President Barack Obama authorized the release of more CIA intelligence reports yesterday that related to torturing of prisoners.

Past and present CIA officials had unsuccessfully pressed for more parts of the four legal memos to be kept secret, and some critics argued the release would make the United States less safe.

Michael Hayden, who led the CIA under George W. Bush, said CIA officers will now be more timid and allies will be more reluctant to share sensitive intelligence.

"If you want an intelligence service to work for you, they always work on the edge. That's just where they work," Hayden said. Now, he argued, foreign partners will be less likely to cooperate with the CIA because the release shows they "can't keep anything secret."

Hayden told The Associated Press the release will give terrorists a precise guide for what to expect in a CIA interrogation if those methods are ever approved for use again.

A former top official in the Bush administration called the release of the memos "unbelievable."

"It's damaging because these are techniques that work, and by Obama's action today, we are telling the terrorists what they are," the unnamed official told Politico.com. 

"We have laid it all out for our enemies. This is totally unnecessary ... Publicizing the techniques does grave damage to our national security by ensuring they can never be used again -- even in a ticking-time- bomb scenario where thousands or even millions of American lives are at stake," the Web site reported.

I would argue the complete opposite.  These memos show the lengths at which America will go to try and get information from the enemy.  They show that we are liars and cannot be trusted.  President George W Bush along with his administration repeatedly said that the U.S. does 'not' torture.  The memos prove them liars.  They tell our allies and our enemies that it's 'ok' to do the same or more to our soldiers if they are ever caught during war time.

Just because we can do something doesn't make it right.

If you see a well behaved child in public and ask the parent, "How did you get them to behave like that?"  And the a parent told you that he/she had better control of their kids because they beat them whenever they got out of line or they chain them to their beds whenever they misbehaved, would that make you want to do the same thing to your children if it meant they'd behave better?

Let's say a factory is doing very well financially with an outstanding product.  Let us also say that you ask the manager of the factory, "How did you get your workers to produce such a great product?"  And the manager said, "I work them 16 hours a day for below minimum wage and they are leg chained to their machines all that time."  Would that entice you to do the same to your employees?

Just because the enemy has no 'control' over what they do to a human being doesn't make it right for the U.S. to do the same thing; especially after claiming that we are 'above' such cruelty acts.

After seeing these memos, and after seeing that the U.S. is refusing to punish those that 'approved' such acts, our allies will no longer trust what we have to say, why should they?  Our enemies (even conventional ones with conventional Army's) will use the same or worse tactics on our POW's now and we won't have any right to protest; because we did them too.

President Barack Obama, I realize politically that this could be suicidal for you; but you simply 'must' authorize the investigation into war crimes committed by the previous administration.  Our country's own self respect depends on your doing so.

Charleston, Illinois held one of the now famous "Tea Parties" last night.  What was really interesting wasn't how many attended (around 100) or even what their complaints were (they didn't care about taxes and spending for the past eight years, why now?); but 'who' said what.

State Rep. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, spoke to the gathering, focusing on reports that the state's projected budget deficit will be $9 billion to $12 billion. He said this number is not accurate because it includes debt from past years, and a more accurate figure would be $3.5 billion to $4 billion.

Rose said proposals to increase income taxes will not close the deficit. He said rapidly rising Medicaid costs are crowding out other budgetary items. He said the state should work with a managed care system and not pay for health care for those who can afford health insurance.

I have two questions for Rep. Rose.  First off, were you joking that the budget deficit of $9-12 billion was inaccurate because it includes debt from 'past' years?   If not, then I guess the same logic holds true for the federal budget's deficit, right?  President Barack Obama can now disown (not worry about) the $490 billion deficit that former President George W. Bush and the Republican leadership left behind.  Yahoo!  You've made their day!

Second question is this; Rep. Rose, you said you didn't think the State should pay for health care for those that can afford health insurance.  Are you therefore advocating dropping health insurance coverage for State employees and retirees?  If so, I wouldn't let those employees know about your plans sir, because if you do, you will 'not' get re-elected.  That's a fact.

Anybody remember President Ronald Reagan's water treatment spending bill in 1987?  It kind of reminds me of President Obama's stimulus Recovery and Reinvestment bill.

President Reagan, in a dramatic shift aimed at compromise with a Congress already preparing to defy him on the issue, is doubling his proposal for Federal spending on water treatment facilities, Administration officials said today.

The President will propose that $12 billion be spent over eight years on Federal grants and loans under the Clean Water Act to help communities build sewage treatment facilities, Lee M. Thomas, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said in confirming the reports of other sources. In his previous budget the President asked for $6 billion for the clean water program.

Congress unanimously voted in October for legislation to provide $18 billion for sewage treatment facilities.

