Clinton the new Iron Lady?

[Goofball]

C'mon... DevDave, Xiahou, Gawain, CR...

You can't tell me this kind of thing doesn't make you warm up to her a little bit:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090114.wclinton14/BNStory/International/home

Specifically:

"We cannot negotiate with Hamas until it renounces violence, recognizes Israel and agrees to abide by past agreements. That is just, for me, an absolute," Ms. Clinton said, echoing the long-standing policy of the Bush and previous U.S. administrations.

Heck yes!

At least this removes a bit of the ambiguity that seemed to be coming from Obama about negotiating with bad guys...

[Devastatin Dave]

Actions speak louder than words. I shall wait and see.

[Spino]

Blah blah blah. Talk is cheap and Boomer politicians corner the market on that commodity. I'd sooner put money on Arnold cleaving some California Democrat in two with that Atlantean sword he used in Conan than Billary's hot air carrying any kind of weight.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

She's undermining Obama, and making it more difficult for him to offer Hamas conciliations in order to stop the rocket attacks and end the fighting. Note particually "for me", she's saying that when she's sent to the Middle East to broker the peace deal it will be under duress.

[Vladimir]

Blah blah blah. Talk is cheap and Boomer politicians corner the market on that commodity. I'd sooner put money on Arnold cleaving some California Democrat in two with that Atlantean sword he used in Conan than Billary's hot air carrying any kind of weight.

That's what "clarifications" are for. :yes:

[Incongruous]

She's undermining Obama, and making it more difficult for him to offer Hamas conciliations in order to stop the rocket attacks and end the fighting. Note particually "for me", she's saying that when she's sent to the Middle East to broker the peace deal it will be under duress.

Obama has already made it quite clear that he is on Israel's side, what Obamian peace talks will do is create yet more oportunities for Israel and its friends in the West cast the Palestinians as unrelenting fanatics who will resist " peace" at all costs.

[drone]

If Obama sends her to Gaza, maybe she'll get that chance to dodge sniper bullets.

[Goofball]

Obama has already made it quite clear that he is on Israel's side, what Obamian peace talks will do is create yet more oportunities for Israel and its friends in the West cast the Palestinians as unrelenting fanatics who will resist " peace" at all costs.

Quite honestly, the Palestinians really don't need any help in that department. They do a good enough job portraying themselves that way...

[Crazed Rabbit]

She's a Clinton - words are so much hot air. I'll believe actions when I see them.

Though I'll admit the initial stance is certainly nice.

CR

[Devastatin Dave]

Quite honestly, the Palestinians really don't need any help in that department. They do a good enough job portraying themselves that way...

Agreed. I will not pass judgement upon my new President or his picks for cabinet until their actions are in full view. The Palestinians on the other hand have played their card too many times and only the most blind among us cannot see these people are only bent on destruction: whether it be upon themselves or others.

President Elect Obama and Mrs Clinton have my support until they betray my trust. Until then I will give them the benifit of a doubt until their ACTIONS speak otherwise.

[CountArach]

Saw it coming. The Obama team is not going to stop Israel...

[Devastatin Dave]

Saw it coming. The Obama team is not going to stop Israel...

And that's a bad thing?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I'm enjoying Obama proving his biggest fans wrong. :2thumbsup:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A few reasons why Israel will not be "stopped" by the USA:

1. Israel is an ally of long-standing, it is poor form to yank their chain a lot (at least publicly).

2. There is a significant pro-Israel domestic lobby in the USA. Strong opposition to actions by Israel involve a political price. Incoming administrations really WANT the traditional "honeymoon" afforded a new administration, and are unlikely to play hardball that way (at least at the outset).

3. Israel is a signifcant source of US intelligence in the ME -- since they actually have HUMINT in some volume in that region -- and cutting off Mossad's shared information would make US intelligence in the ME even less accurate than it currently is (scary thought that).

4. Hamas, Hezbollah, et al are organizations that have, and do, sponsor terrorism, not just make guerilla attacks upon the IDF etc. As such, taking their side is less than appealing to the USA.


So, Rabbit is correct. The "introduction" seems good, but we shall see what real policies develop over the first 6-12 months. Then we'll know the stance for the future.

[Devastatin Dave]

I'm enjoying Obama proving his biggest fans wrong. :2thumbsup:

Its high noon on my sun dial as well. I guess things are a little different when someone prys you away from a teleprompter and shows you the actual intelligence of the circumstances the civilised world is in. I'm waiting to see the excuses for Messiah the fans come up with.

