House GOP Backtracking On Promised 'Reforms' Before They Even Get Started

[BlackAsCoal]

actually, none of those stories backs your actual claim of Obama moving to the right of Bush
what they DO support is he moved to be the SAME as Bush

YMMV

Oh really ..

Obama, Bush, and the Judicious Use of Hellfire Missiles

When it comes to vaporizing Americans with Hellfire missiles, what's the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration? The Bush administration fretted about the legal implications.

If Bush was having Americans killed in Pakistan in 2008, then it's not surprising that President Barack Obama is ordering the CIA to kill American cleric and accused terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2010, right? Not really—the cases are pretty different. From Woodward's account, it seems clear that the Bush administration was sincerely worried about the potential legal ramifications of killing Americans abroad—"the CIA would not reveal the particulars [of the attack] due to the implications under American law."

Much has changed since the Bush administration left office. Two years ago, the CIA was worrying about legal issues surrounding the killing of Americans at an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan. Now the Obama administration has apparently put American citizens on a "targeted killing" list.

The drone strikes described in Woodward's book aren't even the first example of the Bush administration worrying about the propriety of something the Obama administration seems comfortable with. Kamal Derwish (aka Ahmed Hijazi), a US citizen and alleged terrorist, was killed by a missile strike in Yemen in November 2002. At the time, US officials were quick to emphasize to reporters that Derwish was not the target of the attack.

By contrast, the Obama administration makes no bones about targeting Al-Awlaki or other US citizens. Dennis Blair, the former Director of National Intelligence, admitted that citizens are targeted for killing in a public congressional hearing in January. On Friday, the government responded to a lawsuit intended to obtain an injunction against killing Al-Awlaki without due process. The lawsuit, which was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, has little chance of success.

Not sure where "right" is to you brother .. but without question, Obama is to the right of Bush on many foreign policy issues, like his stepped up misssle murders of innocent people in Pakistan .. as well as some domestic issues .. like his attacks on civil liberties.

He is Bush Jr. .. but he's gone even further because unlike Bush, he believes he can get away with it without much critcism.

Guess who else believes that Obama has gone further than Bush?

Bush Officials Praise Obama For Going Further Than Bush in Terror Crackdown

President Barack Obama has finally received praise for his terror policies . . . from Bush officials. Two of the officials commonly named as responsible for allegedly criminal acts during the Bush Administration, former National Intelligence Director retired Vice Admiral Michael McConnel and former Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden, are heaping praise on Obama for going even farther than George Bush in his policies. Now, there is an ignoble accomplishment.

McConnell is positively gushing with praise that “the new administration has been as aggressive, if not more aggressive, in pursing these issues . . . ” Hayden, who is most often cited for the unlawful surveillance programs under Bush, stated “I thank god every day for the continuity” shown by Obama in continuing Bush’s approach to the law and terror.

President Obama has certainly earned these professional references. He blocked public interest lawsuits in federal court on the unlawful surveillance program while blocking any investigation into torture. Hayden was the direct beneficiary of these policies. It is like Bernie Madoff praising the enforcement policies of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that allowed him to thrive in the 1990s. When many of us were stating that Hayden’s surveillance programs were clearly unlawful, Hayden was insisting that his own lawyers at the NSA had reviewed the program and were satisfied that it was lawful. This was the same tactic used by Bush in selecting biased lawyers to give clearly unsound legal analysis to support unlawful programs. Ultimately, when Hayden’s program was brought into federal court and faced actual judicial review, Hayden opposed such independent and competent review — and Obama ultimately stopped it.

Bush Officials Praise Obama For Going Further Than Bush in Terror Crackdown JONATHAN TURLEY

and you ignore that the dems kept BUsh from doing those things
but they have no problem with obama doing them,

I don't ignore anything and I take democrats to task for their hypocrisy .. just as I take them to task for being anti-BUSH-war, not antiwar.

Hypocrisy and insane policies are not reserved for just republicans.

