Jump to content

U.S. Politics part X


EHK for Darwin

Recommended Posts

Article re: Obama's reversal on the detainee photos:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama reversed his decision to release detainee abuse photos from Iraq and Afghanistan after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki warned that Iraq would erupt into violence and Iraqis would demand that U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq a year earlier than planned, two U.S. military officers, a senior defense official and a State Department official told McClatchy .

In the days leading up to a May 28 deadline to release the photos in response to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, U.S. officials, led by Christopher Hill , the U.S. ambassador to Iraq , told Maliki that the administration was preparing to release photos of suspected detainee abuse taken from 2003 to 2006.

When U.S. officials told Maliki, "he went pale in the face," said a U.S. military official, who along with others requested anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity.

The official said releasing the photos would lead to more violence that could delay the scheduled U.S. withdrawal from cities by June 30 and that Iraqis wouldn't make a distinction between old and new photos. The public outrage and increase in violence could lead Iraqis to demand a referendum on the security agreement and refuse to permit U.S. forces to stay until the end of 2011...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090601...clatchy/3243795

This seem like a calculated leak to anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More criticism adds to pressure on GOP in Senate re: Sotomayor.

Conservatives are demanding that Senate Republicans take a harder line on Sonia Sotomayor, with new signs of tension between the Hill GOP and elements of the Republican base over the direction the opposition should move in the Supreme Court fight.

In a letter to be delivered to Senate Republicans Tuesday, more than 145 conservatives – including Grover Norquist, Richard Viguerie and Gary Bauer — call for a filibuster of Sotomayor’s nomination if that’s what it takes to force a “great debate†over judicial philosophy.

But in an interview with POLITICO, Manuel Miranda – who orchestrated the letter – went much farther, saying that Mitch McConnell should “consider resigning†as Senate minority leader if he can’t take a harder line on President Barack Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee.

Miranda accused McConnell of being “limp-wristed†and “a little bit tone deaf†when it comes to judicial nominees.

Miranda, now the chairman of the conservative Third Branch Conference, served as counsel to McConnell’s predecessor, then-Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist. He left that job in 2004 amid allegations that he improperly accessed thousands of memos and emails from Democratic staffers – circumstances McConnell’s supporters recalled as they pushed back hard against Miranda’s arguments Monday.

[...]

“This week, it will become clear that the Republicans who will actually be part of the process of dealing with the nominee, deciding on the nominee and voting on the nominee are the ones in the Senate — not journalists or commentators,†a senior Senate Republican aide said Monday.

But that was before the conservatives sent their letter – and before Miranda went on the attack against McConnell, who he said has cost the GOP seats in the Senate by being too weak on judicial matters.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23212.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ontology Interface Layer
Obama to nominate Republican Rep. John McHugh for Army Secretary. If it goes through, it will mean another NY special election:

Had to check the map to see where he was from. I think the North country is pretty safe territory for the Republicans (those were Gerry Soloman's old stomping grounds), so there prolly won't be any change in House numbers..otherwise McHugh likely would have declined.

I was startled to see that he's one of only two remaining upstate Republicans in the House, and only 3 out of NY's entire 29 member delegation...even Staten Island went Democrat. Times sure have changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ontology Interface Layer
NY-20 which Scott Murphy just won was actually more Republican.

Yeah, my sister lives in the 20th and was just telling me about the special election. According to her, old hand Tedisco should have been able to win pretty easily over the unknown Murphy, except he had a serious shortage of cash and had to rely on the national Republican party...who attached the strings of demanding a much more conservative platform than is viable in NY. Otoh, it wouldn't have been nearly as close if the Democrats ran someone more well known.

Also becomes prime target in redistricting if republicans manage to hold it.

I presume you mean the 23rd? I suppose if they chopped it up between 3 or 4 neighboring districts after NY's inevitable reduction of seats they might dilute it's conservative strength enough...but some of those other districts lean well to the right, too (not Albany, obviously). Getting too greedy when Gerrymandering can backfire, if you make to many districts competitive for the opposition. I think someone was saying the GOP did that in Texas, and it came back to bite them in the ass.

The 29th is another sprawling rural district without any solid urban core that's an easy target for elimination, though not quite so easy now that a Democrat holds it. Amo Houghton kept postponing his retirement to keep that district alive, but he was an oldtimer with a lot of pull; Massa's a freshman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shryke,

That simply printing money to pay for UHC could so debase the Dollar that who is paying for our health care would be trivial compaired to other difficulties.

In other words how does the Fed arrest the Dollar's slide while keeping interest rates low and possibily printing more money to pay for a UHC plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shryke,

UHC may save money... over time. Initally it is going to cost a fair amount of money to build the new administration mechanism and to pay for people not currently covered. The U.S. is broke we are buying our own debt, via the Fed, to create new money to pay for bailouts. How else are we going to cover the initial cost of UHC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How else are we going to cover the initial cost of UHC?

You would think the government would cut spending in areas that are less vital. Wouldn't that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snake,

What pet projects is Congress going to cut to pay for UHC?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the US is gonna pull out of Iraq soon, is it not? So even with the increase of troops in Afghanistan wouldn't there be billions of dollars saved because of this? Why not use these dollars to fund UHC? Or was there a reduction in military spending in the last budget?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snake,

I don't know if the savings from troop reductions in Iraq will equal the cost of UHC start up. Particularly when we will have some troops there for some time plus the ramp up in Afghanistan. And to answer your question no there has not been a cut in military spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ser Scott,

I was just looking at the US budget for 2009 and I gotta say with this new stimulus package I pity today's kids. They're gonna have one helluva a national debt to deal with when they grow up.

I think you guys need to start cutting almost every government program or your gonna be up the creek so to speak.

ps. I'm gonna post an interview in another topic and I want your opinion on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snake,

I don't know if the savings from troop reductions in Iraq will equal the cost of UHC start up. Particularly when we will have some troops there for some time plus the ramp up in Afghanistan. And to answer your question no there has not been a cut in military spending.

Well maybe you should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong but the US is gonna pull out of Iraq soon, is it not? So even with the increase of troops in Afghanistan wouldn't there be billions of dollars saved because of this? Why not use these dollars to fund UHC? Or was there a reduction in military spending in the last budget?

OK, lets say we save 50 billion a year then. Not nearly enough for health care. If we save 100 Billion, still not enough. Even if we were to save 200 billion and that was enough, the big fucking problem is the 1.8 trillion dollars in annual deficits. The deficit was inherited, but thats still an awful lot of red ink. Plugging this hole has to be our top priority. To do this means raising taxes and cutting spending all across the board. Until we get this under control, we are just digging the economic hole we are in deeper and deeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...