The Obama Administration thread

[pilferk]

Motive counts, in my mind.

Mine too.

IMHO, there is a difference between nation building for nation building's sake (much like what you describe, below...and what went on in Iraq) and the tact being taken in Afghanistan. 

I think they knew it was a possibility, and their central failure in dismantling the Iraqi military apparatus is one of the key reasons it played out as it did.  It can be difficult to distinguish, from 1,000s of miles away, the difference between the largely foreign driven terror movements and the largely homegrown resistance movement.  Maintaining the Iraqi military and keeping them paid would have greatly reduced the latter and given us an additional weapon to counter the former.  God knows how many lives, billions, and years were lost because of that one mistake. 

Largely, I agree.  I think the possibility was floated, but Bush felt it was remote, at best, and felt he could plow through, regardless.  It was a bad tactical mistake..one of many...and it's one of the reasons I have a hard time buying into some of the conspiracy theories that would paint his administration as far more intelligent than their actions showed them to be.  They made BAD blunder after BAD blunder, were overly heavy handed, and were completely oblivious to the indiginous population as a factor.

I can't see those tactics being followed by an administration 'smart' enough to orchestrate the kinds of conspiracies (and I'm not just talking about the one outlined by polluxlm) floated out there. 

I don't know if anyone out there plays chess (or any other tactical strategy game), but for me....the tactics define the players.  You don't see, very often, a good chess player make stupid tactical mistakes.  Likewise, you only occasionally see BAD chess players make good tactical decisions on the board.  Play enough games against someone, and you get a good idea of what they're capable of.  That's the way I feel about the Bush admin....they are who their tactics revealed them to be.

However, whether they knew it or not, I suspect it wasn't a primary concern.  The central goal of neo-conservatism is democracy.  This can be traced back to one of its philosophical founding fathers, Francis Fukuyama, who argued that states evolve toward an end-game of liberal democracy (not left-liberal...liberal meaning trade, freedoms, etc.).  Combine this with a second neo-con belief, which is that democracies don't war with other democracies, and you have a recipe for a very skewed idea of world peace...a peace that can be created by force.  Keep in mind that the idea of Iraqi democracy was meant to be a way to establish democracy in the region.  Bush gave countless speeches and comments where he addressed not just Iraqi and Afghan democracy but wider Middle East democracy. 

Exactly my point, but reasoned out and explained much better.  Bush's primary goals were, I think, the ones outlined above.  Not oil, not weapons of mass destruction, not Saddam, and not Daddy's revenge.  Those may have all played their part, but I honestly think Bush thought he could make Iraq his legacy...that he could use Iraq as the domino to tip the middle east over.  That, IMHO, is a misguided and poorly constructed piece of reasoning.  But I think it was the entire foundation of his actions....he stubbornly dug his feet into the ground, decided this was going to be his Hamburger Hill and we were going to "win" and cement his legacy.

But I have no proof of that...well, other than some anecdotal comments by members of his administration.  So I'll entertain just about any idea....some I just find more plausible than others.

[polluxlm]

It's not the nation building I'm keen on....it's the prevention of the Taliban creating a safe haven and support network for AQ.  I'm OK with them being independant, and us not having a hand in their government.  I'm NOT OK with them being a proven danger to us.  We need to make sure they're not in a position to do it again.  THAT'S what I meant.

Functionally, it probably results in the same thing.  Ideologically, though, it's a bit different.

Which Al Qaida are we talking about here? The one who builds hydrogen bombs in caves and has super secret sleeper cells all over the world ready to strike a terrible blow at any moment, or the former extremists and warlords who trained and networked with the CIA back in the 80s when they fought the Russians? The story told by the corporate media, or the story told by intelligence operatives and historians?

The existence of Al Qaida in the form propagandized by the media is highly questionable and not in any way proven. What we do know is that there is a large anti-American and anti-Western sentiment in the middle eastern region, often and especially post Iraq manifesting itself in acts of terror. A sentiment not fueled by an inherit hate for our culture or religion, but a hate for our exploitation and threats to their lands and way of life. But somehow the solution to this anti-sentiment is to deploy more brainwashed killers on their lands and bomb a few more weddings? Barack and George sure share the same twisted logic. 

