All points of view are welcome here in my threads, graham, just as they are welcome in yours ...

Even when you FALSELY accuse me of being a RACIST ...

The other day, in fact, I almost ended up throwing hands with some white thug at the car dealers protecting the right of a small black woman to be first in line for service, which she was ...

The thug tried to push her out of his way so he could be first, and I got in his way, and told her to pass ....

She thanked me afterwards for standing up for her ....

She was a bit of a thing and the thug was big ....

Bigger than I am, but so what?

And I'm remembering those words, graham ....

All of time has not passed yet ....

There is much more to come ...

And so ...

a strawman you throw in
I never accused YOU of anything at all.

other people, yes. but never you.

there are no racists in New York, except for the cops and police authority.and the republican politicians who hate Obama

Thanks for clarifying that, graham ....

It is appreciated ...

And so ...

Livyjr, I too value science over art...I sometimes wonder if art, for you, extends beyong country music...

Either way you cut it g4a, you are the absolutely master of over-statement...

If you can't cut the mustard, you gotta use Teresa's stuff

I see great art in the cloud formations in the sky all the time up here, rla ....

I see great art in the sunsets, as well ....

And today, I just finished the majority of the plumbing for a new disabled-access bathroom I am building for myself while I still can ...

I think that that is artwork, to be truthful ....

Very aesthetic it is when done what I consider to be right, or as you would have it, "state of the art" ....

And I am the subject of an inspirational video on the house that I have built up here for myself ....

That is art, in that it is my means of self-expression ....

Not my only one, but one, nonetheless ....

And so ...

BUT THERE ARE CROOKED POLITICIANS ....

AND THIS IS THE WAY THE POLITICAL GAME IS PLAYED UP HERE, graham ....

IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE STINK IN YOUR NOSE, THEN POLITICS UP HERE IS NOT THE GAME THAT YOU WANT TO PLAY ...

And so ...

"Affidavits: Ballot abuse rampant - Troy absentee voting scandal related to dozens of forged, fraudulent WFP primary election ballots"

By BRENDAN J. LYONS, Senior writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published in print: Saturday, September 26, 2009

TROY -- Dozens of forged and fraudulent absentee ballots from people registered to vote on the Working Families Party line were filed in the Sept. 15 primary elections in Troy, the Times Union has learned.

Many of the questionable ballots were filed under the names of students and people who live in government-subsidized housing and other downtown areas.

Still others were submitted on behalf of voters who were alleged to have signed the ballots earlier this month, but those people have not lived in New York state for at least a year, records show.

Documents at the county Board of Elections show the fraudulent ballots were handled by or prepared on behalf of various elected officials and leaders and operatives for the Democratic and Working Families parties.

A Troy housing authority employee, Anthony Defiglio, who sources said oversees vacant properties for the Troy Housing Authority, also handled many of the fraudulent ballots, according to public records and interviews with voters who said they were duped.

Victor Gonzalez, a resident of Griswold Heights, told the Times Union he was visited several weeks ago by Defiglio and another man who asked him to sign an absentee ballot application.

Gonzalez is registered on the WFP line.

But Gonzalez, like many other people interviewed, never saw, signed or submitted the absentee ballot later filed at the Board of Elections under his name.

Also, someone else wrote on the Gonzalez's ballot application that he couldn't vote in person because of a work conflict.

''I've been out of work for about six to eight months."

"I've been laid off and looking for work,'' he said.

There may be as many as 50 absentee ballots that were forged, according to people close to the case.

Countywide, there were 126 absentee ballots applied for on the Working Families Party line.

The third-party WFP line has become a key battleground between the Republicans and Democrats in Troy.

The scandal is unfolding in a year when the city council's nine seats are up for grabs with 19 candidates, including nine Republicans and nine Democrats.

Six at-large county legislative seats in Troy also are on the line this year with 12 candidates.

Attorneys consulted by the Times Union who are familiar with voter-fraud issues said the allegations surfacing in Troy may be unprecedented here and could result in criminal prosecutions.

