Katie and Obama....We're doing what Bush did.

[txlonghorn]

KATIE COURIC Have you ruled out trying confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in New York City?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I have not ruled it out, but I think it's important for us to take into account the practical, logistical issues involved. I mean, if you've got a city that is saying no, and a police department that's saying no, and a mayor that's saying no, that makes it difficult. But I think that the most important thing for the public to understand is we're not handling any of these cases any different than the Bush Administration handled them all through 9/11.


I thought he was gonna change things??? Unfortunately, he's wrong...again.

Bush was going for military tribunals.

 

[Sherry]

I don't understand why he would say that the most important thing for people to remember is that they're handling those cases the same as the Bush admin. Why is that most important??

 

[Xenophon]

Why are they going with a trail, KSM confessed.

Barry seems determined to waste time and money on this.

 

[txlonghorn]

Here's more....

KATIE COURIC: So, you're inviting Republicans here to the White House. Does that mean, Mr. President, you're willing to start at square one?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well I think that what I want to do is to look at the Republican ideas that are out there. And I want to be very specific. "How do you guys want to lower costs? How do you guys intend to reform the insurance market so people with preexisting conditions, for example, can get health care? How do you want to make sure that the 30 million people who don't have health insurance can get it? What are your ideas, specifically?" And if we can go step by step through a series of-- these issues, and arrive at some agreements, then procedurally, there's no reason why we can't do it a lot faster than the process took last year.

He says he's already read their proposals....so why does he need to have them deliver this information again???

Actually... the answer is simple. He wants specifics...here it is. Open the insurance market across state lines and you accomplish ALL of the things he wants answers to. Competition will create more coverage...existing conditions will be a battle ground. Prices will go down and more people will be able to afford coverage. Who knows? You might even get the insurance companies to need more employees to handle all the new insured clients....WOW!!! JOBS JOBS JOBS...

WHAT A CONCEPT!?!?

 

[beowolfe]

I don't understand why he would say that the most important thing for people to remember is that they're handling those cases the same as the Bush admin. Why is that most important??

He's talking to all of the people who didn't have a problem with the previous administration trying terrorists in federal courts who all of a sudden are acting as if this is the end of the republic.

 

[txlonghorn]

I don't understand why he would say that the most important thing for people to remember is that they're handling those cases the same as the Bush admin. Why is that most important??

He's talking to all of the people who didn't have a problem with the previous administration trying terrorists in federal courts who all of a sudden are acting as if this is the end of the republic.

Is that REALLY the most important thing? I thought the most important thing was CHANGE. But yet, he's ready and willing to defend his actions by using Bush as his backup?

Again...Bush was pushing for military tribunals...what good is a circus court in NY gonna do?

 

[Modbert]

Actually... the answer is simple. He wants specifics...here it is. Open the insurance market across state lines and you accomplish ALL of the things he wants answers to. Competition will create more coverage...existing conditions will be a battle ground. Prices will go down and more people will be able to afford coverage. Who knows? You might even get the insurance companies to need more employees to handle all the new insured clients....WOW!!! JOBS JOBS JOBS...

WHAT A CONCEPT!?!?

Fail. That's one basic idea to be built upon, not specifics.

 

[txlonghorn]

Actually... the answer is simple. He wants specifics...here it is. Open the insurance market across state lines and you accomplish ALL of the things he wants answers to. Competition will create more coverage...existing conditions will be a battle ground. Prices will go down and more people will be able to afford coverage. Who knows? You might even get the insurance companies to need more employees to handle all the new insured clients....WOW!!! JOBS JOBS JOBS...

WHAT A CONCEPT!?!?

Fail. That's one basic idea to be built upon, not specifics.

How much more specific can it get? Tell me what's wrong with that proposal! And if it's something to be built upon, why the HELL hasn't it been considered? Other than the fact that it was suggested by the republicans.

 

[txlonghorn]

Actually... the answer is simple. He wants specifics...here it is. Open the insurance market across state lines and you accomplish ALL of the things he wants answers to. Competition will create more coverage...existing conditions will be a battle ground. Prices will go down and more people will be able to afford coverage. Who knows? You might even get the insurance companies to need more employees to handle all the new insured clients....WOW!!! JOBS JOBS JOBS...

WHAT A CONCEPT!?!?

Fail. That's one basic idea to be built upon, not specifics.

How about some specifics on how the existing BULLSHIT plan is going to lower costs?