 

[loosecannon]

If the Democrats AKA 'Party of No' just shut the f*ck up and get out of the way,things could get better. The GOP has a real opportunity here. Lets hope they deliver.

They won't, they are already caving in and saying they will work with Obama to keep the bills paid ans the deficits growing.

The repubs have always been the party of mo bigger deficits. Why would anybody expect otherwise?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh really ..

Obama, Bush, and the Judicious Use of Hellfire Missiles

When it comes to vaporizing Americans with Hellfire missiles, what's the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration? The Bush administration fretted about the legal implications.

If Bush was having Americans killed in Pakistan in 2008, then it's not surprising that President Barack Obama is ordering the CIA to kill American cleric and accused terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2010, right? Not really—the cases are pretty different. From Woodward's account, it seems clear that the Bush administration was sincerely worried about the potential legal ramifications of killing Americans abroad—"the CIA would not reveal the particulars [of the attack] due to the implications under American law."

Much has changed since the Bush administration left office. Two years ago, the CIA was worrying about legal issues surrounding the killing of Americans at an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan. Now the Obama administration has apparently put American citizens on a "targeted killing" list.

The drone strikes described in Woodward's book aren't even the first example of the Bush administration worrying about the propriety of something the Obama administration seems comfortable with. Kamal Derwish (aka Ahmed Hijazi), a US citizen and alleged terrorist, was killed by a missile strike in Yemen in November 2002. At the time, US officials were quick to emphasize to reporters that Derwish was not the target of the attack.

By contrast, the Obama administration makes no bones about targeting Al-Awlaki or other US citizens. Dennis Blair, the former Director of National Intelligence, admitted that citizens are targeted for killing in a public congressional hearing in January. On Friday, the government responded to a lawsuit intended to obtain an injunction against killing Al-Awlaki without due process. The lawsuit, which was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, has little chance of success.

Not sure where "right" is to you brother .. but without question, Obama is to the right of Bush on many foreign policy issues, like his stepped up misssle murders of innocent people in Pakistan .. as well as some domestic issues .. like his attacks on civil liberties.

He is Bush Jr. .. but he's gone even further because unlike Bush, he believes he can get away with it without much critcism.

Guess who else believes that Obama has gone further than Bush?

Bush Officials Praise Obama For Going Further Than Bush in Terror Crackdown

President Barack Obama has finally received praise for his terror policies . . . from Bush officials. Two of the officials commonly named as responsible for allegedly criminal acts during the Bush Administration, former National Intelligence Director retired Vice Admiral Michael McConnel and former Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden, are heaping praise on Obama for going even farther than George Bush in his policies. Now, there is an ignoble accomplishment.

McConnell is positively gushing with praise that “the new administration has been as aggressive, if not more aggressive, in pursing these issues . . . ” Hayden, who is most often cited for the unlawful surveillance programs under Bush, stated “I thank god every day for the continuity” shown by Obama in continuing Bush’s approach to the law and terror.

President Obama has certainly earned these professional references. He blocked public interest lawsuits in federal court on the unlawful surveillance program while blocking any investigation into torture. Hayden was the direct beneficiary of these policies. It is like Bernie Madoff praising the enforcement policies of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that allowed him to thrive in the 1990s. When many of us were stating that Hayden’s surveillance programs were clearly unlawful, Hayden was insisting that his own lawyers at the NSA had reviewed the program and were satisfied that it was lawful. This was the same tactic used by Bush in selecting biased lawyers to give clearly unsound legal analysis to support unlawful programs. Ultimately, when Hayden’s program was brought into federal court and faced actual judicial review, Hayden opposed such independent and competent review — and Obama ultimately stopped it.

Bush Officials Praise Obama For Going Further Than Bush in Terror Crackdown JONATHAN TURLEY

and you ignore that the dems kept BUsh from doing those things
but they have no problem with obama doing them,

I don't ignore anything and I take democrats to task for their hypocrisy .. just as I take them to task for being anti-BUSH-war, not antiwar.

