Obama's Biggest Blunder

[TicalFSU]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

it doesn't seem weird to any of you that he's choosing someone with limited at best intelligence experience to head the CIA?

See: George HW Bush

Little did people know that he ran a CIA front company, Zapata Offshore, at the time of his nomination.

"Bush has long denied allegations that he had connections to the intelligence community prior to 1976, when he became Central Intelligence Agency director under President Gerald Ford. At the time, he described his appointment as a 'real shocker."

"In his autobiography, Bush declares that “I'd come to the CIA with some general knowledge of how it operated' and that his 'overseas contacts as a businessman' justified President Nixon's appointing him as UN ambassador, a decision that at the time was highly controversial."

I doubt this guy isn't in some way shape or form already working with/for them.

[Debaser]

nobody calls her a neocon, but diane feinstein has been horrible for a long long time. pretty much a supporter of anything bush wanted to do on the war on terror.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

So they need an administrative type because otherwise Obama would shut the CIA out of the White House? What kind of nonsense is that?

Former CIA Director and John McCain adviser Jim Woolsey professes to being "impressed overall by the quality" of Barack Obama's national security team, and believes that the president-elect's nominee to head the CIA, Leon Panetta, is more than qualified for the post.

[...]

Among spooks, Woolsey's tenure at the CIA is regarded as one wrought with missteps, primarily because his relationship with President Clinton was so limited. The two never held a one-on-one meeting during Woolsey's two-year tenure in the office. And while Clinton did not have to rely on the intelligence community as heavily as his immediate predecessors -- his foreign policy undertakings were more humanitarian missions than Cold War confrontation -- the lack of dialogue created its share of troubles.

On the day he was to be introduced as Clinton's appointee, Woolsey recalled, "we were sitting around in the Governor's mansion in Little Rock... I said something about having served in the Bush administration... And Dee Dee Myers [Clinton's then-press secretary] said, 'Admiral, I didn't know you were in the Bush administration.' And I said Dee Dee, 'I am not an admiral. I never got above a captain in the Army.' She said, 'Woops. We better change the press release.'

"This was just a few moments before they were about to introduce me. So, clearly, I was not an intimate part of the team," he added. "It wasn't really a bad relationship. It just didn't really exist."

Woolsey would eventually quit when he couldn't solicit Clinton's help in small-bore tasks like securing appropriations from the Hill for training agents in Arabic. Within intelligence circles, the distance between him and the president has become something of a template for future administrations to avoid.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by commando

Really, the biggest P.R. blunder he could make would be to admit he prays or something.

you're not very bright, are you

[Nimrod's Son]

Why are examples of poor choices in the past being used as evidence that this is a good choice?

[Debaser]

All the notions that lead people to believe this will be a bad choice is thoroughly debunked by examples in the past.

This is over-inflated. One can't really know whether this will be bad or good beforehand. The best I can say, personally, is that I reserve judgement. Those that are hopping up and down crying about this choice is either trying to drum up discontent and/or simply don't know what they are talking about. Or youre a politician with a bruised ego.

[Nimrod's Son]

wait, Woolsey debunks this?

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Debaser

diane feinstein has been horrible for a long long time.

we finally agree on something

[Debaser]

I enjoy reading criticism.

But only if they actually know what the fuck they are talking about.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

wait, Woolsey debunks this?

Woolsey debunks your expression of disbelief that a DCI can be "shut out of the white house".

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

we finally agree on something

for complete opposite reasons.

feinstein is too moderate.

[Nimrod's Son]

No, what I'm saying is that because Clinton was an idiot to shut out his CIA Director, that doesn't mean that Obama would. Are you saying Obama would shut out his own appointee? Because that seems to go against your messiah worship.

[Debaser]

that point is rendered moot by the fact that messiah obama would only pick the perfect DCI in the first place, of course.

[Nimrod's Son]

touche.