The sane and adult thing to do would be to act professional and treat them like an independent nation. And if they'd still feel the urge to try and cross the atlantic and create some havoc it's not like the country doesn't have a million secret agents, 500 satellites, unrivaled infrastructure, knowledge and the unlimited checkbook to take care of such a situation. And should they somehow still end up managing to kill a few thousand citizens it's not the end of the world. 40.000 die behind the wheel every year, life goes on. Surely that's preferable and more honorable to invading a few countries across the globe, piss the world off, put yourself in bottomless debt and kill a million for good measure. Especially when it's coming from a country that a mere century ago would look at you like you were crazy for suggesting that slavery and inequality was in any way immoral.

Maybe.  But I'm not a conspiracy theorist (as I've said before) so I'm not willing to say, concretely, that was the case. I actually suspect Bush was just too stubborn to accept the information given to him on the topic.  In other words: Yes, I think there were some pretty smart men predicting the outcome...and I think some of them were telling Bush that.  I just think he completely ignored their advice and did what he wanted to do.  That's more "in character" for what we've seen.  I'm not one to believe that it was all part of some devious master plot....I just don't think he had it in HIM, and I'm not sure his cronies were bright enough to concoct it, either. 

But I likewise won't discount that they were trying to create a front for whatever reason, either.  It's a possibility.  I guess what it comes down to is you give them credit for being more intelligent than I do.

I don't give those particular characters a lot of credit for being intelligent, but I do give the system credit for being more complex than a supposed scenario where a hundred advisers pleading and begging Bush to do the sane thing while he just goes "Fuck that, he tried to kill my daddy. Invade that country!". Something becoming more and more evident lately as we see Obama puppeting up to big business like Bush had never left office. A lot of money to be made on a prolonged war.

[pilferk]

The sane and adult thing to do would be to act professional and treat them like an independent nation. And if they'd still feel the urge to try and cross the atlantic and create some havoc it's not like the country doesn't have a million secret agents, 500 satellites, unrivaled infrastructure, knowledge and the unlimited checkbook to take care of such a situation. And should they somehow still end up managing to kill a few thousand citizens it's not the end of the world. 40.000 die behind the wheel every year, life goes on. Surely that's preferable and more honorable to invading a few countries across the globe, piss the world off, put yourself in bottomless debt and kill a million for good measure. Especially when it's coming from a country that a mere century ago would look at you like you were crazy for suggesting that slavery and inequality was in any way immoral.

Weren't we treating Afghanistan like an independant nation prior to 9/11?  I mean, ignoring the conspiracy theories, that is.

The point being...they already did commit the act of aggression, confounding our million secret agents, 500 sats, unrivaled infrastructure, knowleged and unlimited checkbook...right?   So, now we  ARE trying to take care of it.  So, instead, you propose we wait for another act of terrorism/aggression?  And then maybe another?  How about the 3rd one after that?  If you follow your logic, above, it becomes circular. At some point, you have to stop giving the benefit of the doubt...or simply roll over and let them beat you to death.  It would be a great policy PRIOR to 9/11, and one I would agree with (and agreed with in relation to Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11) in handling the world, at large, today.   But not in relation to Afghanistan AFTER 9/11...the situation you say we should "wait for" has, essentially, already happened.  So we should address it in the ONE country proved to be involved.  We haven't done that yet (say thanks to ole GW who decided to basically abandon the real front for one of his own creation).


And I'm not all that cavalier about death....especially the type of death we're talking about in terms of terrorist acts.  So no, I don't think it's more honorable to sit back and, essentially, allow a terrorist attack on our country.  I think, actually, it would be assinine.  I think the tact of reducing the death toll to numbers is a plausible one to take in a theoretical argument....but not so realistic when there are burnt and charred bodies to count, and victims families to attend to.  Once those bodies have faces the discussion becomes a lot less acedemic and the statistics a lot more meaningful (on both sides of your analogy).  On top of that...I think freedom's right: motive counts.  There is a fundamental difference between murdering 1000's and 40k car crashes.  I KNOW the majority of the car crashes were not intentional (and, FYI, I'm in a position to comment, from a professional level, on that...they're numbers we study).  As before, functionally, the outcome might be the same.  But the "ideology" is certainly not.

To point:  The invasion of Afghanistan didn't "piss off the word".  The Iraq invasion, and our actions surrounding it, did.  They're unrelated, really.  We pretty much had full support of the world, after 9/11, going into Afghanistan and the good graces of most of the global popluation.  Bush pissed that away, post haste.