Two of the absentee ballots reviewed by the newspaper carry addresses in Griswold Heights, a public housing complex, and are attributed to residents who have not lived there for years, records show.

One of the ballots is listed under the name of Milagros Serrano, 44, who left Griswold Heights in October 2007 and now lives in Hollywood, Fla., records show.

The signature attributed to Serrano on the ballot looks nothing like her signature from a voter registration card filed several years ago at the Board of Elections.

The hand-written excuse allegedly provided by Serrano for not voting in person in the primary states: ''Dartmouth Hos. doctor appt.''

Many other ballot applications also include fictitious reasons why the person needed an absentee ballot, including casino bus trips, Cape Cod vacations, work conferences and medical ailments.

Several voters interviewed by the newspaper said someone wrote the information without their knowledge.

Some of the suspicious absentee ballots list Defiglio as the person who could pick it up for the voter.

Residents of Griswold Heights said he is a familiar figure around those complexes.

Other ballots were handled by, or returnable to, Democratic or WFP party officials, or candidates for citywide office, including: Troy Council President Clement Campana; City Clerk William McInerny; Councilman Gary Galuski; Rensselaer County WFP Chairman James Welch; council candidates Michael LoPorto and Kevin McGrath; and Tom Aldrich, a LoPorto campaign volunteer.

Welch, the county's WFP chairman, declined to speak with a reporter on Friday evening.

"I'm with my family."

"Another time, sir," Welch said and then hung up the telephone.

Affidavits signed by some of the hijacked voters are included in a related lawsuit filed Wednesday by Rensselaer County Republicans through Christian Lambertsen, a WFP candidate for City Council.

The lawsuit seeks to have the ballots thrown out.

The ballot investigation was initiated by Robert Mirch, a Troy county legislator and Republican party operative.

Mirch said he was alerted to the suspicious ballots on Sept. 14 by an elections official.

He hired two private investigators from Loudonville and they began unraveling the fraud last week.

Peter Testa, a Fourth Street shop owner, told an investigator an absentee ballot in his name was forged when it was filed.

Testa said he voted in person on primary day, unaware someone had apparently stolen his identity the day before.

His signature on the ballot application was forged, Testa said.

A section of the document that asks ''Where will you be on election day?'' it states, in someone else's handwriting: ''Job Interview - Boston.''

''That is a complete falsehood,'' Testa said in a deposition.

Brendan J. Lyons can be reached at 454-5547 or by e-mail at blyons@timesunion.com.

I love it when you take time to smell the roses, Livyjr...

As an engineer, rla, I have a lot of experience with that term "state of the art" ......

Usually, it is used up here when conning someone ....

Or running a scam ....

And as an engineer, I have debunked "state of the art" many times, sadly to my detriment, since scam artists and con men have a lot of political clout up this way ....

Certainly a lot more than I have, anyway ...

And so ...

Thanks, rla ....

Actually, I am smelling them all the time ...

I bought myself a good tile saw so I can cut tile to do tile work ...

That is another means of self-expression that I have ....

And I do consider that to be artwork ....

And so ...

I have, on a few occassions, been charged with the responsibility of determining to what degree a particular educational or human service Organization was providing, "State-of-the-Art" services...(usually for the purpose of
determining whether a Federal Grant was to be renewed). You can't imagine a better opportunity to pi$$ off a
lot of people.

I would love to see your place.

AMEN, rla ...

By the way, other than a lot of reports sitting on a shelf somewhere, what do all these government grants really buy us?

And so ...

And you would be quite welcome, rla ...

It is a work in progress ....

And so ...

A few buy a lot and a lot buys nothing. The system becomes more corrupt over time...

"Judge orders release of Cheney interview with FBI"

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

Thu Oct 1, 11:37 am ET

WASHINGTON – A federal judge ruled Thursday that the FBI must publicly reveal much of its interview with former Vice President Dick Cheney during the investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA operative.

The FBI interviewed Cheney in June 2004 as it was investigating the leak of Valerie Plame's identity after her husband publicly criticized the Bush administration.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations said they wanted to keep the interview confidential because future presidents and vice presidents may not cooperate with criminal investigations if they know what they say could became public.