Just like Obama, Reagan wanted to SPEND money to help communities build sewage treatment facilities (infrastructure).  He and Congress fought over the specifics but were finally able to agree on a bill.  Even Reagan knew that fixing infrastructure needed money to happen.

Another report on Reagan says,

Both in his campaign and in his early presidential speeches, Reagan had promised not only to reduce taxes and cut spending, but to balance the federal budget. He never did. Instead, his policies contributed to the largest budget deficits in American history and a tripling of the national debt during his eight years in office. Indeed, one of Reagan's most important legacies was his contribution to an enduring fiscal crisis. He helped create a federal budget that was structurally, and radically, unbalanced; and he launched an era in which the national debt grew steadily and dramatically for many years.

There was also this report in 2005 about President Bush's budget spending:

Total real discretionary outlays will increase about 35.8 percent under Bush (FY2001-06) while they increased by 25.2 percent under LBJ (FY1964-69) and 11.9 percent under Reagan (FY1981-86). By contrast, they decreased by 16.5 under Nixon (FY1969-74) and by 8.2 percent under Clinton (FY1993-98). Comparing Bush to his predecessors is instructive. Bush and Reagan both substantially increased defense spending (by 44.5 and 34.8 percent respectively). However, Reagan cut real nondefense discretionary outlays by 11.1 percent while Bush increased them by 27.9 percent. Clinton and Nixon both raised nondefense spending (by 1.9 percent and 23.1 respectively), but they both cut defense spending substantially (by 16.8 and 32.2 percent).

What makes this all the more frustrating is that Bush, unlike Reagan and Clinton, faces a Congress that is controlled by his own party, which claims to be dedicated to smaller, more efficient government. Yet Bush has shown no leadership on spending reform--and Republicans have rebuffed even the mildest criticisms of their spendthrift ways. It seems incontestable that we should conclude that the country's purse is worse off when Republicans are in power.

So when do Americans start throwing a fit about spending?  When did the tea parties start?  In the first three months of the Obama administration....skipping over the past 30.

If you people doing the complaining had been complaining before the Obama administration, more folks might have paid attention to you.  It's obvious what you are doing -- it's about hurting the Obama administration, plain and simple.

The Republican Party has finally come up with a plan to get us out of the recession; Tea Parties.  Yes, I said tea parties.

Thousands of small groups of Tea Parties are being held across America this week.  While catching the attention of other Americans talking about taxes and the spending that government is doing (they seem to have been hibernating for the past 8 years - not a peep out of them during that time), these groups led by cable news station Fox, are creating or keeping thousands of jobs and companies alive.

Think about it folks.  What happens during one of these rallies?  Hundreds of people show up.  Some are calm, some are angry and some downright ticked off.  That kind of rally always requires a police force to work overtime to make sure things stay calm and traffic run smoothly.

They all want to be entertained and have access to food and drink.  Most viewers, if not all, will want to carry signs to protest l with.  Many will also wear tee shirts or hats with logos on them.  Costumes will be on demand.  Balloons will be given to the children in the crowds.

Let's see now; that's the extra money for tea companies, restaurants, the clothing industry, the balloon and entertainment industry, police officers, sign makers, costume industry and logo companies.  Each of those companies or entities requires employees to make the items, police the area or feed the crowds.

Oh, and don't forget the electric and phone companies along with electricians and technical staff will be put on alert to keep all the lights, phones and microphones in working order at the rallies.

Yes, my friends, Republicans have finally found their niche.  They can finally feel like they are doing their part for our economy and no longer just, the Party of "No".

Will it be Governor Sarah Palin, how about former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich or even Governor Bobby Jindal?  You know former Governor Mitt Romney and Governor Mike Huckabee are still in the running too.  So who will it be?  Who will be the one to try and take on President Barack Obama in 2012?

That's almost 3 years from now, why do we care, you say.  Well, because they have already started running their campaigns.  Whoever has a dream of being president is currently working every day of their lives trying to convince those of power to 'pick' them as the person next to run as the Republican nominee for president.

Let's fast forward ahead to the year of 2011. 

Let's assume that the economy's recession (close to a depression) has gone away and jobs are being found aplenty.  Let us also assume that our infrastructure has improved because of the many roads and bridges that were either built or repaired over the past 3 years.  Let us also assume that our energy needs (demand for oil) have decreased because millions of Americans bought new cars with more miles per gallon ability instead of keeping their gas guzzling cars with the new Cost for Clunkers plan. Let's also assume that millions of Americans began buying new green long lasting light bulbs and took advantage of the federal governments tax breaks for making their homes more energy efficient.  We should also assume that our electric grids across the country have been upgraded to the latest state of the art equipment and federal buildings across America are saving millions of dollars with new green technology in their buildings.