As for what occurred a century ago....I don't see the point.  100 years, in terms of cultural advancement, has proven to be a pretty long period of time. Ditto in terms of technical advancement.  If you were talking about 10 years ago...I might see your point.  But 100?  I no longer see the hypocrisy.

I don't give those particular characters a lot of credit for being intelligent, but I do give the system credit for being more complex than a supposed scenario where a hundred advisers pleading and begging Bush to do the sane thing while he just goes "Fuck that, he tried to kill my daddy. Invade that country!". Something becoming more and more evident lately as we see Obama puppeting up to big business like Bush had never left office. A lot of money to be made on a prolonged war.

I don't think it was nearly as simple as that.  But I likewise don't think that the system, or the administration, set out for a prolonged war.  Again, I'm just not put together to buy into the underground conspiracy stuff, and...as I've said before..that's where we're always going to disagree.

I suspect Bush's advisors weren't begging and pleading...that's not how this administration apparently worked.  I'm sure they all made their cases, he weighed the options (badly, as it turns out) and looked at his (and his cronies) goals (and don't fool yourself..."legacy" was a primary one for him, and might be the one he failed at, out of his entire tenure, the most spectacularly) and decided to push on, anyway.  His tactics, his advisors tactics, his entire administration's tactics....all speak to being heavy handed, not particularly well reasoned, and not particularly creative.   I think, in this case, the spade is a spade.  Not a diamond disguising itself as a club masquerading as a spade.  Again, though, that's just MHO.

[freedom78]

The sane and adult thing to do would be to act professional and treat them like an independent nation. And if they'd still feel the urge to try and cross the atlantic and create some havoc it's not like the country doesn't have a million secret agents, 500 satellites, unrivaled infrastructure, knowledge and the unlimited checkbook to take care of such a situation. And should they somehow still end up managing to kill a few thousand citizens it's not the end of the world. 40.000 die behind the wheel every year, life goes on. Surely that's preferable and more honorable to invading a few countries across the globe, piss the world off, put yourself in bottomless debt and kill a million for good measure. Especially when it's coming from a country that a mere century ago would look at you like you were crazy for suggesting that slavery and inequality was in any way immoral.

Independent states are responsible for maintaining their own law and order.  Had the Taliban dealt effectively with the AQ leadership after the attacks of 9/11, then I'd agree with treating them in a "professional" manner. 

I'm uncertain as to the percentage of car crash deaths that are intentional, but it's hardly comparable.  As said, motive counts.  It's what separates murder from accident, self-defense, and even manslaughter. 

[Smoking Guns]

All of you need to watch Rambo III.  Filmed in 1988, it talks about all this same stuff.  Nothing has changed.  I am serious, if we just watched Rambo 3 our asses would be gone.

[polluxlm]

Weren't we treating Afghanistan like an independant nation prior to 9/11?  I mean, ignoring the conspiracy theories, that is.

The point being...they already did commit the act of aggression, confounding our million secret agents, 500 sats, unrivaled infrastructure, knowleged and unlimited checkbook...right?   So, now we  ARE trying to take care of it.  So, instead, you propose we wait for another act of terrorism/aggression?  And then maybe another?  How about the 3rd one after that?  If you follow your logic, above, it becomes circular. At some point, you have to stop giving the benefit of the doubt...or simply roll over and let them beat you to death.  It would be a great policy PRIOR to 9/11, and one I would agree with (and agreed with in relation to Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11) in handling the world, at large, today.   But not in relation to Afghanistan AFTER 9/11...the situation you say we should "wait for" has, essentially, already happened.  So we should address it in the ONE country proved to be involved.  We haven't done that yet (say thanks to ole GW who decided to basically abandon the real front for one of his own creation).


And I'm not all that cavalier about death....especially the type of death we're talking about in terms of terrorist acts.  So no, I don't think it's more honorable to sit back and, essentially, allow a terrorist attack on our country.  I think, actually, it would be assinine.  I think the tact of reducing the death toll to numbers is a plausible one to take in a theoretical argument....but not so realistic when there are burnt and charred bodies to count, and victims families to attend to.  Once those bodies have faces the discussion becomes a lot less acedemic and the statistics a lot more meaningful (on both sides of your analogy).  On top of that...I think freedom's right: motive counts.  There is a fundamental difference between murdering 1000's and 40k car crashes.  I KNOW the majority of the car crashes were not intentional (and, FYI, I'm in a position to comment, from a professional level, on that...they're numbers we study).  As before, functionally, the outcome might be the same.  But the "ideology" is certainly not.

