Change - it is a comin' - Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions

aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
edited November 2008 in A Moving Train
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/08/AR2008110801856.html?nav=hcmodule

Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions
Stem Cell, Climate Rules Among Targets of President-Elect's Team

By Ceci Connolly and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 9, 2008; Page A16

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/11/08/PH2008110802411.jpg
President Bush denied California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. The president-elect says he will overturn that decision. (By Kevork Djansezian -- Associated Press)

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.

"The kind of regulations they are looking at" are those imposed by Bush for "overtly political" reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget. The list of executive orders targeted by Obama's team could well get longer in the coming days, as Bush's appointees rush to enact a number of last-minute policies in an effort to extend his legacy.

A spokeswoman said yesterday that no plans for regulatory changes had been finalized. "Before he makes any decisions on potential executive or legislative actions, he will be conferring with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, as well as interested groups," Obama transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said. "Any decisions would need to be discussed with his Cabinet nominees, none of whom have been selected yet."

Still, the preelection transition team, comprising mainly lawyers, has positioned the incoming president to move fast on high-priority items without waiting for Congress.

Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's.

Bush's August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives who have moral objections to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in the process.

But Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said that during Obama's final swing through her state in October, she reminded him that because the restrictions were never included in legislation, Obama "can simply reverse them by executive order." Obama, she said, "was very receptive to that." Opponents of the restrictions have already drafted an executive order he could sign.

The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.

"We have been communicating with his transition staff" almost daily, Richards said. "We expect to see a real change."

While Obama said at a news conference last week that his top priority would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs, his advisers say that focus will not delay key shifts in social and regulatory policies, including some -- such as the embrace of new environmental safeguards -- that Obama has said will have long-term, beneficial impacts on the economy.

The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer," Obama said in January.

California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California's rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation's automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.

"An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.

Robert Sussman, who was the EPA's deputy administrator during the Clinton administration and is now overseeing EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring strongly recommending such a finding. Others in the campaign have depicted it as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with scientific advice.

Some related reforms embraced by Obama's transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled "Change for America," being published next week by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, will recommend, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.

The center's influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by former Clinton White House official John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff has been swept into planning for Obama's first 100 days in office.

The National Energy Council would be a counterpart to the White House National Economic Council that Clinton created in a 1993 executive order.

"It would make sure all the oars are rowing in the right direction" and ensure that climate change policy "gets lots of attention inside the White House," said Daniel J. Weiss, a former Sierra Club official and senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The center's new book will also urge Obama to sign an executive order requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act. Several key members of Obama's transition team have already embraced the idea.

Other early Obama initiatives may address the need for improved food and drug regulation and chart a new course for immigration enforcement, some Obama advisers say. But they add that only a portion of his early efforts will be aimed at undoing Bush initiatives.

Despite enormous pent-up Democratic frustration, Obama and his team realize they must strike a balance between undoing Bush actions and setting their own course, said Winnie Stachelberg, the center's senior vice president for external affairs.

"It took eight years to get into this mess, and it will take a long time to get out of it," she said. "The next administration needs to look ahead. This transition team and the incoming administration gets that in a big way."

Staff writers Juliet Eilperin, Spencer S. Hsu and Carol D. Leonnig and staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    It looks like he's just pandering to the athiest left to me. ;)
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    know1 wrote:
    It looks like he's just pandering to the athiest left to me. ;)
    He's not "pandering" to anyone as he has already been elected. He doesn't need to pander.

    Look at Obama actually taking human interest into account.

    I embrace the changes talked about in this article. Especially the ones related to science!! Let California regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. Let's fund stem cell research - I beleive it could save a lot of lives.
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,338
    Now this is change...its been a long 8 years. Our own prime minister up here in Canada is changing his tune on the environment thanks in great part to, i think, the lead of Obama. :)http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/11/05/canada-us-environment.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g12:r5:c0.26365:b19410388
  • well thats cute and all, but he'll have to do a lot more than that to really be about change.
  • digsterdigster Posts: 1,293
    MrSmith wrote:
    well thats cute and all, but he'll have to do a lot more than that to really be about change.

    Yes, that's exactly right. Stem cell research and climate change initiatives are, if nothing else, "cute."
  • dmitrydmitry Posts: 136
    aNiMaL wrote:
    Let's fund stem cell research - I beleive it could save a lot of lives.