Hypocrisy and insane policies are not reserved for just republicans.

I don't ignore anything and I take democrats to task for their hypocrisy .. just as I take them to task for being anti-BUSH-war, not antiwar.

Really? You take the democrats to task for the hypocrisy. Interesting. Care to explain your view on the transparency of this last congress?

Care to give your opinion on obama allowing lobboyist to work in his adminastraition?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

If the Democrats AKA 'Party of No' become the 'Party of Yes',progress will be made. The GOP has the 'Pledge to America' to use as their Road Map. If they stay on that road,things will get better. I guess we'll see though.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

um, that was the "contract WITH America"

Some called it that .. I didn't/don't.

By whatever named it was called, it was a total failure.

Now Newt is back. :0)

only LIBS called it "on"

That ain't true, I'm not a lib.

Again, it hardly matters who you call it good brother. This "rose" by another name is still a gross and glaring failure.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

and you ignore that the dems kept BUsh from doing those things
but they have no problem with obama doing them,

I don't ignore anything and I take democrats to task for their hypocrisy .. just as I take them to task for being anti-BUSH-war, not antiwar.

Hypocrisy and insane policies are not reserved for just republicans.

I don't ignore anything and I take democrats to task for their hypocrisy .. just as I take them to task for being anti-BUSH-war, not antiwar.

Really? You take the democrats to task for the hypocrisy. Interesting. Care to explain your view on the transparency of this last congress?

Care to give your opinion on obama allowing lobboyist to work in his adminastraition?

No problem.

1. What transparency?

2. Obama is a corporatist

 

[DiveCon]

Some called it that .. I didn't/don't.

By whatever named it was called, it was a total failure.

Now Newt is back. :0)

only LIBS called it "on"

That ain't true, I'm not a lib.

Again, it hardly matters who you call it good brother. This "rose" by another name is still a gross and glaring failure.

its a lib talking point, and it wasnt such a failure

 

[BlackAsCoal]

only LIBS called it "on"

That ain't true, I'm not a lib.

Again, it hardly matters who you call it good brother. This "rose" by another name is still a gross and glaring failure.

its a lib talking point, and it wasnt such a failure

It was and is an excellent talking point .. and it was a monumental failure .. which has contributed to republicans shying away from the so-called "Pledge on America"

The only thing good about that piece of shit rag was that it rid the world of vermin like Gingrich. Sure he's still around but completely nuetered .. no chance of ever regaining any power to affect us.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't ignore anything and I take democrats to task for their hypocrisy .. just as I take them to task for being anti-BUSH-war, not antiwar.

Hypocrisy and insane policies are not reserved for just republicans.

I don't ignore anything and I take democrats to task for their hypocrisy .. just as I take them to task for being anti-BUSH-war, not antiwar.

Really? You take the democrats to task for the hypocrisy. Interesting. Care to explain your view on the transparency of this last congress?

Care to give your opinion on obama allowing lobboyist to work in his adminastraition?

No problem.

1. What transparency?

2. Obama is a corporatist

The transparency obama and the democrats said they were going to have

You think obama is a corporatist?

 

[DiveCon]

That ain't true, I'm not a lib.

Again, it hardly matters who you call it good brother. This "rose" by another name is still a gross and glaring failure.

its a lib talking point, and it wasnt such a failure

It was and is an excellent talking point .. and it was a monumental failure .. which has contributed to republicans shying away from the so-called "Pledge on America"

The only thing good about that piece of shit rag was that it rid the world of vermin like Gingrich. Sure he's still around but completely nuetered .. no chance of ever regaining any power to affect us.

it was a stupid talking point and it was no failure at all
it was a massive success
look at the growth that occurred after it was enacted

 

[Rinata]

ANYONE surprised this article posted by Flaylo is from the Huffington POST?

I'm not.

Nor is it surprising that you didn't have the capacity to refute what was said.

If the Post is lying about what republicans said, surely an intelligent mind could easily refute it .. but that takes us back to the question of capacity.

