Obama saves the Palestinians but ignores the Haitians and Liberians

[Spectrum]

Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool

Obama's exec orders have loopholes

Obama fastest order signing president in modern US history

I would think the least Obama could do is UNEQUIVOCALLY halt all renditions, interrogations and review all currently held "suspects" by the US.

In my opinion, Obama should have halted everything Bush was doing (military activities, detainments, defense contractor spending, intelligence operations, etc.) for further review. To me, Obama seems content to let things continue as they are until he gets around to it.

That's not even a realistic expectation. The president doesn't even have the power to halt all military activities, spending, intelligence operations, etc within 3 weeks of taking office.. And there is nothing that even indicates that this would be advantageous. Obama's administration, pre-inauguration, took the great steps of beginning to evaluate the different components of the Bush administration and government entities, etc that they thought could be "improved" in terms of streamlining operations... offering more transparency etc. They've taken the steps to implement some of their ideas. Obviously, the current economic crisis is beyond priority #1.

You can't bring a machine the size of the U.S. Government to a compete halt, figure things out..and then restart the machine unfortunately. You can't do that in any large operation. You need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time... attempt to fix the machine while it's moving.

However, my contention is that you are still asking for too much to be done within a short period of time.

Also, like I said, this is not a nintendo game. Obama just can't hit the reset button and start all over. Unfortunately, as he stated, he'll need to be as cautious in cleaning up the mess.. as not to be reckless like the neo-conservatives were in getting us into these problems.

That does not instill a lot of confidence in me that President Obama feels (like I do) that Bush was a complete and utter failure in MidEast and economic policy.

But, Clinton survived political disaster as governor in Arkansas, and years later beat a strong Republican Presidential candiate (Bush Sr.).

I may not like the guy, but when you beat Bush Sr. (who had 12 years in the White House, connections out the ass, Reagan's legacy behind him, etc.), you know this is a political force.

Now, who did Obama beat? Two women and an old man with an endorsement from a despised President.

I think anyone with an unbaised perspective can conclude that Obama's win (especially given your assessment of his "thin" political resume) makes Clinton's win pale in comparison. Obama was unknown national political figure until 2004. And even then, he wasn't relatively well-known. Even when he announced his run for the presidency, he was unknown. No one even considered him a threat and the media generally laughed at his entry and gave Hillary Clinton the dem nomination before the campaigning even begun. Don't just say... "a woman"... Hillary Clinton had the entire Clinton machine behind here.. be honest here. The reality of the matter is that you trying to consistently downplay anything that illustrates how effective Obama was and overplay anything that puts the opposing person at a "perceived" advantage. Obama put one of the most well run campaigns in the history of politicans...changed the political map and raised records amount of money in the process. His campaign will be studied for decades as the blueprint.

Again, Clinton only garnered 43 percent of the popular vote and most likely wouldn't even have won if Perot didn't enter.

Ironically, Obama has already had to make tougher decisions that Clinton had to make during his entire 8 years in office.

The GOP simply needs a Jindal-type. Someone who kisses honkey behind, but is not "black" (in fact, is ambivalent to them at best).

If Jindal were to run against Obama in 4 years, he might beat him (considering how tenuous Obama's white support seems to be).

Obama's support numbers across all groups is steady at the moment. He is showing absolutely no sign of losing support from anyone. The only thing that can beat Obama in 2012 is if the economy continues to falter and he can't stop the bleeding. The GOP has no platform and no viable candidate at this point. The GOP will just need to make sure they don't lose too many seats in the Mid-term elections. When you have a party that is still seriously considering putting Palin back on a ticket at this point, that is a clear indication that they don't understand how far out of touch they are with the general population. McCain is done.. Mitt can't win as the lead on a ticket...etc... Jindall could be on the ticket as a VP candidate... but who's going to be the lead..

 

[Cruise]

You can't bring a machine the size of the U.S. Government to a compete halt, figure things out..and then restart the machine unfortunately. You can't do that in any large operation. You need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time... attempt to fix the machine while it's moving.