    Let's not. You fund it.
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    dmitry wrote:
    Let's not. You fund it.
    Sorry, it's happening. And for the better, I might add.
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    MrSmith wrote:
    well thats cute and all, but he'll have to do a lot more than that to really be about change.
    Actually, this is the first giant leaps towards real fundamental change in this country.

    But, you can keep on grossly understating real change as "cute."
  • dmitrydmitry Posts: 136
    aNiMaL wrote:
    Sorry, it's happening. And for the better, I might add.

    Don't apologize, just pay my share.
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    dmitry wrote:
    Don't apologize, just pay my share.
    Only if you pay my share of the war in Iraq.
  • iamicaiamica Chicago Posts: 2,628
    I think it's about time that we seriously look at global warming and start taking action to reduce pollution and make more fuel efficient cars. Allowing California's suggestion to go through is a good way to start.
    Chicago 2000 : Chicago 2003 : Chicago 2006 : Summerfest 2006 : Lollapalooza 2007 : Chicago 2009 : Noblesville (Indy) 2010 : PJ20 (East Troy) 2011 : Wrigley Field 2013 : Milwaukee (Yield) 2014 : Wrigley Field 2016
  • aNiMaL wrote:
    Actually, this is the first giant leaps towards real fundamental change in this country.

    But, you can keep on grossly understating real change as "cute."
    whatever. these things were gonna happen anyway. McCain was for stem cells too. these are hardly difficult issues to affect change on. we'll see if he actually makes fundamental and difficult changes in the future.
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,338
    MrSmith wrote:
    these are hardly difficult issues to affect change on. we'll see if he actually makes fundamental and difficult changes in the future.
    ok then, what fundamental and difficult changes are you looking for?
  • yield6 wrote:
    ok then, what fundamental and difficult changes are you looking for?
    like for starters, GET RID OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, something he plans on using just like Bush. i cant think of anything more unconstitutional. I'm talking about changing government to be more representational of the people. real systemic change. maybe doing something that might actually piss some people off.

    this stuff is just old Clinton stuff, continuing where he left off. maybe thats a good thing, but its not change. its window dressing.

    i always thought the whole change stuff was just bullshit to rally the masses anyway, so i'm not gonna be that upset if he just reverses a few Bush policies. its still better than McCain and he could be a very good president. i'm not holding my breath on real change though.
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    MrSmith wrote:
    whatever. these things were gonna happen anyway. McCain was for stem cells too. these are hardly difficult issues to affect change on. we'll see if he actually makes fundamental and difficult changes in the future.

    i'd say respecting women and their right to control their own bodies and make their own medical decisions is pretty fucking fundamental.

    and mccain certainly wouldn't have reversed the global gag rule.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • prismprism Posts: 2,440
    wow....he's looking to change and reverse executive orders that put political and corporate interest before those of the health and well being of people and the planet and yet some see this as a bad thing?

    i only see the long-needed positives in what Obama is planning..... :)
    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
    angels share laughter
    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
  • sweetpotatosweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    aNiMaL wrote:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/08/AR2008110801856.html?nav=hcmodule

    Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions
    Stem Cell, Climate Rules Among Targets of President-Elect's Team

    By Ceci Connolly and R. Jeffrey Smith
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Sunday, November 9, 2008; Page A16

    http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/11/08/PH2008110802411.jpg
    President Bush denied California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. The president-elect says he will overturn that decision. (By Kevork Djansezian -- Associated Press)

    Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

    A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

    In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.

    "The kind of regulations they are looking at" are those imposed by Bush for "overtly political" reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget. The list of executive orders targeted by Obama's team could well get longer in the coming days, as Bush's appointees rush to enact a number of last-minute policies in an effort to extend his legacy.

    A spokeswoman said yesterday that no plans for regulatory changes had been finalized. "Before he makes any decisions on potential executive or legislative actions, he will be conferring with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, as well as interested groups," Obama transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said. "Any decisions would need to be discussed with his Cabinet nominees, none of whom have been selected yet."

    Still, the preelection transition team, comprising mainly lawyers, has positioned the incoming president to move fast on high-priority items without waiting for Congress.

    Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's.

    Bush's August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives who have moral objections to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in the process.