To point:  The invasion of Afghanistan didn't "piss off the word".  The Iraq invasion, and our actions surrounding it, did.  They're unrelated, really.  We pretty much had full support of the world, after 9/11, going into Afghanistan and the good graces of most of the global popluation.  Bush pissed that away, post haste.

As for what occurred a century ago....I don't see the point.  100 years, in terms of cultural advancement, has proven to be a pretty long period of time. Ditto in terms of technical advancement.  If you were talking about 10 years ago...I might see your point.  But 100?  I no longer see the hypocrisy.

You are equating the acts of a group of people to those of an entire country. Far fetched in itself, and apart from the bold claims made by the Bush administration, far from proven. Hell, the government can't even prove that Bin Laden was the mastermind and Tony Blair himself admitted that the supposed guilt of the Afghan government wasn't something likely to be upheld in any western court.

It's not about hypocrisy, it's about acknowledging that nations evolve on their own accord at their own pace. If the Afghan people so hard wished to adopt the imperfect system of democracy they would have done so long ago by their own hand.

I don't think it was nearly as simple as that.  But I likewise don't think that the system, or the administration, set out for a prolonged war.  Again, I'm just not put together to buy into the underground conspiracy stuff, and...as I've said before..that's where we're always going to disagree.

I suspect Bush's advisors weren't begging and pleading...that's not how this administration apparently worked.  I'm sure they all made their cases, he weighed the options (badly, as it turns out) and looked at his (and his cronies) goals (and don't fool yourself..."legacy" was a primary one for him, and might be the one he failed at, out of his entire tenure, the most spectacularly) and decided to push on, anyway.  His tactics, his advisors tactics, his entire administration's tactics....all speak to being heavy handed, not particularly well reasoned, and not particularly creative.   I think, in this case, the spade is a spade.  Not a diamond disguising itself as a club masquerading as a spade.  Again, though, that's just MHO.

They did not set out to fight a prolonged war, any politician would be ludicrous to do so, but there were massive pressure all along from the powerful interest groups such as the Jew lobby, arms industry, Exxon & Friends, the Banking cartels etc. And that continues to this day. In fact, Obama is probably more likely to give in to this pressure given his extremely pragmatic character.

[polluxlm]

Independent states are responsible for maintaining their own law and order.  Had the Taliban dealt effectively with the AQ leadership after the attacks of 9/11, then I'd agree with treating them in a "professional" manner. 

I'm uncertain as to the percentage of car crash deaths that are intentional, but it's hardly comparable.  As said, motive counts.  It's what separates murder from accident, self-defense, and even manslaughter. 

Once again you're basing your arguments on the romanticized tale told by the Bush administration, which more and more is starting to look like pure propaganda on the level of the Reichstag fire. And while you continue to quarrel on this highly complex subject which none of us will ever know the full truth of, you conveniently forget that an American presence in the middle east has been wanted and deemed necessary by both high end officials and political and strategic experts for quite a few years prior to 2001. Read Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard if you want an alternative theory and motive to why your country is really trying to accomplish in the middle east.

There's a lot of coincidences in the world of power politics, or so they say.

Enough of this black and white Level 1 think that is propagated by the government through the corporate media cartel, which believability is on the level of a cops and robbers tale found in a children's novel.

[pilferk]

You are equating the acts of a group of people to those of an entire country. Far fetched in itself, and apart from the bold claims made by the Bush administration, far from proven. Hell, the government can't even prove that Bin Laden was the mastermind and Tony Blair himself admitted that the supposed guilt of the Afghan government wasn't something likely to be upheld in any western court.

No, actually I'm not.  I'm saying their government participated in the support and funding of the perpetrators.  So it is in our best interests that THAT government is no longer in power.  And that government needs to be held accountable.  If that form of government continues to garner support within the country itself....then yes, those people, by way or their support, are responsible.

The thing is:  We're not going to go in, depose the Taliban, and set up another dictatorship, extremist military state, or something else that our goverment thinks might undermine our own national security.  So while I agree...the people should ultimately decide what form their government takes, I'm not actually naive enough to think it would be 100% so (and no, I don't think you are, either). 