However, my contention is that you are still asking for too much to be done within a short period of time.

For the man who issued more executive orders faster than any President in U. S. History, it seems he could have used some of them to halt the Bush insanity factory.

He issued an order to close Guantanamo Bay and to limit interrogations.

Why not just stop renditions and torture everywhere (in anything remotely related to the US, including private contractors and foreign intermediaries)? It's just a few more lines to write and closes the loophole allowing certain tortures and renditions.

Really, this is not why Obama bothers me. I wish he could have used one of those executive orders to put a moratorium on foreclosures in heavily hit cities like Detroit.

But, I will wait to see over the next 3 months how things develop.

Also, like I said, this is not a nintendo game. Obama just can't hit the reset button and start all over. Unfortunately, as he stated, he'll need to be as cautious in cleaning up the mess.. as not to be reckless like the neo-conservatives were in getting us into these problems.

Well, I believe fortune favors the bold.

If Obama wants to play timid, the circumstances will overwhelm him. That's fine, but it will spell his doom.

Bush was no scholar, but he knew how to dictate the terms of the discussion. He made everyone play by his rules. That's how you get things done (whether right or wrong).

If Obama wants to play the "fair" game and the "inclusion" game and the "bipartisan" game and "follow the experts" in policy, he is going to end up looking weak and ineffectual.

You can't be afraid to make mistakes and have failures. Obama doesn't appear to be the kind of guy who is willing to make people mad at him or take the chance of looking like a fool. He wants to be everybody's friend, their hope, their saviour, the new Lincoln. Loved and adored without having done a single thing to deserve it. Obama's motto, be offensive to no one.

I think anyone with an unbaised perspective can conclude that Obama's win (especially given your assessment of his "thin" political resume) makes Clinton's win pale in comparison. Obama was unknown national political figure until 2004. And even then, he wasn't relatively well-known. Even when he announced his run for the presidency, he was unknown. No one even considered him a threat and the media generally laughed at his entry and gave Hillary Clinton the dem nomination before the campaigning even begun. Don't just say... "a woman"... Hillary Clinton had the entire Clinton machine behind here.. be honest here. The reality of the matter is that you trying to consistently downplay anything that illustrates how effective Obama was and overplay anything that puts the opposing person at a "perceived" advantage. Obama put one of the most well run campaigns in the history of politicans...changed the political map and raised records amount of money in the process. His campaign will be studied for decades as the blueprint.

Again, Clinton only garnered 43 percent of the popular vote and most likely wouldn't even have won if Perot didn't enter.

Really, this election was a gimme. People were not going to vote for a woman. Hillary didn't stand a chance and the Republicans were chomping at the bit to face her. She had this remarkable ability to antagonize the Republicans, some Democrats, and a significant portion of independents.

McCain knew he was doomed with that millstone Bush around his neck. So, Obama really didn't have much competition, in my opinion.

If the ticket were McCain/Powell, they would have run Obama out of the gym (or at least it would be a Republican sitting in the White House). States like Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania could easily have swung the other way.

What would have saved Obama? It had nothing to do with his campaign, or his political prowess, or his smarts. It was the economy. Obama was just in the right place at the right time.

But, this current economy and military crisis will expose him for what he is. Unfortunately, the world will attach his failures to being "black" rather than half-white, I fear.

Obama's support numbers across all groups is steady at the moment. He is showing absolutely no sign of losing support from anyone. The only thing that can beat Obama in 2012 is if the economy continues to falter and he can't stop the bleeding. The GOP has no platform and no viable candidate at this point. The GOP will just need to make sure they don't lose too many seats in the Mid-term elections. When you have a party that is still seriously considering putting Palin back on a ticket at this point, that is a clear indication that they don't understand how far out of touch they are with the general population. McCain is done.. Mitt can't win as the lead on a ticket...etc... Jindall could be on the ticket as a VP candidate... but who's going to be the lead..

Bush had high approval ratings too until people realized what he had done.

