The liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit last year seeking records related to Cheney's FBI interview.

In a court filing Wednesday, Acting Assistant Attorney General David Barron (Pres Obama's admin) argued that parts of Cheney's interview should be kept secret because they involve confidential deliberations among White House officials. Barron said their disclosure could limit frank and open discussion about matters of national importance in the White House in the future.

He said Cheney's recollection of discussions with Libby, the White House communications director and chief of staff about media inquiries into the Plame leak were among those portions that should be protected. He also included Cheney's discussions with the CIA director about Wilson's trip and his role in resolving disputes about declassifying "certain information" in that category.

I'm sorry but any conversation relating to politics, that may have been criminal, should be given to the American people.  The White House is 'our' house.

Every thing about the "Plame leak" was POLITICAL in nature.  The leak was to STOP any harm or harsh criticism of President George W. Bush's administration, when it came to discussing Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq.

Any discussion as to the original request to find any 'link' to Saddam with respects to gaining nuclear material can be blacked out.  That is about national security. 

Discussions however, on how to stop the resulting 'facts'  (was there yellow cake involved or not) from that report getting out should NOT be stopped in this case, because LIES were told about that report, to convince the American people into going to War.  Americans were lied to.

I realize the President is trying to protect any future conversations HIS administration might have; but he is wrong about this in my opinion. 

Political conversations that may or may not involve illegal actions or used to deceive the American people -- should NOT be protected.

A CEO does not have the right to hide the fact that the company is going bankrupt or has more money than is being reported to the Board of Directors of that company.

We the American people are the Board of Directors.  STOP THE LIES and COVERUP -- NOW!

"We're talking about how do we move forward on this, achieve this objective which is changing the policy."

Gates added: "What I discovered when I got into it was it's a very restrictive law. It doesn't leave much to the imagination, or a lot of flexibility."

The defense secretary said one possible modification might be consider the circumstances under which a service member is "outed" in determining whether or not he or she must leave the military.

Gates offered as an example "when we're given information from someone with vengeance in mind or blackmail, somebody who has been jilted.

"If somebody is outed by a third party, does that force us to take action?" he said.

"That's the kind of thing we're looking at -- seeing if there's a more humane way to apply the law until it gets changed."

I sincerely pray that Mr Gates and President Obama mean what they say about finding a more humane way to handle things UNTIL the DADT rule is abolished.  Otherwise, the only way to be more humane is with a rule that -- if caught in the ACT of having sex while ON DUTY/IN THE FIELD you are immediately RELIEVED of your duties....PERIOD.  That should go for ANY kind of sex (homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual).

Saying you are one way or another sexually, or even being accused of having a certain orientation is NOT reason enough to discharge or fire somebody.  Unless that person is HARMING or infringing on the rights of another human being -- there should be NO rules on what TYPE of sex you like or WHO you love or date.  If you are off duty, off the field, out of the office, etc... what the HELL does it matter what you do and with whom.

PERIOD!!

This is pathetic and should END right now.  Soldiers of all sexual orientation and all sexes are either dying or suffering from injuries while at war and here we are, COMMON ordinary citizens arguing over what 'we think' is best for those same soldier's SOCIAL LIVES???? 

I need to be educated a bit over the situation i Honduras and the one in Iran. 

President Jose Manuel Zelaya of Honduras, who was ousted in a military-led coup this past week is being supported by President Obama.  The U.S. is supporting 'his' protesters and against the citizens that removed him from office, saying that Zelaya must be reinstated as the Democratly elected leader; but in Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was also Democratically elected (even though we all know the election was rigged) but the U.S. is standing with the protesters against Ahmadinejad's regime saying that the citizens wishes must be heard.

In one country we feel the right to intervine but in the other we don't?

Can somebody tell me what is the difference between the two nations events and why we feel we can step in on one but not the other?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing anybody - just asking for information.

GREENSBORO -- A buck-a-day -- that's the incentive being offered to young girls to keep them from getting pregnant...

Brown said she hopes the program, which pays $1 each day to 12-to-18-year-old girls, will keep them from getting pregnant. In addition to remaining pregnancy-free, the girls must also attend weekly meetings.

The program is funded by a four-year grant from the state...