But U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled there was no justification to withhold the entire 67 pages of records documenting the interview since the Plame leak investigation has concluded.

He said that limited parts could be withheld to protect national security or personal privacy.

Government attorneys told Sullivan in a hearing this summer that if he ordered the documents released, they would appeal and seek to withhold the documents until the matter is resolved.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling Thursday.

Plame's identity was leaked to news organizations after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, criticized the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq in 2003.

The leak touched off a lengthy inquiry that led to Cheney's former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, being convicted on charges of obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.

During his trial, jurors found that Libby lied to the FBI and a grand jury about his conversations with reporters.

Then-President George W. Bush commuted Libby's sentence, and Libby never served prison time.

Libby was the only person charged in the case.

No one was charged with leaking Wilson's name.

Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters.

The prosecutor in that case, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, said in his closing remarks at Libby's trial that there was a "cloud" over Cheney's role in the case.

In July 2008, the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Justice Department seeking records related to Cheney's interview in the investigation.

The Justice Department declined to turn over the records, and CREW filed a lawsuit in August arguing that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.

The Justice Department said the documents were exempt since they were part of a law enforcement matter and their release could interfere with future cases.

They said presidents and vice presidents may not cooperate if they know what they say could become available to their political opponents and late-night comics like those on "The Daily Show," who would ridicule them.

They also said the interview contained classified material and that presidential communications were shielded to allow candor with the president and his advisers.

OBAMA SOUNDS LIKE HE IS GOING "DICK NIXXON" ON US HERE ....

"White House lashes out at Fox News for 'lies'"

Thu Oct 1, 5:14 pm ET

In the past few months, Fox News' critical coverage of the Obama administration has been the subject of scornful scrutiny by left-leaning pundits and political satirists.

But now the White House appears to be willing to get dirt on its own hands, jumping into the fray by blasting the network's "disregard for facts" in a post on the official White House blog.

Written by White House Online Programs Director Jesse Lee, the post takes issue with Fox News' coverage of the president's attempts to help the city of Chicago secure the 2016 Olympics, saying that Rupert Murdoch's cable news juggernaut, which famously bills itself as being "fair and balanced," has "continued its disregard for the facts in an attempt to smear the Administration's efforts" to convince the International Olympic Committee that the U.S. should host the games.

Lee specifically takes issue with Glenn Beck, who in July accused the president of being a "racist" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture," for showing that "nothing is worthy of respect if it can be used as part of a partisan attack to boost ratings."

Lee then goes on to "reality check" a number of assertions recently made by Beck on his afternoon program, in addition to directing readers to the St. Petersburg Times' Politifact site, which rebuts accusations made by Fox News' Steve Doocy against Patrick Gaspard, the director of the White House Office of Political Affairs.

The move by the Obama White House sets a new watermark in its seemingly escalating war with Fox News.

Back in June, President Obama gave an interview to CNBC in which he criticized the network for being "entirely devoted to attacking my administration," and later promised to "call out" anyone who misrepresents him when he delivered his address on health care reform to a joint session of Congress.

Taking it a step further, Obama slighted Fox News during the White House's recent pro-health care reform PR blitz, appearing on five Sunday news shows, not to mention Late Night with David Letterman, while declining to grant an interview to a single Fox News program, a move that led Chris Wallace, host of the network's Fox News Sunday, to label the Obama White House as the "biggest bunch of cry-babies I've ever seen."

Some objective observers of politics and the media feel that the ire expressed by Wallace is somewhat understandable.

After all, the Obama administration's frustrations stem not from non-partisan hosts like Wallace, but from Fox News' roster of unabashedly partisan hosts like Beck and Sean Hannity, who've both gone so far as to compare the Obama White House to Hitler's Germany and the communist Soviet Union.

While many are raising hay about the White House acting aggressively to combat perceived smears from Fox News, it isn't unprecedented for a president and his administration to feud openly with the media.