[Incongruous]

I'm enjoying Obama proving his biggest fans wrong. :2thumbsup:

I will enjoy it more when Obama is finally seen as the real Bush III, and the Democrats as even greater warmongers than the Republicans. Tbh Clintons elevation has pretty much secured the coffin...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I will enjoy it more when Obama is finally seen as the real Bush III, and the Democrats as even greater warmongers than the Republicans. Tbh Clintons elevation has pretty much secured the coffin...

Don't hold your breath. Obama will shift US policy back towards a more Clinton-era model. I think he's too hardnosed a pol to take it back to Jimmy Carter's approach (which the EU crowd would adore). This shift will be 6-18 months in happening.

My point was that anyone expecting a policy shift to happen no later than Jan 23rd is being unrealistic.

[Incongruous]

Don't hold your breath. Obama will shift US policy back towards a more Clinton-era model. I think he's too hardnosed a pol to take it back to Jimmy Carter's approach (which the EU crowd would adore). This shift will be 6-18 months in happening.

My point was that anyone expecting a policy shift to happen no later than Jan 23rd is being unrealistic.

I respect the view, and I would almost agree with it, were it not for a few unfortunate talks about commiting the USA to more "important" wars.

But even if you are right, Clinton for me was one of the worst Presidents, simply beacuse he got away with it:shame:

But we can both agree on the unrealistic hopes people have pinned upon the 20th.

Hmm seems I got hat one wrong, I was of coarse talking about the symbolism of the 20th...

[Lemur]

I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but what is the special significance of January 23rd?

[Goofball]

I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but what is the special significance of January 23rd?

It's the day I will have gone 18 days without a cigarette.

*returns to biting fingernails down to bloody stumps*

[Devastatin Dave]

It's the day I will have gone 18 days without a cigarette.

*returns to biting fingernails down to bloody stumps*

Oral fixations are hard to break, right Lemur...

[CountArach]

It's the day I will have gone 18 days without a cigarette.

*returns to biting fingernails down to bloody stumps*
Good luck.

@ Lemur - I assume he is just saying that those who want radical transformation from the very start (Day 3 of the Obama Administration being the absolute latest - ie Jan 23rd) will be sorely disappointed. Which is true.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lemur: Arach has the right of it.

Bopa:

As a symbol, the 20th is one of my nation's greatest. The outgoing "leader of the free world" sits there quietly while another takes the oath and supplants him. All the power shifts, and nobody is lined up and shot, the reprisals are limited to patronage jobs, and the nation continues.

Louis:

That means we DON'T change republics like we change socks (You lovable frog you).

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

I think this line is quite predictable; any dialog with Iran/Hamas will come from a hard lined very low level approach. I think the new administration might be willing to put more pressure on Israel and give more incentives to the Iranian /Palestinians then the last administration but nothing drastic and certainly nothing very public.


my prediction is NATO will pull some of its troops and resources out of Afghanistan and will have international/ EU/ Egypt/nato forces/peace keepers (makers)/observers in and around gaza and the west bank at some stage in the next four years.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'll reserve my judgement on Obama, but I believe that Clinton is an empty shill. I listened to the hearing. She brings garbage to the table and it is a sad thing to see here in the drivers seat of anything. She reads and repeats - and has nothing to offer of value. A political appointment who has a pretty good memory of what might trick people into thinking that she has any business in the position.

I hope she chokes on her new title and disgraces herself out of office sooner rather than later.

Obama is a talent. I'm suprised that he is draging her along for the ride, but I'm glad it gets her out of New York's hair.

[LittleGrizzly]

This is a surprise ?!

I could have told you this a while back, Obama was never going to change american foriegn policy completely or even alot, it will be a little better but anyone expecting wholesale changes is going to be dissapointed (or pleasently surprised depending on your views)

Infact i think i have said several times that Obama won't be that much different from bush, and ive said it again..

I will be surprised when he actually changes course on american foriegn policy, USA continuing its policy on israel is as surprising as the sun rising...

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is a surprise ?!

I could have told you this a while back, Obama was never going to change american foriegn policy completely or even alot, it will be a little better but anyone expecting wholesale changes is going to be dissapointed (or pleasently surprised depending on your views)

Infact i think i have said several times that Obama won't be that much different from bush, and ive said it again..

I will be surprised when he actually changes course on american foriegn policy, USA continuing its policy on israel is as surprising as the sun rising...