    But Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said that during Obama's final swing through her state in October, she reminded him that because the restrictions were never included in legislation, Obama "can simply reverse them by executive order." Obama, she said, "was very receptive to that." Opponents of the restrictions have already drafted an executive order he could sign.

    The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.

    "We have been communicating with his transition staff" almost daily, Richards said. "We expect to see a real change."

    While Obama said at a news conference last week that his top priority would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs, his advisers say that focus will not delay key shifts in social and regulatory policies, including some -- such as the embrace of new environmental safeguards -- that Obama has said will have long-term, beneficial impacts on the economy.

    The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer," Obama said in January.

    California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California's rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation's automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.

    "An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.

    Robert Sussman, who was the EPA's deputy administrator during the Clinton administration and is now overseeing EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring strongly recommending such a finding. Others in the campaign have depicted it as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with scientific advice.

    Some related reforms embraced by Obama's transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled "Change for America," being published next week by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, will recommend, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.

    The center's influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by former Clinton White House official John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff has been swept into planning for Obama's first 100 days in office.

    The National Energy Council would be a counterpart to the White House National Economic Council that Clinton created in a 1993 executive order.

    "It would make sure all the oars are rowing in the right direction" and ensure that climate change policy "gets lots of attention inside the White House," said Daniel J. Weiss, a former Sierra Club official and senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

    The center's new book will also urge Obama to sign an executive order requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act. Several key members of Obama's transition team have already embraced the idea.

    Other early Obama initiatives may address the need for improved food and drug regulation and chart a new course for immigration enforcement, some Obama advisers say. But they add that only a portion of his early efforts will be aimed at undoing Bush initiatives.

    Despite enormous pent-up Democratic frustration, Obama and his team realize they must strike a balance between undoing Bush actions and setting their own course, said Winnie Stachelberg, the center's senior vice president for external affairs.

    "It took eight years to get into this mess, and it will take a long time to get out of it," she said. "The next administration needs to look ahead. This transition team and the incoming administration gets that in a big way."

    Staff writers Juliet Eilperin, Spencer S. Hsu and Carol D. Leonnig and staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

    :)
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • sweetpotatosweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    aNiMaL wrote:
    Only if you pay my share of the war in Iraq.


    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing!
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • sweetpotatosweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    aNiMaL wrote:
    Let's fund stem cell research - I beleive it could save a lot of lives.
    dmitry wrote:
    Let's not. You fund it.

    sure, no problem.

    but you'd better hope that you and everyone you care about never develops cancer, diabetes, alzheimer's, is paralyzed... shall i go on?

    stem cell research is THE FUTURE of medicine. catch up or get off, you're weighing us down.
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • prismprism Posts: 2,440
    sure, no problem.

    but you'd better hope that you and everyone you care about never develops cancer, diabetes, alzheimer's, is paralyzed... shall i go on?

    stem cell research is THE FUTURE of medicine. catch up or get off, you're weighing us down.


    exactly!

    *hugs sweetpotato* :):D
    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
    angels share laughter
    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
  • sweetpotatosweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    i am THRILLED that all of these things are planned and i'm sure he will make good on what he has promised.

    but honestly, all the man would need to do to be better president than bush is to make sure the bathroom has t.p. in it before sitting down to do his manly business. i can vividly imagine dubya hollering out, for the millionth time, "laura! help, i did it again!"
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • sweetpotatosweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    prism wrote:
    exactly!

    *hugs sweetpotato* :):D



    right back atcha! :)
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • VictoryGin wrote:
    i'd say respecting women and their right to control their own bodies and make their own medical decisions is pretty fucking fundamental.

    and mccain certainly wouldn't have reversed the global gag rule.
    the republicans didnt succeed in making abortion illegal. so i guess Obama has only succeeded in stopping change, if that counts.

    i didnt realize that by 'change' he meant implementing the same democratic agenda thats been in place for decades, using the same questionable tactics both parties use to maintain power. thats nice and all, but i was kinda hoping (not expecting) for something a little more game-changing than that. but its early.
  • Obama...

    · Pro Afghan war (wants to send more troops)

    · Pro NATO (will increase members)

    · Backed Georgia's attack (gave them a billion dollars)

    · Voted to fund the Iraq war (gave up hundreds of billions)

    · Voted to keep the Patriot Act and FISA

    · Will keep bases and troops in Iraq

    · Threaten Iran, Syria, and Pakistan

    · Will keep spending trillions (no plan to pay the debt)

    · Will keep the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank

    · Will keep the Bush pre-emptive attack ideology as policy.