George W. Bush and CBS came to blows in 2004 after Dan Rather alleged on 60 Minutes II that Bush had used his family's connections to manipulate his enlistment in the National Guard to avoid serving in combat in Vietnam, an incident that led to the firing of CBS producer Mary Mapes and badly tarnished Rather's reputation as an objective newsman.

Prior to that, Hillary Clinton famously alleged that forces in the media were involved in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to destroy her husband's presidency, while Nixon's infamous enemies list contained numerous names of media members and the news organizations they worked for.

In short, animosity existing between the White House and the media isn't anything new.

During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama did what many presidential candidates of both parties have done over the years: promised to "change the tone in Washington."

By using the White House blog to defend itself from perceived media distortions, the Obama Administration may be unintentionally signaling that their promise to alter the nation's political discourse was a lofty notion that they might fail to fulfill, just like every past presidential Administration to make the same promise.

-- Brett Michael Dykes is a contributor to the Yahoo! News Blog.

Who is Barack Obama?

Who are we?

Well, tazvil04 ....

You know that I will not speak for you, since you do so quite well for yourself, but I am an American citizen ....

And Barack Obama is the president of the USA pursuant to the U.S. Constitution ....

He has a duty to us pursuant to the U.S. Constitution to TAKE CARE that OUR laws are enforced ....

And so ...

OBAMA KEEPS GRASPING AT MORE AND MORE STRAWS HERE, AND WHILE HE DOES SO, HE KEEPS BLOWING MORE AND MORE HOT AIR ....

WHAT HE IS SAYING HERE ABOUT ENTREPRENEURS FEARING TO CHANGE JOBS BECAUSE OF HEALTH INSURANCE IS A BUNCH OF CRAP ....

I KNOW A PERSON JUST SO AFFECTED AND HE HAS INSURANCE THROUGH COBRA ....

SO ALL OBAMA IS DOING IS SHOWING HIS OWN IGNORANCE PLUS A PROPENSITY TO BULL**** US AS IF WE WERE ALL STUPID CHILDREN SITTING AT HIS KNEE ...

And so ...

"Obama links job growth to health care proposal"

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer

3 OCTOBER 2009

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says passage of his health care proposals would create new jobs by making small business startups more affordable.

In his weekly radio and Internet video address Saturday, the president linked one of his biggest challenges — a worse-than-expected loss of jobs — with a top priority: passage of far-reaching changes to the nation's health care system.

If aspiring entrepreneurs believe they can stay insured while switching jobs, Obama said, they will start new businesses and hire workers.

He said he has met people "who've got a good idea and the expertise and determination to build it into a thriving business."

"But many can't take that leap because they can't afford to lose the health insurance they have at their current job."

Small businesses create many of the nation's jobs, the president said, and some have the potential to become big companies.

Obama praised the Senate Finance Committee for crafting a health care bill that includes many of his priorities.

Small businesses could buy health insurance through an exchange, he said, "where they can compare the price, quality and services of a wide variety of plans."

The government would subsidize health insurance for many businesses and individuals, the president said.

Obama acknowledged that a health care bill is far from final passage in the Democratic-controlled Congress.

The Senate Finance bill will be merged with another version and sent to the Senate floor, where scores of amendments might be offered and Republicans could mount a filibuster.

The House, meanwhile, is advancing a more liberal bill that includes a public option to compete with private health insurers.

The Senate Finance Committee rejected that idea.

Obama said "reforming our health insurance system will be a critical step in rebuilding our economy so that our entrepreneurs can pursue the American dream again and our small businesses can grow and expand and create new jobs again."

In the weekly Republican address, Rep. Candice Miller of Michigan blamed the continued job losses on Democratic policies and said Obama's health proposals won't help.

Miller said the Obama-backed $789 billion economic stimulus package fell far short of its goals.

And she criticized a House-passed energy bill that would set limits and costs on greenhouse gas emissions.

The plan, which the Senate has not taken up, "would increase electricity bills, raise gasoline prices and ship more American jobs overseas," Miller said.