Let's also notice that we now have Universal health care.  Just like former President George W Bush's prescription drug plan, Americans seem to be overall satisfied with their health care plans.  Those that never had health insurance now have some, those that had some with their employers have seen no major changes in their plans, in fact, and they may have already seen a decrease in their monthly premiums.  Most of American's medical records have now been moved into electronic databases where they can be access by any medical facility across America.  Veterans especially begin seeing an immediate change in the way they get approved for health care and disability benefits because of the new record system.  Let's also assume there's not been enough time to compare and learn all the effects of the new health care system; but at the moment, things are looking good, especially to those that never had the secure feeling of having health insurance for their family.

Let's take a look at education.  New schools have been built and/or repaired across the country.  Children have state of the art computers to improve their skills with.  Teachers have been given more time to teach the children instead of teaching to the test as in the past.  Millions more kids will be attending the newly created head start schools.  Low income parents will be given the ability to go out and work while using the affordable child care plan that was created.  Millions of parents will be reimbursed up to $4,000 for their kid's college's expenses with the new opportunity tax credit that was created.  Teachers will have been rewarded for good teaching.  Those applying for college grants will have it easier than before by just check marking their tax returns authorizing their tax information to be used, instead of having to fill out or make copies of everything repeatedly.

Foreign policy - what will it look like?  That's a bit harder to predict, not knowing what other nations are doing or what they are planning; but let us assume because of the way they accepted President Obama and seemed to like him and his non-arrogance attitude that things calm down at least.  The distrust in America goes away and the ability to negotiate improves across the world.  Let's assume that we're for the most part out of Iraq by the end of 2011 as planned and as reported by the General in command today.  Afghanistan's violence will have dropped by then and things are back to the way they were there in say 2003.  Let's also assume that Israel and the Palestine have agreed to a peace treaty, which may be a weak one but at least things are calm at the moment.

Let us also assume that we have not been attacked in such a way as 9/11 at the WTC.

Which Republican would have the best chance of taking on President Barack Obama, the most successful president since Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan?

That's a hard one.  The only thing that a Republican could possibly run on would be social policies like abortion, gay rights or gun laws.  Perhaps they could also run on cutting the deficit; because by the mid 2012 Obama's administration won't have had time to cut it enough of it to really show improvement yet.  However, if the economy, energy, health care, education and even our foreign policy seems to be running smoothly - most won't care (like now) about the deficit, they'll just be happy things are 'ok' now.

How about the likable factor; who can take on a man that is so well 'liked' as Obama and his family are?

As for Palin, Huckabee, Jindal, Romney and Gingrich - they are all out of the running; because each and every one of them would have voted no for the Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 or refused to take money from the stimulus package.  Each and everyone ridiculed Obama for wanting to get out of Iraq and talk more with other heads of state.

In my humble opinion, at this time, the person that would have even half a chance of beating Barack Obama in 2012 would have to be a very well liked, down to earth speaking, calm when debating, not arrogant, trusted and possibly someone that supported the Obama administration when it wasn't popular to do so.  I know of only two men that could possibly pass all those criteria; Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Governor Charlie Crist of Florida.  Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota could possibly pass the first part of the criteria.

Schwarzenegger is out unless the law is changed about being born in America.  That leaves Crist and Pawlenty.

Governor Pawlenty is a likable character.  He's friendly, willing to talk to liberal talk show hosts like Rachel Maddow about the things he cares about and he can be interesting to listen to.  He doesn't try to attack the other guy; instead he tries to explain his own views more deeply.  He's willing to take on some of his conservative friends.  When asked if he agreed with Rush Limbaugh that he wishes the President would 'fail', Pawlenty said, "It would be a sad day if all the conservatives had to offer was a wish or a hope that the president would fail so that we could benefit".  For these reasons, I think Pawlenty has a gathering chance to take on Obama in 2012.

Charlie Crist on the other hand was one of the first to come out in support of Obama's stimulus package.  Albeit because his state was currently hurting because of loss of jobs which dropped his poll ratings.  Crist went overboard with his support for the stimulus bill.  He personally got on a stage and introduced President Obama to his voters; A man from the opposite party.   He also went on talk shows in support of the bill.

If my predictions are correct about the economy, education, energy and foreign policies, Governor Charlie Crist will be looking pretty good in his own State by 2011.  Jobs will be aplenty, homes will be more energy efficient, new cars will be on the road (new or repaired roads) and children will be attending state of the art schools.  Millions of new college graduates will be getting those newly created jobs in America.  It will be a hard choice for Floridians to choose from, Obama or Crist for President.

For Americans across the nation however, the choice will be simple.  Barack H. Obama, 'Four More Years'.