I'm not suprised that U.S. foreign policy won't change, just that he is giving such an obvious hack such an enourmous mouth piece.

I never thought that we would be out of Iraq much sooner than we would have been under McCain. I never thought of Obama as a dove. I thought that he was wrong on Iraq, but not because he was a peace fairy - just because he beleived that it was a foolish direction of resources that would better be used elsewhere in lieu of the circumstances.

Not one legitimate candidate would have budged foreign policy. Maybe Paul or kucinich because they are insane, but no viable candidate would have.

[Watchman]

All the change I really want Obama to make is bringing sanity back into US policies. Anything more is just a bonus.

[Xiahou]

Agreed. I will not pass judgement upon my new President or his picks for cabinet until their actions are in full view.Well, he's picked some dandies so far. A Commerce Secretary nomination that's likely to be indicted by a grand jury, a Treasury Secretary who didn't know he had to pay taxes, and a Secretary of State nominee who sees nothing wrong with her husband accepting foreign "donations" while she is in office. Add to that, a long-time politician with no intel experience getting the nomination for CIA chief- this is particularly ironic considering how Bush had been criticized for allegedly politicizing intel. :yes:

Then there's the AG nominee who recommended Marc Rich's pardon... but, imo, that's less sexy than the other stories. :smash:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Add to that, a long-time politician with no intel experience getting the nomination for CIA chief- this is particularly ironic considering how Bush had been criticized for allegedly politicizing intel.
I've read both left and right commentators point out that the CIA may need an outsider to set it straight, so I wouldn't use that guy against Obama.

[Lemur]

So Xiahou, would you say it's time for impeachment (http://www.obamaimpeachment.org/), or should we wait until January 20th to declare Obama a failed President?

[Xiahou]

So Xiahou, would you say it's time for impeachment (http://www.obamaimpeachment.org/), or should we wait until January 20th to declare Obama a failed President?
I don't think stupid appointments are cause for impeachment. It's just clear they weren't vetted. :yes:

[Spino]

So Xiahou, would you say it's time for impeachment (http://www.obamaimpeachment.org/), or should we wait until January 20th to declare Obama a failed President?

Do it now, it's for the best really. While we're at it put Biden out to pasture and strap Pelosi to a rocket and set the controls for the heart of the Sun...

For someone who dreaded the Billary beast about as much as any conservative one would think you'd be genuinely unsettled by all the Obama's appointees who cut their teeth in the Clinton regime.

I say we put Pindar's head in a jar with life support and let him run the country! :idea2:

If anyone can find him...

[Devastatin Dave]

I've read both left and right commentators point out that the CIA may need an outsider to set it straight, so I wouldn't use that guy against Obama.

Director of the CIA has little to no influence as compared to Director of National Intelligence. The head of the CIA is basically a glorified secretary these days.

[Lemur]

For someone who dreaded the Billary beast about as much as any conservative one would think you'd be genuinely unsettled by all the Obama's appointees who cut their teeth in the Clinton regime.
You do realize that if Obama is to appoint any Dems with Executive branch experience, a lot of them are going to have served in the most recent Dem administration, right? 'Cause President Bush was not big on hiring people who were not ideologically aligned with him. How did The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12931660) sum up his administration's staff today? Oh, right, "ideologically vetted homunculi." Sounds about right.

So of course Obama's going to have people who served under the Clintons. Does that disqualify them? Why? And if it does, should Obama then appoint only Republicans and Dems with no executive experience?

And why are you lads still in hyper-partisan campaign mode? The election is over. Take a deep breath. Take another. Relax. Let it go. If you still believe that Obama is the living incarnation of socialism/incompetence/quisling fifth column betrayal/negro evil, then you've drunk the Kool-Aid a little too deeply. Remember: You are not Ann Coulter. You will not make any money by saying untrue, outrageous things.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And why are you lads still in hyper-partisan campaign mode? The election is over. Take a deep breath. Take another. Relax. Let it go. If you still believe that Obama is the living incarnation of socialism/incompetence/quisling fifth column betrayal/negro evil, then you've drunk the Kool-Aid a little too deeply. Remember: You are not Ann Coulter. You will not make any money by saying untrue, outrageous things.

We're in hyper partisan mode? What lads were you reffering to? I'm anti-clinton because they are who they are, not because they are Democrats.

All of us have said that it is too early to judge Obama and that we will reserve our judgement for a later date. Sounds hyper-partisan to me.

