt as time goes on. So to say its worse with Bush than Clinton, you also have to say it was worse with Clinton than Bush Sr, worse with Bush Sr than Regan, etc, etc. We just go further and further into debt and each campaign are promised that they have a solution to get the debt down. I'm no Bush fan, but one thing that is a fact is that people have been paying lower taxes with Bush than Clinton. I found a fact sheet that showed what people paid for taxes under Bush and what they paid under Clinton. Clinton was awful. It was a dark time for our country. He misrepresented our country and made us look like fools. I counted every day until he left office and then in those last few hours was rewarded with learning how much more crooked he was by giving out pardons like it was candy at a halloween party. I also think Bush is awful, but the country would have been worse off with Gore (the Bore), and Kerry (Mr. Lerch). John McCain would be the worse thing that happened to this country, but I always have to remember...my vote doesn't count. Whoever "big brothers" want in there they will put in there.
The next president will be chosen, but not by you sm
The people that take the time to vote will decide the election and you will not be one of them.  It is not a predetermined thing. Take the few minutes that it takes and exercise  your right to vote.
Obama wants to be president of UN?











Please DO NOT REPLY to this message. Replies will not be seen.
Use the information at the bottom for e-mail address changes, subscription issues, and to contact GOPUSA.

-- The following e-mail comes from one of our sponsoring advertisers. Through their support, GOPUSA can continue to bring you the best array of conservative news, information, commentary, and discussions. Please see the sponsor content below, and note that the content does not constitute an endorsement by GOPUSA. For questions regarding the content of this e-mailer, please contact the advertiser directly.












Dear Friend,

During his recent speech in Berlin, Barack Obama tried to ingratiate himself to the foreign crowd by claiming loudly that he was “a citizen of the world.”


The problem is Obama’s self-proclaimed global “citizenship” appears to go well beyond just a rhetorical device to gain favor with a European throng full of pie-in-the-sky utopians.


It seems the Democrats’ would-be president of the United States of America really believes that the rest of the world’s problems, and approval, trump the interests of Americans when it comes to how we live our lives and where our money is spent.


While stumping for the support of his party’s leftist base, Obama proclaimed, "we can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."


And now he’s putting your money where his mouth is.


A bill he has sponsored in the U.S. Senate, the so-called Global Poverty Act
(S. 2433), would raise the amount of American tax dollars allocated to United Nations’ redistribution efforts to $845 billion.


That’s $2,500 from every American taxpayer, when many in our country already are struggling to make ends meet.


And if you think taxes and energy costs are high now, wait until Obama’s global energy and production taxes are made law by the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid-run Democrat Congress.


Is this what Pelosi meant when she said, “I’m trying to save the planet!  I’m trying to save the planet!”?


Senator Obama and the Democrats don’t seem to understand that American prosperity is a result of the hard work of American citizens in a free market economy.  And that the American people already are the most generous in the world when it comes to global aid.


Help us show Barack Obama that Americans don’t need foreign approval to lead their lives as they see fit, and that he ought to remember that he is running for president of the United States, not the United Nations.


Please make a secure online contribution of $2,000, $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 today to provide Republican candidates with the resources they urgently need to tell voters about the Obama Democrats’ plans for America.


The future of an America whose government makes its own citizens its first priority may depend on it.


Sincerely,




Robert M. "Mike" Duncan
Chairman, Republican National Committee


P.S. Friend, powerful leftist forces will spend whatever it takes to elect Barack Obama and Democrats up and down the ticket to impose their radical utopian agenda on America.  Help us make sure they don’t succeed by making a secure online campaign contribution of $2,000, $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to the RNC today.  Thank you.











Contributions or gifts to the Republican National Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. 





Republican National Committee | 310 First Street, SE | Washington, D.C. 20003
p: 202.863.8500 | f: 202.863.8820 | e: info@gop.com







Paid for by the Republican National Committee.
310 First Street, SE - Washington, D.C. 20003 - (202) 863-8500
www.gop.com
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.



Copyright 2008 Republican National Committee


 







GOPUSA Friends E-mail List


This message was sent to GOPUSA subscribers on behalf of a sponsor. Please note that this list is different than our daily news and commentary list. For more information about the GOPUSA Friends List, please click here.


++ Follow this link if you no longer wish to receive the GOPUSA Friends e-mail update.


++ Need to change your e-mail address? Click here.







Copyright © 2000-2008, GOPUSA.com
A division of Endeavor Media Group, LLC
P.O. Box 891354
Houston, TX 77289
++ Contact Us



Can we make her president?!!!

Who said a person should be president because
My point is that we should be glad there are women in elections and holding high-profile positions in this country instead of attacking their mothering skills or parenting choices. There are plenty of women who think ANY mother that works outside the home in any form is making a poor parenting choice. It should be to each his or her own, please do not try to twist my words to fit your agenda. I never, EVER said I would vote for someone solely to have a woman in office. I said I hailed Hillary's accomplishment, not that I would vote for her (in fact, I said I didn't care for her) and I never said I agree with everything Palin says or does, just that her family is her own business.

On the contrary, I don't vote gender, family, public opinion, or party affiliation, I vote based on the person's abilities and whether I feel they are qualified for the position. Period.
and I believe she will. When Clinton ran for president...
with the same credentials she has, a governorship...he didn't jump right in and give interviews either. He had to sit down with advisors and bone up on areas he was not as well versed in, because he came from state politics, not national politics. That happens in every case. It happened with Obama. He didn't sit down for interviews with someone who would really ask him questions until this week and he has been running for 18 months. She has been running for a week.

I would like to post some questions to Obama too. About teaching the Alinsky method of organizing. About William Ayers. About his early days in Chicago politics. I would like to ask a lot of questions more important than books in a library in wasilla alaska. But you will NEVER hear the mainstream media ask him those questions. Ever. They protect him, and they attack her.

So much for fairness in American journalism. What a joke.
We could have had him when Clinton was President....
before the towers came down. He decided not to take the Sudan up on their offer to deliver him. If you are going to lay blame, blame all involved.
I don't think any one person, President or not, can do much - sm
to change the stock market. It seems to have a life of its own, albeit a rather shady one. I don't feel too bad seeing the insurance companies take a hit - they're all crooks and they deserve what they get for being so dishonest. But banks, 401Ks, money market, etc. There has to be someplace left, other than under a mattress, where our savings/rainy-day/retirement money is at least somewhat safe, without earning 0 interest. And forget about buying real-estate! That bubble has burst, as well. Goodbye to any kind of financial security (or even a place to live) for lots of us in our so-called 'Golden Years'.
Any president can die at any time...
age has nothing to do with it. Please come up with a better reason.
your party and your president

Dubya are making us socialist -- this is what you have harped on for years.  We even get to take over the debts of foreign banks thanks to Phil Gram, John McClain's right hand man.