Familiarity breeds contempt, unless you know how to really work some magic. And people will get tired of Obama's empty words and speeches. They will say he can talk a good game but he can't deliver.

I don't know who is going to be the new superstar in the White House come 2012. It is my strong belief that something dramatic is going to happen that will lead to the rise of a new and dynamic leader of the country.

If Obama is that person, it would greatly surprise me given his bonafides. But if he is what I think he is, the next President will be the true leader for the future, not Obama.

So, I don't put any stock in where the political winds are today. They are fickle and change dramatically in a very short period of time.

It brings me no pleasure to be right (if that is the case) about President Obama, but this guy scares me!

 

[Spectrum]

For the man who issued more executive orders faster than any President in U. S. History, it seems he could have used some of them to halt the Bush insanity factory.

He issued an order to close Guantanamo Bay and to limit interrogations.

His executive orders were a clear break from Bush and showed things wouldn't be the same under his administration. He may not have put a complete halt to the Bush insanity factory, but he definitely pulled the emergency breaks on the train.

Why not just stop renditions and torture everywhere (in anything remotely related to the US, including private contractors and foreign intermediaries)? It's just a few more lines to write and closes the loophole allowing certain tortures and renditions.

I do disagree with decisions like this below. I do think that 1 month is not enough to review all the cases (100s) that are backlogged by the Bush Administration. However, it's simply "un-American" to not afford enemy combatants with some type of legal structure to defend themselves against allegations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/obama-backs-bush-on-bagra_n_168766.html

Really, this is not why Obama bothers me. I wish he could have used one of those executive orders to put a moratorium on foreclosures in heavily hit cities like Detroit.

But, I will wait to see over the next 3 months how things develop.

I posted this on the main board a couple of days back. Here is Obama's housing plan and how he's attacking the problem.

Obama's Foreclosure Plan Seeks To Save Millions From Losing Homes

http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=356038

Well, I believe fortune favors the bold.

If Obama wants to play timid, the circumstances will overwhelm him. That's fine, but it will spell his doom.

Bush was no scholar, but he knew how to dictate the terms of the discussion. He made everyone play by his rules. That's how you get things done (whether right or wrong).

Bush was the stool of the neo-conservatives. They may have gotten what the wanted (displacing Saddam, creating a foothold in the Middle East, attempting to Use Iraq to combat the Euro), but they did all under false pretenses,etc. There is no way for me to agree with their methods. They were totally morally bankrupt. I think anyone can agree with that.

If Obama wants to play the "fair" game and the "inclusion" game and the "bipartisan" game and "follow the experts" in policy, he is going to end up looking weak and ineffectual.

Obama didn't need the GOP to pass his economic stimulus package. The House is completely his. He only needs a couple of GOP Senators. The only thing he is doing is saying "I'm going to reach out to the other side". He doesn't look weak or ineffectual. He looks like a man who is doing what he said he would do. He looks like a man who can have his principles, yet be willing to work with opposing views. He looks like a man who is intelligent enough to know that good ideas can often come from the "competition". Not only that, he puts the GOP in a bad position, strategically, if they oppose him and the Bills actually work. He has nothing to lose by looking "inclusive". The reality of the matter is that he has a mandate anyway. No need to force that premise down anyone's throat.

You can't be afraid to make mistakes and have failures. Obama doesn't appear to be the kind of guy who is willing to make people mad at him or take the chance of looking like a fool. He wants to be everybody's friend, their hope, their saviour, the new Lincoln. Loved and adored without having done a single thing to deserve it. Obama's motto, be offensive to no one.

There is really no way to argue against such speculation. This reads more like propaganda than anything.

Really, this election was a gimme. People were not going to vote for a woman. Hillary didn't stand a chance and the Republicans were chomping at the bit to face her. She had this remarkable ability to antagonize the Republicans, some Democrats, and a significant portion of independents.

Hillary had the support of the entire party and was even dominating the black vote early on. The reality of the matter is that people DID vote for a woman and were continuing to vote for her. She needed to win the democratic nomination... the GOP and Independents were meaningless at this point.. UNTIL towards the end they began registering as DEMS to extent the contest by voting for Hillary over Obama. She would have beaten McCain as well.