[Watchman]

Would it be rude of me to observe that this US Party partisanism thing really looks pretty silly to an outside observer...?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Would it be rude of me to observe that this US Party partisanism thing really looks pretty silly to an outside observer...?
Other partisanship looks better? :book:

[Husar]

Other partisanship looks better? :book:

Yes, sometimes, and I don't think it's rude. ~D

[Xiahou]

And why are you lads still in hyper-partisan campaign mode? The election is over. Take a deep breath. Take another. Relax. Let it go. If you still believe that Obama is the living incarnation of socialism/incompetence/quisling fifth column betrayal/negro evil, then you've drunk the Kool-Aid a little too deeply. Remember: You are not Ann Coulter. You will not make any money by saying untrue, outrageous things.Well, just let me know when the mandatory waiting period is over before one can criticize anything Obama does. I'll come back and talk about how bone-headed some of his appointments were then- just let me know. :wink:

In the mean time, it's important for everyone to remember that all of Obama's decisions are above any sort of criticism for the time being. :yes:

[Furunculus]

She's a Clinton - words are so much hot air. I'll believe actions when I see them.

Though I'll admit the initial stance is certainly nice.

CR

totally agreed with that sentiment.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Would it be rude of me to observe that this US Party partisanism thing really looks pretty silly to an outside observer...?

We are currently the masters of the Universe. Would you expect people to fight tooth and nail over absurd things in Findland? No, but I'm sure that they do any way.

If Democrats are in power, the entire world moves with their whims. If i disagree with them, you'd better beleive that I'm going to say so.

[Watchman]

There's been a noticeable shortage of the world moving according to Washington's whim going as far back as I care to analyze the issue (roughly the American Revolution, before which the point is moot), however...

Even the Brits seem to be a bit saner about their two-party system.

[ICantSpellDawg]

There's been a noticeable shortage of the world moving according to Washington's whim going as far back as I care to analyze the issue (roughly the American Revolution, before which the point is moot), however...

Even the Brits seem to be a bit saner about their two-party system.

They heckel one another inside parliament, we do it outside.

[Kralizec]

Even the Brits seem to be a bit saner about their two-party system.

That's because Brits don't get as excited over politics as Americans do, not because their system is any better (I don't think it is)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Even the Brits seem to be a bit saner about their two-party system.

On the other hand, they have what probably is the most entertaining Parliament in the world.

[Scurvy]

That's because Brits don't get as excited over politics as Americans do, not because their system is any better (I don't think it is)

Not neccesarily, i'm not sure the systems are better/worse, its just in the UK, we have:

3 parties, and some others such as the snp, so people are less stuck to one (I might just being ignorant of American politics, but I don't know of any party except the Rep. and Dem.)

Political parties represent specific groups less than they use to - party identification is at an all time low, arguably because all parties are too similar/people just don't care about politics

+ as people have already said, why is it Partisan to critisize a party just because they only recently won an election - if they make bad decisions now, they can be criticised now



On the other hand, they have what probably is the most entertaining Parliament in the world.

Have you ever seen the Parliament channel?


:2thumbsup:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They heckel one another inside parliament, we do it outside.

Yes, that's true. If George Bush was PM he would have gone lame in 4 months, not four years. Seriously, the stuff you let your guys get away with saying!

[Kralizec]

Not neccesarily, i'm not sure the systems are better/worse, its just in the UK, we have:

3 parties, and some others such as the snp, so people are less stuck to one (I might just being ignorant of American politics, but I don't know of any party except the Rep. and Dem.)

Political parties represent specific groups less than they use to - party identification is at an all time low, arguably because all parties are too similar/people just don't care about politics

+ as people have already said, why is it Partisan to critisize a party just because they only recently won an election - if they make bad decisions now, they can be criticised now.

The thing is, party discipline is much stronger in Westminster than it is in the US congress. The US is a large country both geographically and in terms of population, and so for example the average democrat from Texas is probably more "conservative" than a republican in New York. The UK is more homogenous and smaller in size, so that the two largest parties are effectively monolithic blocs. For MPs it's more important to keep the approval of the party leadership than it is to represent the constituency in any real sense. When the ruling party, either Labour or Conservative, has a clear majority (wich is most of the time) they can effectively have their every whim rubber-stamped into binding legislation.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

Speaking of appointments; i was surprised somewhat by Collin Powell not being brought in as something either in or around the pentagon/ SoD i thought he might have enough respect to help fix it all up...