Always told you that you're an idiot, Steph.

 

[Rinata]

LOL..

Nor is it surprising that you didn't have the capacity to refute what was said.

So now we are SUPPOSE to REFUTE something that HASN'T HAPPENED YET.

Does your lack of comprehension know no limits???

 

[DiveCon]

ANYONE surprised this article posted by Flaylo is from the Huffington POST?

I'm not.

Nor is it surprising that you didn't have the capacity to refute what was said.

If the Post is lying about what republicans said, surely an intelligent mind could easily refute it .. but that takes us back to the question of capacity.

Always told you that you're an idiot, Steph.

^^^^Massive irony here

 

[Rinata]

LOL..

Nor is it surprising that you didn't have the capacity to refute what was said.

So now we are SUPPOSE to REFUTE something that HASN'T HAPPENED YET.

Gloriously funny, is it not? Even funnier.... some posters don't get why it's funny.

Funny?? Try stupid.

 

[Rinata]

No one with an IQ over room temperature takes what the HuffPuff "reports" as anything more than partisan bullshit.

What's really funny... the OP is prone to hysteria over every sentence uttered by FNC... and yet apparently sees the HuffPuff as non-partisan. He's an intellectual lightweight. So are you if you accept this shit as fact.

Oh really ..

Wall Street Journal - House GOP Backtracking On Promised 'Reforms' Before They Even Get Started
Politics - WSJ.com: House GOP Backtracking On Promised 'Reforms' Before They Even Get Started

I know .. the Wall Street Journal is just a liberal rag. Who'd take them seriously.

Guess that makes you an idiot.

OH NO, REPUBLICANS DON'T BACKTRACK

Republicans Flip-Flop on Earmarks Issue

After realizing how difficult it will be to secure funding for projects such as fixing bridges and building water systems, Republicans in the House and Senate are having second thoughts about their votes in support of a blanket ban on earmarks.

Some are trying to redefine the term in order to give themselves wiggle room. GOP Rep. Jack Kingston said "we have gone one step further than we meant to go," while Rep. Michele Bachmann questioned how transportation gets funded without earmarks.

Meanwhile, left-leaning and libertarian commentators are having fun watching Republicans squirm as they "learn what the word ´Ban´ means," as Reason Magazine put it, while Outside the Beltway called the ban "purely symbolic and utterly pointless."
Republicans Flip-Flop on Earmarks Issue

Tea Party Screwed By Republicans Again - Rand Paul Flip/Flops on Earmarks

Rand Paul Suggests He'll Fight For Earmarks He Earlier Promised To Ban
Political Truths: Tea Party Screwed By Republicans Again - Rand Paul Flip/Flops on Earmarks #p2 #tcot #teaparty

They all flipflop, backtrack, and outright lie.

Democrats, republicans .. they're all liars.

To jump and pretend offense because politicians are known liars is something one would expect from children and other people who don't know shit about politics.

If you had the brain you were born with, you would know that I don't defend either side.... I occasionally defend an individual. Had the OP linked the the WSJ, I would have considered the source, but the OP is incapable of linking to anything other than the HuffPuff. I mock him, and his "source"... because both are ridiculous.

However, the new congress is yet to be seated so, we will see what they do. If they have not learned the lesson of November, they will pay the consequence. Simple.

Oh, please!!! We all know exactly what side you support. Ashamed of it?? Why not own it?? You're such a liar.

 

[California Girl]

Nor is it surprising that you didn't have the capacity to refute what was said.

If the Post is lying about what republicans said, surely an intelligent mind could easily refute it .. but that takes us back to the question of capacity.

Always told you that you're an idiot, Steph.

^^^^Massive irony here

Fat ass calling someone else fat.... I love the smell of irony in the morning... or in the afternoon... in fact, at any time.

 

[California Girl]

Oh really ..