She called for deeper tax cuts for small businesses "to put our economy back on track."

As for health care, Miller said, "Washington Democrats intend to fund their government-run health care plan with cuts to Medicare benefits" and with new taxes on businesses.
___

On the Net:

Obama's address: http://www.whitehouse.gov

The Republican address: http://www.youtube.com/RepublicanConference

HE'S WAITING FOR INPUT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE CLEANING STAFF ...

AND IN THE MEANTIME, HE HAS DAVID AXELROD IN THE WHITE HOUSE BASEMENT FURIOUSLY GUTTING AN ASSORTMENT OF CHICKENS, CATTLE, GOATS AND SHEEP LOOKING IN THEIR ENTRAILS FOR OMENS AND PORTENTS AS TO HOW TO PROCEED ....

WHILE BOBBY GIBBS IS UP ON THE WHITE HOUSE ROOF WATCHING WHICH WAY THE CROWS ARE FLYING SO HE CAN DIVINE HEAVENLY INTENT ...

And so ....

"Obama offers no firm signals on troop increases - Obama tells lawmakers Afghan review deliberate, rigorous as he considers US role in war"

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press

Last updated: 7:16 p.m., Tuesday, October 6, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Tuesday ruled out shrinking the Afghanistan war to a counterterrorism campaign.

Yet he did not signal whether he is prepared to send any more troops to the war zone -- either the 40,000 his top commander wants or a smaller buildup, according to several officials.

House and Senate leaders of both parties emerged from a nearly 90-minute conversation with Obama with praise for his candor and interest in listening.

But politically speaking, all sides appeared to exit where they entered, with Republicans pushing Obama to follow his military commanders and Democrats saying he should not be rushed.

Obama is examining how to proceed with a worsening war that has claimed nearly 800 U.S. lives and sapped American patience.

Launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to defeat Taliban insurgents and rid al-Qaida terrorists of a home base, the war has lasted longer than ever envisioned -- eight years on Wednesday.

Obama said the war would not be reduced to a narrowly defined counterterrorism effort, with the withdrawal of many U.S. forces and an emphasis on special operations forces that target terrorists in the dangerous border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Two senior administration officials aides say such a scenario has been inaccurately characterized and linked to Vice President Joe Biden, and that Obama wanted to make clear he is considering no such plan.

The president did not show his hand on troop increases.

His top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has bluntly warned that more troops are needed to right the war, perhaps up to 40,000 more.

Obama has already added 21,000 troops this year, raising the total to 68,000.

Obama may be considering a more modest building of troops -- closer to 10,000 than 40,000 -- according to Republican and Democratic congressional aides.

But White House aides said no such decision has been made.

The president insisted that he will make a decision on troops after settling on the strategy ahead.

He told lawmakers he will be deliberate yet show urgency.

"We do recognize that he has a tough decision, and he wants ample time to make a good decision," said House Republican leader John Boehner.

"Frankly, I support that, but we need to remember that every day that goes by, the troops that we do have there are in greater danger."

What's clear is that the mission in Afghanistan is not changing.

Obama said his focus is to keep al-Qaida terrorists from having a base from which to launch attacks on the U.S or it allies.

He heard from 18 lawmakers and said he would keep seeking such input even knowing his final decision would not please them all.

While several lawmakers described the exchanges as helpful and open, a different view emerged about just how much backing the president will get.

"The one thing that I think was interesting is that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said, 'Whatever decision you make, we'll support it,' basically," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"So we'll see."

The Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said later:

"I think Republicans will be able to make the decisions for themselves."

But he added that Obama is likely to get significant Republican support if he follows the advice of his military commanders.

Boehner agreed, saying "my colleagues on the House side will be there to support" Obama if he stays true to the mission of denying a haven for al-Qaida terrorists or Taliban militants who are fiercely fighting coalition forces.

Obama's emphasis on working off a strong strategy did not mean he shed much light on what it would be.

He did, though, seek to "dispense with the more extreme options on either side of the debate," as one administration official put it.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the closed-door meeting.