I am pretty sure that for the first 3 months or so Obama will engage in some serious background diplomatic efforts. After which public efforts will be made in order to ensure success early on.

[Don Corleone]

I think Lemur is spot-on. I don't believe Obama woke up on November 5th and found himself suddenly possessed of an unfaltering adoration for the Clintons. He's actually being quite wise. Job 1 is keeping government moving, then once things get settled, you bring your own people in one at a time to gradually turn the ship.

They say it takes a big man to admit when you're wrong. Based on the holiday over-indulgence the past couple of months, the scale tells me that I more than qualify. So let me say the words Lemur is so eagerly awaiting. I appear to have been wrong. Obama is not an idealogue and he's not going to bring Hugo Chavez and Khaled Mashaal to the Inauguration, nor give them seats in his cabinet. As it stands, I have the Guiness purchased and I'm monitoring web fares for flights to Wisconson next winter to deliver the all-but-sure-to-be-lost wager.

If anything, I'm frankly surprised by how much of his political capital Obama is expending on trying to soothe the anger and vitriol towards Bush. Several times in the past few weeks, he's really put himself out there and said "Look, if you were allowed to read what I've been reading these past few weeks, you'd understand he's not the boogeyman we thought". Very gutsy move, and little, if any political payback can be expected. The only 'angle' I can see on that is that perhaps he views the Democratic Capitol more of a potential adversery than the Republican minorities and is attempting to build bridges with them. But that can't really be it, as most Congressional Republicans are gutless egomaniacs who view Bush as an anchor, not a worthy object of defense.

I suspect Obama has reached the conclusion that Bush has been unfairly maligned and in his own way, is trying to set the record right. Not that he agrees with what Bush did, necessarily, but that's a far cry from the dumbest, meanest dictator who ever lived that Bush gets portrayed with. If Pelosi is serious about bringing Bush administration officials up on charges once they leave office, I suspect she'll face the most opposition from Obama, who despite what she and Rep. Frank appear to believe, is the true leader of the Democrats.

The only criticism I have of Obama's pre-game if you will, and its mild, are twofold. First, I believe he was a little too falsely modest with the all "Only one president" business. The world needs to hear from him on issues such as the gas-pipeline shutdown and Gaza, and he allows his enemies to frame him by remaining on the sidelines. I cannot believe Bush would begrudge him that. Second, the defecit hawk in me is quaking. Even I believe in a touch of Keynesian (what a horrible little man in real life, by the way) monetary policy to help infuse some energy into the economy. But it should be targeted and carefully considered. It's a fine line between establishing confidence and subsidizing institutions that could no longer exist on their own. I would have thought the lesson of Japanese zombie banks would have been fresh on everyone's mind, but it would appear caution has flown. This is no criticism of Obama in particular. Executive and congressional agents of all political flavors have dropped any ideological pretense and are begging in the streets. I just wish Obama would show the wisdom and strength to restrain it to reasonable levels.

As for the Hillary & Richardson picks, no surprises. No 'person' gets elected, regardless of what we think, and this is how coalitions are built within the U.S. If Richardson can't keep his affairs in order long enough to claim his prize, that's on him, not Obama. The big surprise for me? Why did Kerry, his first and arguably strongest supporter, get left out in the cold? As for Geithner at Treasury... how do you forsee something like that? Without the tax dodging, Geithner would have been an A+ pick, evidenced by the bipartisan support he was enjoying. I can't believe Geithner was so stupid as to jeopradize his career over such an easily traceable misdeed, but I don't fault Obama's team for it. I'm sure they didn't research whether Geithner ever raided his childrens' piggy banks either...

[Goofball]

Well, he's picked some dandies so far. A Commerce Secretary nomination that's likely to be indicted by a grand jury, a Treasury Secretary who didn't know he had to pay taxes, and a Secretary of State nominee who sees nothing wrong with her husband accepting foreign "donations" while she is in office. Add to that, a long-time politician with no intel experience getting the nomination for CIA chief- this is particularly ironic considering how Bush had been criticized for allegedly politicizing intel. :yes:

Then there's the AG nominee who recommended Marc Rich's pardon... but, imo, that's less sexy than the other stories. :smash:

I added the bold myself, and please believe I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but what exactly is wrong with that?