Wall Street Journal - House GOP Backtracking On Promised 'Reforms' Before They Even Get Started
Politics - WSJ.com: House GOP Backtracking On Promised 'Reforms' Before They Even Get Started

I know .. the Wall Street Journal is just a liberal rag. Who'd take them seriously.

Guess that makes you an idiot.

OH NO, REPUBLICANS DON'T BACKTRACK

Republicans Flip-Flop on Earmarks Issue

After realizing how difficult it will be to secure funding for projects such as fixing bridges and building water systems, Republicans in the House and Senate are having second thoughts about their votes in support of a blanket ban on earmarks.

Some are trying to redefine the term in order to give themselves wiggle room. GOP Rep. Jack Kingston said "we have gone one step further than we meant to go," while Rep. Michele Bachmann questioned how transportation gets funded without earmarks.

Meanwhile, left-leaning and libertarian commentators are having fun watching Republicans squirm as they "learn what the word ´Ban´ means," as Reason Magazine put it, while Outside the Beltway called the ban "purely symbolic and utterly pointless."
Republicans Flip-Flop on Earmarks Issue

Tea Party Screwed By Republicans Again - Rand Paul Flip/Flops on Earmarks

Rand Paul Suggests He'll Fight For Earmarks He Earlier Promised To Ban
Political Truths: Tea Party Screwed By Republicans Again - Rand Paul Flip/Flops on Earmarks #p2 #tcot #teaparty

They all flipflop, backtrack, and outright lie.

Democrats, republicans .. they're all liars.

To jump and pretend offense because politicians are known liars is something one would expect from children and other people who don't know shit about politics.

If you had the brain you were born with, you would know that I don't defend either side.... I occasionally defend an individual. Had the OP linked the the WSJ, I would have considered the source, but the OP is incapable of linking to anything other than the HuffPuff. I mock him, and his "source"... because both are ridiculous.

However, the new congress is yet to be seated so, we will see what they do. If they have not learned the lesson of November, they will pay the consequence. Simple.

Oh, please!!! We all know exactly what side you support. Ashamed of it?? Why not own it?? You're such a liar.

Try not to make yourself look any more ridiculous than you already have, fatty.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Really? You take the democrats to task for the hypocrisy. Interesting. Care to explain your view on the transparency of this last congress?

Care to give your opinion on obama allowing lobboyist to work in his adminastraition?

No problem.

1. What transparency?

2. Obama is a corporatist

The transparency obama and the democrats said they were going to have

You think obama is a corporatist?

I know what you meant .. my question is where is that promised transparency? Have you seen it? Obama had no intention of delivering on that.

Of course he's a corporatist .. and an elitist. Who has been the biggest beneficiaries of his policies? Corporations.

There are essentially no liberals or progressives or many black people around him. He has great disdain for them all.

Care to look into his soul?

Research that fraud when he lost to Rep. Bobby Rush when he ran for congress.

He's an invention.

 

[boedicca]

I know what you meant .. my question is where is that promised transparency? Obama had no intention of delivering on that.

Of course he's a corporatist .. and an elitist. Who has been the biggest beneficiaries of his policies? Corporations.

There are essentially no liberals or progressives or many black people around him. He has great disdain for them all.

Care to look into his soul?

Research that fraud when he lost to Rep. Bobby Rush when he ran for congress.

He's an invention.

Surprisingly, I agree with quite a bit of this - although Obama is not a real corporatist. He's a leftwing ideologue-tool of corporatists.

 

[DiveCon]

If you had the brain you were born with, you would know that I don't defend either side.... I occasionally defend an individual. Had the OP linked the the WSJ, I would have considered the source, but the OP is incapable of linking to anything other than the HuffPuff. I mock him, and his "source"... because both are ridiculous.

However, the new congress is yet to be seated so, we will see what they do. If they have not learned the lesson of November, they will pay the consequence. Simple.

Oh, please!!! We all know exactly what side you support. Ashamed of it?? Why not own it?? You're such a liar.

Try not to make yourself look any more ridiculous than you already have, fatty.

come on cali, calling her fat, whether she is or not is not needed here