The rest...again, conspiracy theories are where we're going to part company.  From the evidence I've seen, I'm pretty confident we got this one right:  AQ was training in Afghanistan, being funded (directly and indirectly) by the Taliban, and was basically considered a state funded organization by that group.  I've seen nothing credible (and yes, I've looked) to dissuade me from tha topinion.

It's not about hypocrisy, it's about acknowledging that nations evolve on their own accord at their own pace. If the Afghan people so hard wished to adopt the imperfect system of democracy they would have done so long ago by their own hand.

I'm not so sure.  Countries are often pushed by large, "catastrophic" level events.  I'm not sure I'd consider the Civil War and the post Civil War years to be "evolving on their own accord and at their own pace".  I think the Confederacy would largely agree.  Ditto with things like equal rights, women's suffrage, etc.  Those took large scale protest movements (some of them pretty radical) to effect change.  And that's in a country set up to allow such things.  In a country which DISALLOWS such things (witness China), it seems, historically, to often take a pretty powerful EXTERNAL source to effect change.  Not always, for sure.  But not "never", either.

They did not set out to fight a prolonged war, any politician would be ludicrous to do so, but there were massive pressure all along from the powerful interest groups such as the Jew lobby, arms industry, Exxon & Friends, the Banking cartels etc. And that continues to this day. In fact, Obama is probably more likely to give in to this pressure given his extremely pragmatic character.

Again, the conspiracy theories are where we'll part company.  I find a large scale global conspiracy to perpetuate war to be.....hard to believe.  Not because the media tells me so, but because coordination of such a thing would require such huge infrastructure, and such huge participation...in this day and age, it would be too juicy a story, with too wide ranging a set of participants, to keep it quiet.  JHMO.

[freedom78]

Once again you're basing your arguments on the romanticized tale told by the Bush administration, which more and more is starting to look like pure propaganda on the level of the Reichstag fire.

I dispute the idea that I'm basing anything on a rote repetition of the Bush admin.   

And while you continue to quarrel on this highly complex subject which none of us will ever know the full truth of, you conveniently forget that an American presence in the middle east has been wanted and deemed necessary by both high end officials and political and strategic experts for quite a few years prior to 2001.

What's your point?  That there's no 100%, clear cut "good guy"?   

[horsey]

how bout .
when i was in rehap right,yeah funny story but true.
the president rode by the place an we stood outside an watched.
so friggin cool too it couldn't ever happen again.
well i got away with alot at the place too.like ordering fast food on satuerday's.
when other people weren't allowed lol.staff thought i was great lol.
mighta been im a good person afterall shit what ......

[Smoking Guns]

Looks like the health bill could be an epic fail.  Seems to be a lot of pissed off folks on the Democratic side, especially Howard Dean.  Now looks like they are just passing something just to pass something.  That is unfortunate.  Oh well, what a cluster fuck.  Dems have a majority, and they still can't get what they want.

[freedom78]

Looks like the health bill could be an epic fail.  Seems to be a lot of pissed off folks on the Democratic side, especially Howard Dean.  Now looks like they are just passing something just to pass something.  That is unfortunate.  Oh well, what a cluster fuck.  Dems have a majority, and they still can't get what they want.

This "democracy" has become ridiculous.  One side will filibuster everything, so you have to have a supermajority to get anything done.  The other side has a few obstructionists, like Joe Lieberman, who would rather make the front page than do things they're on record as believing in. 

[Smoking Guns]

Looks like the health bill could be an epic fail.  Seems to be a lot of pissed off folks on the Democratic side, especially Howard Dean.  Now looks like they are just passing something just to pass something.  That is unfortunate.  Oh well, what a cluster fuck.  Dems have a majority, and they still can't get what they want.

This "democracy" has become ridiculous.  One side will filibuster everything, so you have to have a supermajority to get anything done.  The other side has a few obstructionists, like Joe Lieberman, who would rather make the front page than do things they're on record as believing in. 

This goes back to Obama to leaving this up to Pelosi and fucking Harry Reid to get it right.  He should have been more heavy handed.  How obvious was it that insurance and prescription drugs both went up to brace for the reduction they were going to get.  Man, we are screwed. 