Under the program, $7 is deposited into an interest-bearing college fund that the girls can collect once they graduate high school.

Some recent graduates earned more than $2,000 and are an inspiration to those still in the program...

If a girl drops out or gets pregnant, her money is divided among the other girls still in the program.

$1 dollar a day to not have sex or get pregnant; not much of an incentive in my view, when these same girls could probably get lots more by 'having' sex, or for that matter, getting pregnant (welfare).

I can see it now.  The young guys in high school hear about the $1 a day program and through the grapevine get word of who signed up for the program. Once the guy knows that, he knows the girl must 'need' money.  He than offers that girl 'more' money for 'having' sex with him.  All he has to do is offer her a condom and say, "Hey, you want to make an extra buck or two on top of that $1 you are getting from the program?"

The idea of putting $7 a week away for college in exchange for graduating from high school; now that I can agree with.  That is a good idea.

What happens if the girl graduates but ends up pregnant just before graduating?  Does she lose all that college money?  I don't think that would be fair.  Maybe they would give her a percentage of the money (subtracting that extra $1 a day sum)?  Anybody know?  I would hope so.  At least she graduated high school.

A lot of 'ifs' involved; but I like the goals.

I just loved President Obama's comment today when asked a question about the private insurers assertion that having a public health plan would run them out of business:

"Why would it drive private insurers out of business?" asked Obama. "If they tell you they're offering a good deal, why is it that government, which they say can't run anything, can drive them out of business? There are gonna be some legitimate debates to be had about how this takes shape. But conceptually, if they can't compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision on the best plan, that defies logic."

I'd like the reporters to now go and ask those private insurers and the GOP leaders that made the initial claim that private companies would be run out of business if a public health plan was provided -- where they get this so called fact?

While I continue to worry about Obama's promise that if you like your companies plan and your doctor, you can keep them.  What if the company decides to change plans or go into a public health plan?  He's not answering that question as of yet.

However, in his defense, your company could change plans tomorrow.  They could suddenly say, "Hey, that Health Alliance is just too expensive for us, we're changing to PPO".  So either way, you are still forced to 'change' plans and possibly doctors.

Is that what they call a single payer system?  You pay your premium one place, and go to any hospital or doctor you please.  No more HMO's.

Officials investigating Washington D.C.'s worst subway accident, which left at least nine dead, are eyeing whether the failure to upgrade old trains with key recording devices designed to prevent such collisions contributed to the crash.

The train that triggered the crash wasn't equipped with the recorders, said National Transportation Safety Board member Debbie Hersman. It was part of an old "thousand-series" fleet that was not outfitted with the technology, she told reporters Tuesday at a news conference.

The NTSB had previously recommended that all trains have the recorders installed.

Guess who was thinking into the future when they all voted for the Recovery and Reinvestment Act?  President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

The Department of Transportation moved another step closer to realizing President Obama's vision for high-speed rail in America, publishing guidelines for states and regions to apply for federal funds as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The guidelines require rigorous financial and environmental planning to make sure projects are worthy of investment and likely to be successful. The program will offer grants for both planning and construction so that states can apply for funds no matter what stage of development their project is in. The guidance states that proposals will be considered on the merits for their ability to make trips quicker and more convenient reduce congestion on highways and at airports and meet other environmental, energy and safety goals. And it allows the USDOT to actively promote standard specifications for rail cars and other equipment. The Federal Railroad Administration will award the first round of grants by mid-September. [U.S. Department of Transportation, 6-17-09]

May I remind you all that not one Republican in the House of Representatives and only 3 Republican Senators voted 'YES' for Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

While the bill was passed too late to help these poor citizens that lost their lives or were injured during the Washington D.C. crash; thank GOD President Obama and the Democrats created a plan to help stop such accidents from happening again.

To continue the subject of my previous post about President Obama's comments to Iran and how I would relate them to the President's current stand "Let's move on" on possible war crimes being committed by the Bush administration.

I noted the following statements by Republican members about how Obama is confronting the abuse in Iran:

"The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on a Sunday morning talk show. "He's been timid and passive more than I would like."