I have to question the sanity of anyone who says that a relatively unknown, black man had a "gimme' race to win the U.S. Presidency. Do you honestly believe that?

What would have saved Obama? It had nothing to do with his campaign, or his political prowess, or his smarts. It was the economy. Obama was just in the right place at the right time.

But, this current economy and military crisis will expose him for what he is. Unfortunately, the world will attach his failures to being "black" rather than half-white, I fear.

How can you be "saved" in a contest you were never losing? The economy just sealed the deal when McCain went on that "the fundamentals of the economy are sound" trip.

You're seeing the effect without even understanding the cause. Let me help you out here. Obama laid out the path to beat them both years ago. This just didn't spontaneously happen during the campaign.... the grassroots structure, the implementation of the 50 state strategy, the focus on the wracking up delegates in small states to run up the count after super-tuesday... his campaign was pure brilliance on display...They were pretty much ahead of the game... 3-4 steps ahead on everything and they executed almost to perfection.

 

[Cruise]

I have to question the sanity of anyone who says that a relatively unknown, black man had a "gimme' race to win the U.S. Presidency. Do you honestly believe that?

You see, this is a matter of contention. I do not believe the "United States" will ever have a black man as President. Therefore, I do not consider President Obama a "black man" in office. Obama has a white mother, grew up with white grandparents in a white community (or Indonesian or Hawaiian).

For me, these experiences don't reflect those of slave descendants in this country. He has the sensibilities of and identifies with the "whites" in this country. For someone to be "black" and not have a certain apprehension toward whites causes me to be very suspicious of their motives.

Therefore, once Billary lost Iowa, it was a "gimme" in my eyes that Obama would win because he is not a "black" man but instead someone who whites could accept and did not threaten them.

How can you be "saved" in a contest you were never losing? The economy just sealed the deal when McCain went on that "the fundamentals of the economy are sound" trip.

You're seeing the effect without even understanding the cause. Let me help you out here. Obama laid out the path to beat them both years ago. This just didn't spontaneously happen during the campaign.... the grassroots structure, the implementation of the 50 state strategy, the focus on the wracking up delegates in small states to run up the count after super-tuesday... his campaign was pure brilliance on display...They were pretty much ahead of the game... 3-4 steps ahead on everything and they executed almost to perfection.

Seeing Bush and Obama's cabinet is leading me to believe the power is not with the President. My attention is moving to the positions of Treasury Secretary and Defense Secretary (the money and the guns).

When you get "black" men (slave descendants) in those two positions, you are talking some real power.

I get the impression whether McCain or Obama won, the Treasury and Defense Secretaries would still be the same two guys.

 

[Spectrum]

You see, this is a matter of contention. I do not believe the "United States" will ever have a black man as President. Therefore, I do not consider President Obama a "black man" in office. Obama has a white mother, grew up with white grandparents in a white community (or Indonesian or Hawaiian).

For me, these experiences don't reflect those of slave descendants in this country. He has the sensibilities of and identifies with the "whites" in this country. For someone to be "black" and not have a certain apprehension toward whites causes me to be very suspicious of their motives.

Therefore, once Billary lost Iowa, it was a "gimme" in my eyes that Obama would win because he is not a "black" man but instead someone who whites could accept and did not threaten them.

This is why left the race rant alone last time. You are one of those "Obama isn't a descendant of slaves" cats. The entire premise of the argument is erroneous as being a descendant of slaves is not a prerequisite of being a black man.

However,

You can't be myopic enough to believe that being a descendant of slaves is what makes someone a "black" man? Can you? Is that the "new" definition. Is the new definition of black is that you must have only "black" people in your nuclear and immediate family?

We've gone beyond politics...and now we're having a debate on semantics. There was a damn 20 page thread about this on the main board.. always though the entire premise was absurd.