    · Surrounds himself with radical neo-con advisers and mentors that are far worse than Bush and Cheney


    Wow...nice change from Bush...you got there....

    PNAC here we come baby
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • So I hear Americans voted for change
    By a half black man who speaks rather strange
    Compulsory community service, makes us rather nervous
    But at least we voted for Change

    What kind of change, we knew not
    From a candidate who Israel got
    Seems like a game, and more of the same
    But at least we voted for Change

    He'll take away our guns
    Start more wars for our sons
    Spike up federal tax, bail out Goldman Sachs
    But at least we voted for Change
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • prismprism Posts: 2,440
    So I hear Americans voted for change
    By a half black man who speaks rather strange
    Compulsory community service, makes us rather nervous
    But at least we voted for Change

    What kind of change, we knew not
    From a candidate who Israel got
    Seems like a game, and more of the same
    But at least we voted for Change

    He'll take away our guns
    Start more wars for our sons
    Spike up federal tax, bail out Goldman Sachs
    But at least we voted for Change


    Roland sits inside his tin-foil room making shit up.
    Reality has called to say quit inventing conspiracies.
    But at least Roland's a Canadian that can't vote.
    So it just makes him look like a tool and a fool.


    :D
    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
    angels share laughter
    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
  • prism wrote:
    Roland sits inside his tin-foil room making shit up.
    Reality has called to say quit inventing conspiracies.
    But at least Roland's a Canadian that can't vote.
    So it just makes him look like a tool and a fool.


    :D

    haha

    deal with this reality and get back to me...

    · Pro Afghan war (wants to send more troops)

    · Pro NATO (will increase members)

    · Backed Georgia's attack (gave them a billion dollars)

    · Voted to fund the Iraq war (gave up hundreds of billions)

    · Voted to keep the Patriot Act and FISA

    · Will keep bases and troops in Iraq

    · Threaten Iran, Syria, and Pakistan

    · Will keep spending trillions (no plan to pay the debt)

    · Will keep the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank

    · Will keep the Bush pre-emptive attack ideology as policy.

    · Surrounds himself with radical neo-con advisers and mentors that are far worse than Bush and Cheney
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    haha

    deal with this reality and get back to me...

    · Pro Afghan war (wants to send more troops)

    · Pro NATO (will increase members)

    · Backed Georgia's attack (gave them a billion dollars)

    · Voted to fund the Iraq war (gave up hundreds of billions)

    · Voted to keep the Patriot Act and FISA

    · Will keep bases and troops in Iraq

    · Threaten Iran, Syria, and Pakistan

    · Will keep spending trillions (no plan to pay the debt)

    · Will keep the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank

    · Will keep the Bush pre-emptive attack ideology as policy.

    · Surrounds himself with radical neo-con advisers and mentors that are far worse than Bush and Cheney

    So what if he's pro afghan war? Terrorist are in caves in Afganistan.

    Good, increase troops

    Russia are the aggressors

    Of course, Iraq, Hummus, fund it good..

    Excuse me, it was a diet patriot act!

    Of course keep bases in Iraq, the fucking oils in Iraq right?

    what is that? code?

    Iran, syria and Pakistan want to wipe Israel off the map.

    Of course he will spend trillions, it's called 'bling bling'


    pre emptive? SO? attack first, why wait?

    They are just advisors to him, it means nothing.
  • MrBrian wrote:
    So what if he's pro afghan war? Terrorist are in caves in Afganistan.

    Good, increase troops

    Russia are the aggressors

    Of course, Iraq, Hummus, fund it good..

    Excuse me, it was a diet patriot act!

    Of course keep bases in Iraq, the fucking oils in Iraq right?

    what is that? code?

    Iran, syria and Pakistan want to wipe Israel off the map.

    Of course he will spend trillions, it's called 'bling bling'


    pre emptive? SO? attack first, why wait?

    They are just advisors to him, it means nothing.

    And so the excuses will roll...

    oblivious and opinionated
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    And so the excuses will roll...

    oblivious and opinionated

    Sour grapes! Sour grapes!

    Why do you even talk about Amercan politics? You are Canadian! Leave our Messiah alone.
Sign In or Register to comment.