"If America stands for democracy and all of these demonstrations are going on ... obviously they are going to ask, do we really care about our principles?" Sen. Chuck Grassleysaid.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., told "FOX News Sunday" that Obama, in person, needs to address the Iranian and American people -- he called the election backlash a potential "game changer" in Iran which Obama should leverage.

"This president is a great orator. This president needs to come out, he needs to speak to the American people, but more important he needs to speak to the people of Iran, the people of the Middle East and he has to make a forceful statement on behalf of the people on the streets for freedom and democracy," Hoekstra said. 

John McCain argued that treading softly isn't the right approach.

"People are being killed and beaten in the streets of Tehran and all over Iran, and we should stand up for them," he told FOX News. "The way we stood up for the Polish workers in Gdansk, the way we stood up for the people of then Czechoslovakia in the Prague Spring and we have stood up for freedom in every part of the world. We're not doing that."

"Well those that are being beaten in the streets of Tehran and around Iran obviously don't hold that view," he said. "So let's not take the side necessarily of the protestors...the fact is we should be on the side of a free and fair election, and not be in favor of an oppressive brutal government."

In support of Obama's actions were...

Zakaria: I think a good historic analogy is President George H.W. Bush's cautious response to the cracks in the Soviet empire in 1989. Then, many neo-conservatives were livid with Bush for not loudly supporting those trying to topple the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But Bush's concern was that the situation was fragile. Those regimes could easily crack down on the protestors and the Soviet Union could send in tanks. Handing the communists reasons to react forcefully would help no one, least of all the protesters. Bush's basic approach was correct and has been vindicated by history.

George Will: The president is being roundly criticized for insufficient, rhetorical support for what's going on over there. It seems to me foolish criticism. The people on the streets know full well what the American attitude toward the regime is. And they don't need that reinforced.

Peggy Noonan, another conservative columnist and former speechwriter for President Reagan, denounced the right-wing attacks, particularly those from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). "To insist the American president, in the first days of the rebellion, insert the American government into the drama was shortsighted and mischievous," she wrote, adding that "the ayatollahs were only too eager to demonize the demonstrators as mindless lackeys of the Great Satan Cowboy Uncle Sam, or whatever they call us this week."

Isn't it odd how our leader's views CHANGE when it comes to OTHER nations?

How would Graham, Grassley and McCain feel if other nations said the same things to the United States -- let the truth come out, punish the war criminals -- would they listen?  They haven't so far.  They just want to "MOVE ON".

Hundreds were beaten and tortured (some even innocent) in OUR prisons and we simply 'MOVE ON'. What you can't see or hear can't hurt you - attitude.

Hypocrites!

President Barack Obama's words to Iran on Saturday:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples' belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

I agree with the President 100% with his statement to the Iranian government and I sincerely, with all my heart, for the sake of the Iranian people, hope their nation's government will stop all violence and compromise by having a fair and open election with perhaps the United Nations standing by to validate the results.

Now I'd like to discuss the President's statement to Iran in terms of our own leadership's actions. 

The world is watching President Obama, they're waiting to see if the United States means what it says; do we really believe in the truth?  Or will the world continue to bear witness against the coverup of abuse and torture during the past recent years of the Bush administration?

Will United State's leadership allow the American people and the world to hear the truth?  Will those involved be given the freedom to speak if they so choose and will those that are being protected by the government be forced to admit the truth about our  recent past or will you continue to believe that suppressing ideas will make them go away?

Will those that committed these abuses and torture ever see the inside of a prison for their crimes or will they forever be considered heros as some in these United States are still proclaiming them to be?


Am I obsessed with this topic - you might say that; then again, you might just say I'm for letting justice be served.  The longer we ignore the past, the less chances we have to get the 'whole' truth out.

WASHINGTON -- Car shoppers could take advantage of government incentives worth up to $4,500 this summer to send their old gas guzzler to the scrap heap in favor of a more fuel-efficient new vehicle.

President Barack Obama is expected to sign into law the "cash for clunkers" program, which was approved by the Senate on Thursday. For owners of low-mileage models such as the 1994 Ford Bronco, 1998 Nissan Pathfinder or the 1995 Chevrolet Blazer, the plan could give them a reason to visit their local car dealer during an economic downturn.

"I've been sitting on the fence for about a year," said Jim Seegraves, 44, of East Lansing, Mich., who has been looking to replace his 2000 GMC Sierra pickup truck. "This legislation will help me get over the hump and get the car that I want."