 

[Cruise]

This is why left the race rant alone last time. You are one of those "Obama isn't a descendant of slaves" cats. The entire premise of the argument is erroneous as being a descendant of slaves is not a prerequisite of being a black man.

However,

You can't be myopic enough to believe that being a descendant of slaves is what makes someone a "black" man? Can you? Is that the "new" definition. Is the new definition of black is that you must have only "black" people in your nuclear and immediate family?

We've gone beyond politics...and now we're having a debate on semantics. There was a damn 20 page thread about this on the main board.. always though the entire premise was absurd.

It's only relevant because "whites" make it so. In their minds, there is a real difference between having a white momma and having two non-white parents.

They will never let you forget that.
They will always hold it against you.

For that reason, it is hard to accept that Obama truly believes in the struggle of slave descendants in this country. He is not one and the "whites" know it.

Whether you want to acknowledge that or not is irrelevant. The "whites" have made their decision and I am simply making the observation.

 

[QueEx]

This is why left the race rant alone last time. You are one of those "Obama isn't a descendant of slaves" cats. The entire premise of the argument is erroneous as being a descendant of slaves is not a prerequisite of being a black man.

However,

You can't be myopic enough to believe that being a descendant of slaves is what makes someone a "black" man? Can you? Is that the "new" definition. Is the new definition of black is that you must have only "black" people in your nuclear and immediate family?

We've gone beyond politics ...and now we're having a debate on semantics. There was a damn 20 page thread about this on the main board.. always though the entire premise was absurd.

Unfortunately, much of this thread was NEVER about politics. It was, from the beginning, no matter how cleverly disguised, about race -- or, borrowing from your words above, it was always about "Myopic Racial Classification."

A lot of great "political points" were made in this thread, but from 1 poster's view, they never seemed to be, "on target." Thats because, the target wasn't political theory. Instead, the target was that poster's constantly moving and shifting questioning of whether Mr. Obama is black enough.

Perhaps the question could be answered, one way or another -- if only Mr. Cruise could define, once and for all, what is black, and what isn't.

QueEx

 

[Cruise]

Unfortunately, much of this thread was NEVER about politics. It was, from the beginning, no matter how cleverly disguised, about race -- or, borrowing from your words above, it was always about "Myopic Racial Classification."

A lot of great "political points" were made in this thread, but from 1 poster's view, they never seemed to be, "on target." Thats because, the target wasn't political theory. Instead, the target was that poster's constantly moving and shifting questioning of whether Mr. Obama is black enough.

You've got to be joking. Are you trying to tell me "race" isn't politics?

If "race" isn't a political invention, then what is it?

Obama is the new "race" peddler. He talked about moving beyond "racial politics" and being the "post-racial" candidate, and opening a dialogue on "race" and healing racial wounds.

Obama is the next progression from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. He is a new approach to an old tactic. Bottomline, he still uses the "race" card for political gain.

And that, is something I don't respect.

Perhaps the question could be answered, one way or another -- if only Mr. Cruise could define, once and for all, what is black, and what isn't.

QueEx

When my momma is white, then Obama can be black.

 

[water]

So that I fully understand what you are saying here: Bush had a successful administration because he was re-elected?

That is the sole criteria you are using? So if that is the case, you need to wait until 2012 to judge Obama would you? Because you've already call his administration a failure. Unless you have a different goalpost for Obama?

Oh man, I just saw this thread..........

 

[Lamarr]

Gaza to get $900 million!

Why does this not surprise me? We give Israel Billions to Blow-up Gaza with US made bombs and then we give Gaza/Palestinians Billion to rebuild. Get out of the UN!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29352401/

JERUSALEM - The United States plans to pledge more than $900 million to help rebuild Gaza after Israel's invasion and strengthen the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, a U.S. official said on Monday.

The money will be channeled through U.N

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
Clinton: U.S. could change policy
of deporting Haitians</font size><font size="4">

Haiti, Cuba policy still evolving</font size></center>


Miami Herald
BY JACQUELINE CHARLES
jcharles@MiamiHerald.com
Thursday, April 16, 2009


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday the Obama administration is reviewing a U.S. policy of deporting undocumented Haitians and left open the possibility of expanding travel to Havana beyond the families of Cuban exiles in the United States.