[pilferk]

This goes back to Obama to leaving this up to Pelosi and fucking Harry Reid to get it right.  He should have been more heavy handed.  How obvious was it that insurance and prescription drugs both went up to brace for the reduction they were going to get.  Man, we are screwed. 

Obama isn't a legislator.  Thus the seperation of powers.  He can "encourage", but how heavy handed can he actually be with the leaders of his own party? 

It's all well and good to say he should have been more "heavy handed", but I just don't see what he could have done to accomplish that.  He has no real power over the Speaker and the Majority leader.  He can only peddle his influence to a point...and I think he's done that.  Beyond that, you have to let Congress do their job.

[freedom78]

Looks like the health bill could be an epic fail.  Seems to be a lot of pissed off folks on the Democratic side, especially Howard Dean.  Now looks like they are just passing something just to pass something.  That is unfortunate.  Oh well, what a cluster fuck.  Dems have a majority, and they still can't get what they want.

This "democracy" has become ridiculous.  One side will filibuster everything, so you have to have a supermajority to get anything done.  The other side has a few obstructionists, like Joe Lieberman, who would rather make the front page than do things they're on record as believing in. 

This goes back to Obama to leaving this up to Pelosi and fucking Harry Reid to get it right.  He should have been more heavy handed.  How obvious was it that insurance and prescription drugs both went up to brace for the reduction they were going to get.  Man, we are screwed. 

The last time a President tried to legislate healthcare the Congress got pissy and wouldn't pass it.  I won't make an argument that either Pelosi or Reid is an amazing leader, but they've been in Congress long enough to know process and would generally be better at getting things through than Obama would, on his own.  The real problem is that one side clearly has no respect for the will of the people.  Obama promised health care overhaul, it's been a part of the Democratic platform for decades, and yet when Dems win overwhelmingly the GOP says "but the people don't really want it".  What a fucking crock of shit. 

[Smoking Guns]

This goes back to Obama to leaving this up to Pelosi and fucking Harry Reid to get it right.  He should have been more heavy handed.  How obvious was it that insurance and prescription drugs both went up to brace for the reduction they were going to get.  Man, we are screwed. 

Obama isn't a legislator.  Thus the seperation of powers.  He can "encourage", but how heavy handed can he actually be with the leaders of his own party? 

It's all well and good to say he should have been more "heavy handed", but I just don't see what he could have done to accomplish that.  He has no real power over the Speaker and the Majority leader.  He can only peddle his influence to a point...and I think he's done that.  Beyond that, you have to let Congress do their job.

Barack didn't even set any guidlines for them to follow.  He had no real "plan" per se.  FUCK, HAND THEM A FUCKING OUTLINE.  You or I could have done what he did and told other people to come up with health care reform.  I still don't know what Barack's vision was for it... THAT TELLS ME HE SHOULD HAVE A)TAKEN MORE TIME TO DO THE PROPER STEPS AND OUTLINE HIS GOALS AND VISIONS AND WORK WITHIN THEM B)SHUT THE FUCK UP AND WAIT TILL 2010 TO PASS THIS.  He wanted it passed for momentum and for some good news since all we have been getting is bad news. 

And to all those that say its the Republican's fault, FUCK THAT.  These fuckers still say they don't want to be part of the new health plan.  THAT FUCKING KILLS ME.  They should be part of the new plan to show they stand behind it, but no, they still get to use the superior version health plan.  Hypocrites.  They are all bought and paid for.  The all sold their souls, Dems and Reps.  This is EXACTLY why we need a third party.

[pilferk]

Barack didn't even set any guidlines for them to follow.  He had no real "plan" per se.  FUCK, HAND THEM A FUCKING OUTLINE.  You or I could have done what he did and told other people to come up with health care reform.  I still don't know what Barack's vision was for it... THAT TELLS ME HE SHOULD HAVE A)TAKEN MORE TIME TO DO THE PROPER STEPS AND OUTLINE HIS GOALS AND VISIONS AND WORK WITHIN THEM B)SHUT THE FUCK UP AND WAIT TILL 2010 TO PASS THIS.  He wanted it passed for momentum and for some good news since all we have been getting is bad news. 