[Nimrod's Son]

Taxing worker health benefits considered - Washington Times

Taxing worker health benefits considered

Top Democrat broaches idea

By Jennifer Haberkorn (Contact) and Sean Lengell (Contact) | Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Senate's top tax writer said Tuesday that taxing employer-provided health benefits is a possibility as lawmakers search for ways to pay for overhauling the nation's health care system and to insure 50 million Americans who lack coverage - a stance that riles both business and union leaders and is at odds with some leading Democrats.
At the last in a series of public forums on health care reform, Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said scaling back the tax-free status of employer-provided health care benefits must be considered.
"There are ways to enact health care reform that can bend the cost curve in a very significant way that provides health insurance reform, which this country desperately needs, and also covers all Americans," Mr. Baucus said before a panel of senators, health care and tax specialists, and others representing outside groups in the health-care-reform debate.
Business and labor groups said they won't go along with the idea thrown on the table.
It's "a step in the wrong direction," said Gerald Shea of the AFL-CIO labor federation, who was a participant in the panel discussion.
"We cannot ask people who traded wages for health benefits to pay more for their coverage without undertaking a serious effort to lower costs," said Mr. Shea, who serves as the AFL-CIO's health care policy specialist.
Many business groups say the employer-based model is the best way to go in health care reform.
"People have expressed that those who have health care coverage they like should be able to keep it and they should be able to keep their choice of doctor if they like their doctor," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, which supports "building on what is working."
The idea of employer-based health care has splintered the debate over health care reform. During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama supported preserving the employer-based model and ridiculed his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, for calling to tax employer-based health care, and the White House said his stance hasn't changed.
As president, Mr. Obama has already called for taxing wealthier Americans to help fund an overhaul that could cost more than $1.5 trillion.

"The reform contemplated by the president during the campaign and what I think is largely being discussed on Capitol Hill is a preservation of the employer-based health care system, but done in a way that ... envisions significant reform in how we're spending money," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.
At the roundtable, Mr. Baucus said revenue could be generated by taxing portions of the benefit based on income levels or on based on the value of the plan. More comprehensive, costlier plans would be taxed at a higher rate.
He said he's open to new ideas but was cautious about proposing to eliminate the tax break that employers get on their employees' health care plans.
"We're not going to repeal it, we're going to modify it," Mr. Baucus said.
Mr. Baucus has repeatedly advocated changing tax laws to ******* employer benefits, saying that it makes sense to pay for health care reforms by siphoning cash out of the existing system.
Taxing the benefit would bring in less than 10 percent of the cost of $1.5 trillion, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. About 160 million people are covered by employer-provided health care plans.
Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat and chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, has said in the past doesn't like the idea, either.
"I think [Mr. Baucus] is going to have a tough time doing that," said James Gelfand, senior manager of health policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, pointing to Mr. Obama and Mr. Rangel's statements.
"Employee groups and union groups are extremely opposed to that idea."
Mr. Gelfand said he doesn't expect such an idea to get into legislation.
Others, including the National Federation of Independent Business, support considering all options.
Minutes after Mr. Baucus opened the roundtable discussion, five protesters supporting universal medical coverage disrupted the hearing with shouts before being thrown out by police.
About 25 nurses wearing red hospital scrubs attached with signs advocating a so called "single-payer" government-run health care system also conducted a silent protest. After a few minutes with their backs turned to the chairman, the demonstrators walked out of the room while several in the audience applauded.
Mr. Baucus said that although he disagreed with the protesters tactics, he sympathized with their frustrations.
"Believe me, we hear you," he said. "I will meet with anyone who wants to meet."
The chairman, as well as the Obama administration, have said that replacing the current private health insurance system with a Canadian-style government-run single-payer model is not practical or politically feasible. But both support creating a government-run health insurance plan that would compete with private insurers.
"We've got to work with what we've got," Mr. Baucus said. "We cannot go to a single-payer system. ... That's not going to work in this country."
Eight protesters supporting a single-payer system were arrested last week at a Baucus-led health care roundtable workshop.

The article also fails to mention how Obama spoke against this heavily in his campaign

[Eulogy]

Who has an iPad - does it rocks?