The president made clear he would not "double down" in Afghanistan and build up U.S forces into the hundreds of thousands, just as he ruled out withdrawing forces and focusing on a narrow counterterrorism strategy.

"Half measures is what I worry about," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama's opponent in last year's election.

He said Obama should follow the recommendations from those in uniform and dispatch thousands of more troops to the country -- similar to what President George W. Bush did during the 2008 troop "surge" in Iraq.

He also prodded Obama to act.

"It's pretty clear that time is not on our side," said McCain, one of the many lawmakers who met with the president.

Public support for the war in Afghanistan is dropping.

It stands at 40 percent, down from 44 percent in July, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

A total of 69 percent of self-described Republicans in the poll favor sending more troops, while 57 percent of self-described Democrats oppose it.

The White House said Obama won't base his decisions on the mood on Capitol Hill or eroding public support for the war.

"The president is going to make a decision -- popular or unpopular -- based on what he thinks is in the best interests of the country," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.

------

Associated Press writers Pamela Hess, Jim Kuhnhenn, Anne Flaherty, Anne Gearan, Jennifer Loven, Robert Burns, Philip Elliott and Charles Babington contributed to this report.

"Obama weighs options on anniversary of Afghan war"

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer

7 OCTOBER 2009

WASHINGTON – On the eighth anniversary of the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama is gathering his national security team for another strategy session.

Obama is examining how to proceed with a worsening war that has claimed nearly 800 U.S. lives and sapped American patience.

Launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to defeat the Taliban and rid al-Qaida of a home base, the war has lasted longer than ever envisioned.

House and Senate leaders of both parties emerged Tuesday from a nearly 90-minute conversation with Obama with praise for his candor and interest in listening.

But politically speaking, all sides appeared to exit where they entered, with Republicans pushing Obama to follow his military commanders and Democrats saying he should not be rushed.

Obama said the war would not be reduced to a narrowly defined counterterrorism effort, with the withdrawal of many U.S. forces and an emphasis on special operations forces that target terrorists in the dangerous border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Two senior administration officials say such a scenario has been inaccurately characterized and linked to Vice President Joe Biden, and that Obama wanted to make clear he is considering no such plan.

The president did not show his hand on troop increases.

His top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has bluntly warned that more troops are needed to right the war, perhaps up to 40,000 more.

Obama has already added 21,000 troops this year, raising the total to 68,000.

Obama also gave no timetable for a decision, which prompted at least one pointed exchange.

Inside the State Dining Room, where the meeting was held, Obama's Republican opponent in last year's presidential race, Sen. John McCain, told Obama that he should not move at a "leisurely pace," according to people in the room.

That comment later drew a sharp response from Obama, they said.

Obama said no one felt more urgency than he did about the war, and there would not be nothing leisurely about it.

Obama may be considering a more modest building of troops — closer to 10,000 than 40,000 — according to Republican and Democratic congressional aides.

But White House aides said no such decision has been made.
___

Associated Press writers Pamela Hess, Jim Kuhnhenn, Anne Flaherty, Anne Gearan, Jennifer Loven, Robert Burns, Philip Elliott and Charles Babington contributed to this report.

"Obama's Nobel: The Last Thing He Needs"

By NANCY GIBBS

9 OCTOBER 2009

The last thing Barack Obama needed at this moment in his presidency and our politics is a prize for a promise.

Inspirational words have brought him a long way - including to the night in Grant Park less than a year ago when he asked that we "join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand."

By now there are surely more callouses on his lips than his hands.

He, like every new president, has reckoned with both the power and the danger of words, dangers that are especially great for one who wields them as skillfully as he.

A promise beautifully made raises hopes especially high: we will revive the economy while we rein in our spending; we will make health care simpler, safer, cheaper, fairer.

We will rid the earth of its most lethal weapons.

We will turn green and clean.

We will all just get along.

So when reality bites, it chomps down hard.

The Nobel committee cited "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

His critics fault some of those efforts: those who favor a missile shield for Poland or a troop surge in Afghanistan or a harder line on Iran.