Clinton made the remarks in an interview with The Miami Herald days ahead of the Fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago and days after the White House revamped Cuba policy by lifting all travel and gift restrictions for Americans who have relatives on the island. It is the most significant Cuba policy change in decades.

Clinton also offered a sharp reply to Fidel Castro's criticism that the Obama administration moves were insufficient: "Well, we would welcome him releasing some political prisoners,'' she said.

She travels Thursday to Port-au-Prince and the Dominican Republic, then links up with President Barack Obama in Port of Spain to bring a message of engagement and collaboration.

Clinton made clear that the United States would retain its policy of interdicting Haitians trying to reach Florida's sun-drenched shores but said the administration was looking at its deportation practices involving Haitians, who help support their impoverished country with remittances.

''We are reviewing the policy, and we know what a great source of income the remittances are that flow . . . principally the United States back to Haiti,'' she said.

An estimated 30,000 Haitians are currently in the deportation pipeline, and immigration advocates argue it would be cruel to send them back to a storm-ravaged country struggling to recover from four back-to-back storms that left nearly $1 billion in damage.

Clinton said the administration was sympathetic to ``what a tremendous burden it would be on Haiti if all of a sudden they were forced to accommodate the thousands of people who were otherwise working in our country.

``So we expect that we will be able to look closely at this and try to come up with some appropriate responses to the challenges posed.''

Haitian advocates want the Obama administration to add Haiti to the list of nations whose citizens here receive Temporary Protected Status. That would permit undocumented Haitian migrants to stay and work in the United States temporarily.

Clinton noted that the White House announcement Monday to lift travel restrictions on Americans with family in Cuba was the first step in an ongoing policy review.

''We're continuing to explore ways to further democracy in Cuba and provide the Cuban people with more opportunities but we haven't made any further decisions yet,'' she said.

Asked specifically whether it was not preferential treatment to permit only Cuban-American exiles to travel to Cuba, she replied:

``That's part of our policy review. Our first goal was to reverse the Draconian rules imposed by the Bush administration, which took away privileges that had been available for a long time.

``And obviously we think Cuban Americans have special roles to play as serving as ambassadors of freedom and helping the Cuban people understand the opportunities that democracy would bring.''

Clinton's trip to Port-au-Prince Thursday follows a donors conference held Tuesday in Washington in which nations and financial organizations pledged $324 million to Haiti. Clinton stressed that the U.S. pledge of $57 million was focused on enhancing security in Haiti, investment in job creation and helping the Haitian diaspora contribute their talent to their homeland.

''The United States will be investing in jobs around infrastructure. The road system in Haiti needs both expansion and maintenance, and we're going to emphasize the use of our aid to those purposes,'' she said.

Clinton will meet with Haitian President René Préval, visit a factory and talk to people who could benefit from the financial aid. She has asked for a review of all foreign aid going to Haiti. She will also promote the benefits of the U.S. Congress-approved duty-free access HOPE II legislation and other partnerships.

``We want to do more on alternative clean energy. . . . f we can get investment looking at Haiti as a realistic money-making opportunity along with aid and trade, I think that the mother in Cité Soleil will see more jobs for her and hopefully a better future for her children.''

Haiti Prime Minister Michèle Pierre-Louis met with both Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday and welcomed the renewed interest.

''It's up to us Haitians to make sure we understand what is at stake,'' Pierre-Louis said. ``Haiti has a chance. We have to seize this opportunity.''

Clinton told The Miami Herald the White House would not be going to Trinidad with a ''one-size-fits-all'' program to forge partnerships in energy, the economy and trade.

Nor would it seek to dictate solutions, she said.

''Part of what we're going to do at the Summit of the Americas is actually listen, which has been in somewhat scarce supply over the last eight years,'' she said.

``We are really looking to be a good partner and a reliable friend and neighbor.''


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1001798.html