And to all those that say its the Republican's fault, FUCK THAT.  These fuckers still say they don't want to be part of the new health plan.  THAT FUCKING KILLS ME.  They should be part of the new plan to show they stand behind it, but no, they still get to use the superior version health plan.  Hypocrites.  They are all bought and paid for.  The all sold their souls, Dems and Reps.  This is EXACTLY why we need a third party.

Uh, yes he did.  He very clearly outlined the things he expected in a health care plan during his speech to the joint session of Congress.  He outlined them again this past week when applying them as a litmus test to the current bill in debate.  I don't think YOU not knowing about it is any sort of measuring stick for much of anything, really...especially when his "outline" was widely publicized.

Was it general (rather than super specific)?  Yes..but that's a function of his duties.  Again, he's not a legislator.  He can't "exact" Congress into the bill...that's NEVER worked all that well.  Clinton tried it and it was a fiasco.  He did exactly what he should do:  Give them a general outline of what he expects, and let them hash out the details.  Basically, letting the system work as intended...

[sandman]

Looks like the health bill could be an epic fail.  Seems to be a lot of pissed off folks on the Democratic side, especially Howard Dean.  Now looks like they are just passing something just to pass something.  That is unfortunate.  Oh well, what a cluster fuck.  Dems have a majority, and they still can't get what they want.

This "democracy" has become ridiculous.  One side will filibuster everything, so you have to have a supermajority to get anything done.  The other side has a few obstructionists, like Joe Lieberman, who would rather make the front page than do things they're on record as believing in. 

This goes back to Obama to leaving this up to Pelosi and fucking Harry Reid to get it right.  He should have been more heavy handed.  How obvious was it that insurance and prescription drugs both went up to brace for the reduction they were going to get.  Man, we are screwed. 

The last time a President tried to legislate healthcare the Congress got pissy and wouldn't pass it.  I won't make an argument that either Pelosi or Reid is an amazing leader, but they've been in Congress long enough to know process and would generally be better at getting things through than Obama would, on his own.  The real problem is that one side clearly has no respect for the will of the people.  Obama promised health care overhaul, it's been a part of the Democratic platform for decades, and yet when Dems win overwhelmingly the GOP says "but the people don't really want it".  What a fucking crock of shit. 

i think that comment is a little extreme. aren't you just frustrated that your party has all the power and still can't accomplish anything?

the problem is that politicians feel the need to give handouts to all their special interests. so along with the goals that have been laid out, they have to add in all the bullshit. that raises the overall cost, and appears to hurt the potential effectiveness of the bill.

[pilferk]

i think that comment is a little extreme. aren't you just frustrated that your party has all the power and still can't accomplish anything?

How do you figure?  The dems do NOT have a philibuster proof supermajority without caving to (much to my shame) Leiberman.  And even then, it's tenuous. The Dems certainly don't have "all the power"....If they did, we'd have a public option, pie in the sky, Dem bill already passed.

the problem is that politicians feel the need to give handouts to all their special interests. so along with the goals that have been laid out, they have to add in all the bullshit. that raises the overall cost, and appears to hurt the potential effectiveness of the bill.

That's ONE sticking point.  But there's others.  The bill is too conservative for the liberal Dems, and was too liberal for the more conservative dems.  AND the Repubs don't want any bill, at all.  COST was only one sticking point....and it's the least important one since, ultimately, the Repubs are the ones most concerned with it AND they're going to do anything they can to find a way to vote against the bill, anyway.  Content was the far more "sticky" issue.

[sandman]

i think that comment is a little extreme. aren't you just frustrated that your party has all the power and still can't accomplish anything?

How do you figure?  The dems do NOT have a philibuster proof supermajority without caving to (much to my shame) Leiberman.  And even then, it's tenuous. The Dems certainly don't have "all the power"....If they did, we'd have a public option, pie in the sky, Dem bill already passed.

the problem is that politicians feel the need to give handouts to all their special interests. so along with the goals that have been laid out, they have to add in all the bullshit. that raises the overall cost, and appears to hurt the potential effectiveness of the bill.

That's ONE sticking point.  But there's others.  The bill is too conservative for the liberal Dems, and was too liberal for the more conservative dems.  AND the Repubs don't want any bill, at all.  COST was only one sticking point....and it's the least important one since, ultimately, the Repubs are the ones most concerned with it AND they're going to do anything they can to find a way to vote against the bill, anyway.  Content was the far more "sticky" issue.

so you agree with Freedom that "real" problem is the Republicans?