But even his fans know that none of the dreams have yet come true, and a prize for even dreaming them can feed the illusion that they have.

Maybe the prize will give him more power, new muscles to haul unruly nations in line.

But peacemaking is more about ingenuity than inspiration, about reading other nations' selfish interests and cynically, strategically exploiting them for the common good.

Will it help if fewer countries come to the table hating us?

To a point.

But it's a starting point, not an end in itself.

At this moment many Americans are longing for a president who is more bully, less pulpit.

The president who leased his immense inaugural good will to the hungry appropriators writing the stimulus bill, who has not stopped negotiating health care reform except to say what is non-negotiable, whose solicitude for the wheelers and dealers who drove the financial system into a ditch leaves the rest of us wondering who has our back, has always shown great promise, said the right things, affirmed every time he opens his mouth that he understands the fears we face and the hopes we hold.

But he presides over a capital whose day-to-day functioning has become part-travesty, part-tragedy, wasteful, blind, vain, petty, where even the best intentioned reformers measure their progress with teaspoons.

There comes a time when a President needs to take a real risk - and putting his prestige on the line to win the Olympics for his home town does not remotely count.

Compare this to Greg Mortenson, nominated for the prize by some members of Congress, who the bookies gave 20-to-1 odds of winning.

Son of a missionary, a former army Medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying.

His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan - a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress.

Sometimes the words come first.

Sometimes, it's better to let actions speak for themselves.

"Gasps as Obama awarded Nobel Peace Prize - Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize in vote seen as encouraging his promise of diplomacy, disarmament"

By KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE, Associated Press

Last updated: 6:05 p.m., Friday, October 9, 2009

OSLO -- The announcement drew gasps of surprise and cries of too much, too soon.

Yet President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday because the judges found his promise of disarmament and diplomacy too good to ignore.

The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee -- four of whom spoke to The Associated Press, said awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.

They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.

"Some people say -- and I understand it -- 'Isn't it premature?'"

"'Too early?'"

"Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told the AP.

"It is now that we have the opportunity to respond -- all of us."

Jagland said the committee whittled down a record pool of 205 nominations and had "several candidates until the last minute," but it became more obvious that "we couldn't get around these deep changes that are taking place" under Obama.

Obama said he was surprised and deeply humbled by the honor, and planned to travel to Oslo in December to accept the prize.

"Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," he said at the White House.

"To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."

Obama will donate the $1.4 million cash award that comes with the prize to charity.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who won the prize in 1984, said the decision showed that great things are expected from Obama and "wonderful recognition" of his effort to reach out to the Arab world after years of hostility.

"It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama's message of hope," Tutu said.

Many were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in a presidency that began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline for the prize and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.

"So soon?"

"Too early."

"He has no contribution so far."

"He is only beginning to act," said former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the peace prize in 1983.

Some around the world objected to the choice of Obama, who still oversees wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched deadly counterterrorism strikes in Pakistan and Somalia.

Jagland told AP that while the war in Afghanistan was a concern, the Obama administration "immediately started to reassess the strategy."

"That itself is important, because when something goes wrong, then you need to ask yourself why is it going wrong," he said.

Obama said he was working to end the war in Iraq and "to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies" in Afghanistan, where he is seriously considering increasing the number of U.S. troops on the ground and asking for help from others as the war enters its ninth year.

Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi in Afghanistan condemned the Nobel committee's decision, saying Obama had only escalated the war and had "the blood of the Afghan people on his hands."

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki called the Nobel decision "hasty."

"The appropriate time for awarding such a prize is when foreign military forces leave Iraq and Afghanistan and when one stands by the rights of the oppressed Palestinian people," he was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.

Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party who joined the Nobel committee this year, said she hoped the selection would be viewed as "support and a commitment for Obama."

"And I hope it will be an inspiration for all those that work with nuclear disarmament and disarmament," she told AP in a rare interview.

Members of the committee usually speak only through its chairman.

The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts, but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than those of past winners, and the committee acknowledged they may not bear fruit at all.