[Lemur]

I'm in favor of letting Xiahou's multiple slanders slither into obscurity. The silly little jab about a treasury secretary who "doesn't know he has to pay taxes" is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. Do we mention that this man already served as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY under Bush? Do we need to point out what's been reported in the financial papers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123198429552584175.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) ad nauseam, that the self-employment taxes he missed are a common error? Or that that liberal Trotskyite, Orrin Hatch (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123187503629378119.html), said "I still support him. He's a very competent guy." More detail (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/us/politics/15tax.html?ref=business):


Several tax experts said, it is an easy mistake for an employee of an international organization to make. “This is not your normal situation between an employer and an employee,” said Saul Brenner, a tax partner at Berdon, an accounting and advisory firm. “Did he make a mistake? Absolutely. But it appears that both he and his accountant made a mistake.” [...]

The I.R.S. has noted that many employees of international organizations, including foreign embassies and consular offices, have made mistakes in filing their taxes. For example, an I.R.S. notice in 2006 said that up to half of such employees had incorrectly filed their tax returns, making errors like failure to pay self-employment taxes. The I.R.S. offered a one-time settlement to resolve these issues.

“There was so much confusion about these and related rules that the I.R.S. offered a settlement initiative,” said William Massey, senior tax analyst in the tax and accounting unit of Thomson Reuters. “The error is not uncommon, as the statutory provisions governing this situation are very convoluted.”

And Xiahou managed to dish out four such libels, all in a short paragraph. That's the fun thing when you start playing with half-truths and slander; it takes no time at all to make accusations, and explaining why the accusation is full of bull guano takes time and resources. It's quite dull, really.

So with that in mind, let's just go ahead and act like nutballs, shall we? Let's start with some good, old-fashioned "To support Obama is to go against Yaweh," from one of Gawain's favorite sources, WorldNetDaily (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86469):


When the rule of men conflicts with the commands of God, the Bible leaves no doubt about where we should stand. That's why I do not hesitate today in calling on godly Americans to pray that Barack Hussein Obama fail in his efforts to change our country from one anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism to one based on the raw and unlimited power of the central state. It would be folly to pray for his success in such an evil campaign. I want Obama to fail because his agenda is 100 percent at odds with God's.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/obama-nwo.jpg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So they actually think he's the Anti-Christ?

Loved the "full name: LOOK MUSLIM!" bit as well.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

to change our country from one anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism
What country is that? It sounds nice, maybe I should move...

[Xiahou]

I added the bold myself, and please believe I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but what exactly is wrong with that?Nothing, apparently. Some might see a potential conflict of interest in a Secretary of State's spouse taking fat wads of cash from the people she does government business with, but some people are obviously wrong. Certainly, when Hillary was asked if her husband would stop accepting foreign donations if she was confirmed she told them (paraphrasing) to go to hell- gotta admire her for that much :beam:

On to Geithner, even the WSJ article Lemur links indicates that Geithner signed a document swearing to pay his self-employment taxes. What was this document for? It was so that he could get reimbursed by the IMF for the taxes he didn't pay. That's right, he actually filled out the paperwork and pocketed money to cover taxes he didn't pay. Even still, after he was audited and caught by the IRS, he only paid the years that he was audited for. Apparently, it wasn't until he was nominated that it occurred to him that he needed to pay taxes for all the years he worked at the IMF. What's funny to me is that we're supposed to accept it as "an honest mistake"- as though the fact that the Treasury Secretary, whose department the IRS is under, not knowing that he is supposed to pay his taxes should make us feel better. At least if they told us he was a cheat, it wouldn't make him look so dumb. :yes:

Here's the excerpt of Lemur's WSJ link that I referenced:
All the more so because he had signed a document from his employer at the time, the International Monetary Fund, certifying "that I will pay the taxes for which I have received tax allowance payments."
Here's (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDJkYWZhOTU4Mjc3YTUxOWQ2OWU1N2RlOTIzY2VlZDM=#more) an article that talks more about it:
What senators learned at the gathering was not only that Geithner had failed to pay self-employment taxes during his time at the International Monetary Fund. They learned that the IMF had repeatedly informed Geithner, as it had all its employees, of his obligation to pay that tax. They learned that Geithner signed documents saying he would pay the tax. And they learned that Geithner accepted IMF reimbursement for Social Security and Medicare taxes that he had not, in fact, paid. Honestly, you can still argue that he's still qualified because the position is more about policy instead of the legal minutia- but how can you argue nothing is wrong? Try not paying your taxes for several years and see what the IRS says when you tell them it was an honest mistake.