 

[Xenophon]

Actually... the answer is simple. He wants specifics...here it is. Open the insurance market across state lines and you accomplish ALL of the things he wants answers to. Competition will create more coverage...existing conditions will be a battle ground. Prices will go down and more people will be able to afford coverage. Who knows? You might even get the insurance companies to need more employees to handle all the new insured clients....WOW!!! JOBS JOBS JOBS...

WHAT A CONCEPT!?!?

Fail. That's one basic idea to be built upon, not specifics.

How about some specifics on how the existing BULLSHIT plan is going to lower costs?

It doesn't, its a lot of nonsense, smoke and mirrors and wishful thinking.

But it does have the benifit of bankrupting us.

 

[Annie]

Actually... the answer is simple. He wants specifics...here it is. Open the insurance market across state lines and you accomplish ALL of the things he wants answers to. Competition will create more coverage...existing conditions will be a battle ground. Prices will go down and more people will be able to afford coverage. Who knows? You might even get the insurance companies to need more employees to handle all the new insured clients....WOW!!! JOBS JOBS JOBS...

WHAT A CONCEPT!?!?

Fail. That's one basic idea to be built upon, not specifics.

How about some specifics on how the existing BULLSHIT plan is going to lower costs?

Well seems the minority is going for some clarity:

House GOP Responds to Summit Invite [Robert Costa]
House GOP Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) and Whip Eric Cantor (R., Va.) just sent White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel a letter regarding the upcoming health-care summit:

Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground on health care, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats. Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses.

Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care.

If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process.

Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency. Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill. Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion?

As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills. The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions.

Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such "experts?" Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate? Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March.

Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of transparency and openness?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks. For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May.

The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)
​

House GOP Responds to Summit Invite - Robert Costa - The Corner on National Review Online

 

[Xenophon]

Fail. That's one basic idea to be built upon, not specifics.

How about some specifics on how the existing BULLSHIT plan is going to lower costs?

Well seems the minority is going for some clarity:

House GOP Responds to Summit Invite [Robert Costa]
House GOP Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) and Whip Eric Cantor (R., Va.) just sent White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel a letter regarding the upcoming health-care summit:

Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground on health care, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats. Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses.

Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care.

If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process.

Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency. Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill. Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion?

As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills. The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions.

Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such "experts?" Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate? Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March.

Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of transparency and openness?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks. For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May.

The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)
​

House GOP Responds to Summit Invite - Robert Costa - The Corner on National Review Online

Wow.

 

[Foxfyre]

KATIE COURIC Have you ruled out trying confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in New York City?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I have not ruled it out, but I think it's important for us to take into account the practical, logistical issues involved. I mean, if you've got a city that is saying no, and a police department that's saying no, and a mayor that's saying no, that makes it difficult. But I think that the most important thing for the public to understand is we're not handling any of these cases any different than the Bush Administration handled them all through 9/11.


I thought he was gonna change things??? Unfortunately, he's wrong...again.

Bush was going for military tribunals.

Funny how these things go. When this first came up, Obama dismised it as a decision properly left to the Attorney General who had determined NYC to be the right way to go, and it was a done deal. Let's move on.

Now, in this interview, he is saying that HE hasn't made a decision yet on whether this creep will be tried in NYC? What happened to the delegated authority to Holder? What happend to the AG having the authority to determine it? I don't believe Holder's name even came up in that interview with Couric.

 

[Annie]

Wow.

Indeed. The Republicans cannot just whine, I think we all get that. Problem is they have been putting forth bills regarding health care, they just are not allowed out of committee. So now with the 'hand of bipartisanship,' they are able to get their ideas out.

The people are not the ijits that the administration supposes, they have heard the President on health care, they followed along with the massive bills winding through both houses rammed through. They didn't like them, they made themselves clear. They were called uninformed at best, illiterate at worst.

So now decisions will be made, in the open. Republicans and moderate Democrats are going to have to decide whether to be pawns or be clear with the people. They are the ones with the right message.

 

[The Rabbi]

KATIE COURIC Have you ruled out trying confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in New York City?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I have not ruled it out, but I think it's important for us to take into account the practical, logistical issues involved. I mean, if you've got a city that is saying no, and a police department that's saying no, and a mayor that's saying no, that makes it difficult. But I think that the most important thing for the public to understand is we're not handling any of these cases any different than the Bush Administration handled them all through 9/11.


I thought he was gonna change things??? Unfortunately, he's wrong...again.

Bush was going for military tribunals.

You would imagine that his administration would have consulted with NYC before making such a decision.
You would think they would have considered the logistical issues they now claim need consideration.
THis is the most incompetent mendacious administration in history. and that includes Harding.

 

[Sherry]

I can just imagine the expletives that will fly from Rahm's mouth when he reads that letter.