Question: If your car current gets 21 mpg and you trade it in for one that gets 24 mpg -- do you get a voucher too?  How much?

I keep hearing the car must only get 18 or less mpg.  What if it gets 19-22mpg, do these cars qualify too?

Be sure to go and watch the video showing how Fox News, Sean Hannity and Karl Rove all get caught with their pants down.

ABC is getting special access into the White House coming soon.  Fox News as usual is crying 'foul' and claiming "Journalism in America is Dead".

ABC News plans to air a news special entitled "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," which will afford President Barack Obama the opportunity to field questions on his plan for health care reform. This has given the good folks at Fox News a big old sad, because of ABC's "unprecedented access" and the very limited opportunity available for Griff Jenkins to dress up like the ghost of Thomas Paine, "ambush" the participants, and blame ACORN for rationing health care, like we were from Saskatoon or something. Karl Rove says that what ABC is doing has never been done before! Sean Hannity claims journalism is dead! Gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, vows to run counterprogramming, loud noises!

BAGHDAD - A special committee set up by Iraq's prime minister on Thursday began an investigation into allegations of widespread abuse and torture in Iraq's prisons, which is threatening to become a major issue ahead of Jan. 30 national elections...

 

Al-Maliki made the decision late Wednesday to form the eight-member committee, composed of representatives from the government's security ministries as well as human rights and judicial agencies, according to a spokesman.

The panel has two weeks to report back to him with its conclusion, Iraqi military spokesman Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi said.

Two weeks???  Wow, we can't even get our leader to set up a panel of investigators and we KNOW there was illegal abuse.  It's been 5 months already and yet the AG report is not finished.

 

Perhaps the Obama administration should take a lesson from Iraq?

WASHINGTON - The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants the flyswatter in chief to try taking a more humane attitude the next time he's bedeviled by a fly in the White House.

PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.

"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."

For the most part I support what PETA tries to do by advocating more humane ways of handling animals; however they've gone a bit too far now.  Protect the fly?

The ONLY reason I might consider using one of these devices to trap a fly is because....I can't get him to land long enough for me to swat him dead!  The same goes for those gnats, horse flies, bees and wasps. 

Sorry if that offends anybody.

First it was former VP Dick Cheney speaking out, now former President George W Bush is out criticizing President Obama's administration policies:

Bush broke his vow in all but word.

"I told you I'm not going to criticize my successor," he said. "I'll just tell you that there are people at Gitmo that will kill American people at a drop of a hat and I don't believe that persuasion isn't going to work. Therapy isn't going to cause terrorists to change their mind."

ABC News has pointed out that it was the Bush administration that sent terrorists to therapy -- a Saudi jihadi rehabilitation camp -- with "decidedly mixed success."

Bush's critique extended to Obama's domestic policy...

"Government does not create wealth," Bush said. "The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States."

Asked during a question-and-answer session if he thought his successor's policies were "socialist," Bush began saying "depends on..." then stopped and concluded, "We'll see."

That's one thing you can say about these two men; they sure know how to "create an environment  where people take risks......"!

Apparently Mr. Bush thinks Americans CARE about what he thinks pertaining to the economy and the treatment of prisoners?  What a laugh!

President Obama, will you now take your gloves off with respects to the Bush administration and it's policies during the past 8 years -- all of them?  I sincerely hope so.

This crew is out for blood and unless you fight back immediately, they will bury you.

WASHINGTON - The political unrest in Iran presents the Obama administration with a dilemma: keep quiet to pursue a nuclear deal with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader, or heed calls to respond more supportively to the protesters there -- and risk alienating the Shiite cleric.

President Obama and his advisers have struggled to strike the right tone, carefully calibrating positive messages about the protests in an effort to avoid giving the government in Tehran an excuse to portray the demonstrators as pro-American. Nevertheless, the Iranian Foreign Ministry yesterday summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents American interests in Tehran, to complain of "interventionist" comments by U.S. officials, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

 

 

Perhaps President Obama should do to Ahmadinejad what he did to President Bush and what Ayatollah Ali Khamenei did to the USSR leader Gorbachev - write a letter to them.