It's also undeniable fact that Bill Richardson is under investigation by a federal grand jury for corruption. And yes, Leon Panetta has no Intel experience. He was chief of staff to Bill Clinton and in congress was on the following committees, none of which had anything to do with the intelligence committee:

Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on the Budget
Chairman of the Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and Nutrition
Chairman of the Administration Committee's Subcommittee on Personnel and Police
Chairman of the Task Force on Domestic Hunger created by the U.S. House Select Committee on Hunger
Vice Chairman of the Caucus of Vietnam-Era Veterans in Congress
Member of the President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies.


Remember kiddies, in Lemur's world, documented facts are libel (and also somehow slander even though they're written, not spoken). That goes double when they have anything to do with Obama. :yes:

[Crazed Rabbit]

So with that in mind, let's just go ahead and act like nutballs, shall we? Let's start with some good, old-fashioned "To support Obama is to go against Yaweh," from one of Gawain's favorite sources, WorldNetDaily (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86469):


When the rule of men conflicts with the commands of God, the Bible leaves no doubt about where we should stand. That's why I do not hesitate today in calling on godly Americans to pray that Barack Hussein Obama fail in his efforts to change our country from one anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism to one based on the raw and unlimited power of the central state. It would be folly to pray for his success in such an evil campaign. I want Obama to fail because his agenda is 100 percent at odds with God's.



Oh, come on now Lemur. Pairing that image up with the article is vastly unfair to the world net daily website. "They" don't think he's an anti-Christ - one nutball with photoshop does.

Though I'm not going to defend the "pray Obama fails" article because it's stupid, it has nothing to do with the person behind the image you posted (I'm not going to say artist) - that guy is a an anti-semitic believer in a Jewish control of the media and the US, along with a zionist worldwide conspiracy (or something) and a 'troofer' as well - a believer in a government conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks, and, even more absurdly, the recent Mumbai attacks.

The article is stupid, but that image is orders of magnitude worse and unfair to include, both in relation to the article and to your response to Xiahou.

CR

[Lemur]

The Treasury Secretary, whose department the IRS is under, not knowing that he is supposed to pay his taxes should make us feel better.
I love how a partial non-payment of self-employment taxes becomes "not knowing that he is supposed to pay his taxes." You don't see anything dishonest in how you're inflating that, now do you? And if this is such a deadly deal-breaker, why aren't the Republicans in Congress raising more hell? And since the man served for years under Republicans, why aren't they equally tainted by this grand evil on the part of Geithner? Here's a thought: You're just taking whatever shots you can, whether they make sense or not.

Try not paying your taxes for several years and see what the IRS says when you tell them it was an honest mistake.
Again, you equate a partial non-payment with total tax denial, demonstrating that I never, ever want you preparing my income tax returns, since you don't seem to be capable of making the distinction between partial and total.

As anyone who has had a dispute with the IRS can tell you, unless you're involved in criminal tax avoidance, once it's sorted that you owe, you pay, and there's usually interest and/or fines. That's how it works. How long do you intend to flog this dead horse, anyway? Nobody except you and the NRO seems to give a hoot.

It's also undeniable fact that Bill Richardson is under investigation by a federal grand jury for corruption.
Oh, gosh, then how will they ever make him Secretary ... hey! Wait a minute! He's not even the nominee anymore! Oooh, we're digging for old gold, are we? Let's see, maybe he wasn't straight with the Obama team (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/obama-team-feel.html), and as soon as they discovered the true situation they ditched him? No, that would paint the Obama team as something other than evil and incompetent, and we can't have that.


And yes, Leon Panetta has no Intel experience. He was chief of staff to Bill Clinton and in congress was on the following committees, none of which had anything to do with the intelligence committee:
Feel free to argue that CIA chiefs hired from the outside perform more poorly than CIA chiefs from the inside. Go ahead, make the argument, rather than spitting out "no Intel experience" as if it were a rallying cry. Let's not forget that the President's Chief of Staff has some little inkling of the Intel community, and the director of the OMB knows where all of the bodies are buried, that being the nature of the person who actually signs the checks. As one ex-CIA official says (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2009/01/11631_cia_insider_panetta_good_pick.html):


So...they got a creative and found someone who is respected around town....who generally knows how intelligence works (having seen the product as Clinton's Chief of Staff)...who has run something bigger than a congressional office (OMB)...who is familiar with some of the current issues (having been on the Iraq Study Group) and who (from what I hear) is a pretty good "people-person" who should be able to win over the hearts and minds of the Agency workforce.


Remember kiddies, in Lemur's world, documented facts are libel (and also somehow slander even though they're written, not spoken).
You're not entirely clear on the correct usage of slander (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aslander&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a), I see. That's okay, as I have said before, grammar and usage have a well-established liberal bias.

A lot of people are going to be celebrating today, but I rather doubt anything short of a vision on the road to Damascus could cause you to doubt your iron-cast positions, Xiahou. I wish you joy of Sean Hannity, I wish you joy of NRO, I wish you joy of Ann Coulter, and I wish you joy of Rush Limbaugh; if you enjoy feeling that peculiar strain of outrage and victimhood that is unique to right-wing ideologues, you should find plenty of pleasure in the next four years.

[Xiahou]

Oh, gosh, then how will they ever make him Secretary ... hey! Wait a minute! He's not even the nominee anymore! Oooh, we're digging for old gold, are we? Let's see, maybe he wasn't straight with the Obama team, and as soon as they discovered the true situation they ditched him? No, that would paint the Obama team as something other than evil and incompetent, and we can't have that.
So, would you say he wasn't vetted? :soapbox:
You're entitled to you own opinions, of course, but I don't think it proved the Obama team 'evil'- just a bit naive perhaps.

I love your frothy-mouthed defenses of them though: an anonymous source says he's a good pick- so there! Or he only partially didn't pay his taxes... after he was audited.. the rest waited until his nomination. And you can't criticize him because some Republicans like him! Of course, none of this refutes the charge.

He didn't pay taxes, he filed for reimbursement for the taxes he didn't pay and then claims he didn't know he had to pay them- an "honest mistake". Again, either he's lying or horrible inept- I'm still not sure which I prefer. :juggle2:

Here's a link (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM104_090113_geithner.html) to the documents provided to the senate- pay particular attention to page 10, item 10- just above his signature, where it talks about him agreeing to pay his social security taxes in return for reimbursement.

Of course, I realize that even in pointing this out, I am being libelous towards the Obama and his chosen ones. If you even suggest that Obama slipped up in doing something, you are a blinded idealogue. Anyone who's truly open-minded will shout me down and demand I desist in suggesting Obama could ever do wrong. :laugh4:

[Lemur]

You're equally entitled to your opinions, Xiahou, although I suspect you will be quite lonely in the 11% nation (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/obama-highest-initial-approval-for.html). Seeing as you haven't actually, you know, responded to anything I've been saying, I think I'll go enjoy myself doing something besides batting around Sean Hannity's talking points with the National Review's favorite son.

I take it from your "wasn't vetted" soapbox that you feel you're getting some sort of payback for Sarah Palin? Since you used the same smilie and phraseology a few hundred times when she was going through the wringer?

[Incongruous]

You're equally entitled to your opinions, Xiahou, although I suspect you will be quite lonely in the 11% nation (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/obama-highest-initial-approval-for.html). Seeing as you haven't actually, you know, responded to anything I've been saying, I think I'll go enjoy myself doing something besides batting around Sean Hannity's talking points with the National Review's favorite son.

I take it from your "wasn't vetted" soapbox that you feel you're getting some sort of payback for Sarah Palin? Since you used the same smilie and phraseology a few hundred times when she was going through the wringer?

Actually I think he has pulled up a good point about vetting, you yourself used the absurd nomination of Palin as a stand from which to destroy all comers, he is now doing the same. He has also provided some decent evidence, yet you have discarded him as right wing nut job who has nothing of worth to offer.

[Lemur]

You yourself used the absurd nomination of Palin as a stand from which to destroy all comers, he is now doing the same.
I would be curious to see what "destroying all comers" looks like on teh internets. The mind boggles.

-edit-

Seems the Hildebeast has been confirmed, if you believe those liberal atheists at AP (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/21/hillary-clinton-confirmed_n_159812.html):


The Senate confirmed Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state Wednesday as President Barack Obama moved to make his imprint on U.S. foreign policy, mobilizing a fresh team of veteran advisers and reaching out to world leaders. The Senate voted 94-2, with Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Jim DeMint of South Carolina opposing.

[Incongruous]

I would be curious to see what "destroying all comers" looks like on teh internets. The mind boggles.


Take it as you like it Lemur, it was meant as no slant, rather a compliment on your ability to argue a point.

I still do not see how this makes him a nut job for talking about vetting in the Obama house.