 

He should preface his remarks by mentioning that he was an American professor of the U.S. Constitution.

 

He should then mention the words from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to U.S. President George Bush sent on May 7, 2006:

 

 "You must know that there is only one way to solve the problems of the world - and that is turning to the truth."

 

Obama should explain to Khamenei what a true Republic is.  It's a state or country that is not led by a monarch, in which the people have an impact on its government.  The people rule the land, not one man or woman.  We (leaders), are but representatives of our nation's people.

 

 

Then he should go into subject of what he hopes happens in Iran for the sake of all Iranians and their current leadership.

 

He should say something like; because the people of Iran are showing their distrust in the government of Iran and because of that unrest, perhaps Khamenei should, in the interest of justice and fairness, offer to hold a new election with U.N. representatives watching over the election at various voting booths.

 

President Obama could then admit that he and the American people were not involved in the election process so he doesn't know the facts of whether or not anything was done illegally or not; but the people of Iran seem to think the election was a sham, so for the sake of the nation as a whole, perhaps it's time to listen to the people.  Obama could than quote something Ahmadinejad' said to President Bush in a letter in 2006:

 

""The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purify them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious..."

 

While this quote may be taken out of context, it could also be used during this crisis in Iran don't you think sir?

 

Obama can then say something like; meanwhile, I anxiously am waiting to have meaningful and productive discussions with whomever wins the support of the Iranian people as their leader.

 

The Obama administration would then LEAK the letter to the press.

 

That way the administration can prove they are speaking out against any illegal actions, standing by the people of Iran, and yet ready and willing to start up negotiations with the Iranian leadership.

This is an update to my post called Obama: Change Your Tune and Fast

Someone asked for proof of Obama saying he would go after anybody that committed crimes in the past administration.  Here you go, different comments over the past couple of years:

Crimes: Statements by Obama

 

Here's his answer, in its entirety:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it."

The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that -- unlike impeachment, which he's ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility -- he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House.

****************************************************************

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN (moderator/CNN anchor): The president talks a lot, as you know, about sort of good versus evil in war. Do you agree with that?

OBAMA: Well, I do think there's evil in the world. I think that, when planes crash into buildings and kill innocents, there's evil there. I think violence and cruelty, wherever it's perpetrated, expresses evil in the world. And I think that all of us have an obligation to speak to that and act against that forcefully.

Now, there have been times in our history where that requires that we take up arms. I think that the Civil War was a just war. I believe that defeating fascism and ensuring that Europe was liberated was the right thing to do.

What was also interesting about Lincoln, though, during the course of the Civil War, was his recognition that simply because we've engaged in something just doesn't mean that there aren't times where we may act unjustly. Abu Ghraib obviously is something that all of us should be ashamed for, even if you were supportive of a war. I believe Guantanamo, the decision to detain people without charges, is unjust.

**************************************************************************

"History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight," he told the Turkish parliament just a few weeks ago. "Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future."

**************************************************************************

It is important for us to understand that the way we are perceived in the world is going to make a difference, in terms of our capacity to get cooperation and root out terrorism.

And one of the things that I intend to do as president is to restore America's standing in the world. We are less respected now than we were eight years ago or even four years ago.

And this is the greatest country on Earth. But because of some of the mistakes that have been made -- and I give Senator McCain great credit on the torture issue, for having identified that as something that undermines our long-term security -- because of those things, we, I think, are going to have a lot of work to do in the next administration to restore that sense that America is that shining beacon on a hill.

******************************************************************

In the dark halls of Abu Ghraib and the detention cells of Guantánamo, we have compromised our most precious values. What could have been a call to a generation has become an excuse for unchecked presidential power. A tragedy that united us was turned into a political wedge issue used to divide us.

When I am President, America will reject torture without exception. America is the country that stood against that kind of behavior, and we will do so again ... As President, I will close Guantánamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists ... The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example to the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

We could have fixed all of this in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay. Easily. This was not an either-or question.

• Instead of allowing this President - or any President - to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered.

_________________________________________________________________________

So, my friends, when will President Obama do as he PREACHES and investigate the Bush admin for possible crimes?  So far -- he's LOOKING FORWARD instead and ignoring his own beliefs.