"If everything goes wrong, then one cannot say that this was because of Barack Obama," Jagland said.

"It could be that it is because of us, all the others, that didn't respond."

"But I cannot exclude that Barack Obama also can contribute to the eventual failure."

In Europe and much of the world, Obama is praised for bringing the U.S. closer to mainstream global thinking on such issues as climate change and multilateralism.

A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world.

That indicator had plunged across the world under President George W. Bush.

The award appeared to be at least partly a slap at Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for his largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

"Those who were in support of Bush in his belief in war solving problems, on rearmament, and that nuclear weapons play an important role ... probably won't be happy," said Valle.

At home, the picture is more complicated.

Obama is often criticized by his political opponents as he attempts to carry out his agenda -- from government spending to health care to Afghanistan.

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said Obama won because of his "star power" rather than meaningful accomplishments.

"The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?'" Steele said.

Drawing criticism from some on the left, Obama has been slow to bring troops home from Iraq and the real end of the U.S. military presence there won't come until at least 2012.

The Nobel committee said it paid special attention to Obama's vision of a nuclear-free world, laid out in a speech in Prague and in April and at the United Nations last month.

Former Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership on nuclear non-proliferation.

"He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts," ElBaradei said.

In July talks in Moscow, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed that their negotiators would work out a new limit on delivery vehicles for nuclear warheads of between 500 and 1,100.

They also agreed that warhead limits would be reduced from the current range of 1,700-2,200 to as low as 1,500.

The U.S. now has about 2,200 such warheads, compared to about 2,800 for the Russians.

There has been no word on whether either side has started to act on the reductions.

Obama also has tried to restart stalled Mideast talks with no progress yet reported.

In the Gaza Strip, leaders of the radical Hamas movement said they had heard Obama's speeches on better relations with the Islamic world but had not been moved.

"We are in need of actions, not sayings," Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said.

"If there is no fundamental and true change in American policies toward the acknowledgment of the rights of the Palestinian people, I think this prize won't move us forward or backward."

Obama has said that battling climate change is a priority.

Yet the U.S. seems likely to head into crucial international negotiations set for Copenhagen in December with Obama-backed legislation still stalled in Congress.

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by the five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament.

Like the Parliament, the panel has a leftist slant, with three members elected by left-of-center parties and two right-of-center members.

Jagland said the decision to honor Obama was unanimous.

The secretive committee declined to say who nominated Obama.

In Nobel tradition, nominations are kept secret for 50 years, unless those making the submissions go public about their picks.

This year's nominations included Colombian activist Piedad Cordoba, Afghan woman's rights activist Simi Samar and Denis Mukwege, a physician in war-torn Congo who opened a clinic to help rape victims.

Nominators for the prize are broad and include former laureates; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.

Obama is the third sitting U.S. president to win the award: President Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919.

In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

------

On the Net:

http://www.nobelpeaceprize.org

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Saturday, October 10, 2009

"Nobel Prize seen as reward for not being Bush"

By Matthew Mosk and Stephen Dinan, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

ANALYSIS:

Five Norwegian politicians sent a surprising but unambiguous message Friday, bestowing one of the world's most coveted honors on President Obama as a signal of the Western world's repudiation of the presidency of George W. Bush and its embrace of a softer but still untested American foreign policy.

As word of the stunning Nobel Peace Prize selection began to take hold Friday, Americans struggled to digest the news that some first mistook for a prank and others saw as an overreach, given that the president had been in office only 12 days when he was nominated for the award.

The award was "a sigh of collective relief that George Bush is no longer here," said Aaron David Miller, an adviser on Middle East issues to six presidents.

More than any concrete contribution Mr. Obama has made to world peace, the prize embodies "the international community's love affair" with a young, charismatic president who "listens, not lectures," he added.

Caught off guard by the award, the White House scrambled Friday morning to strike the right tone in accepting the honor.

Mr. Obama tried to appear grounded in reality, explaining that after being awakened with news of the honor, he was immediately confronted with more immediate family concerns, including the news of his dog's birthday and a daughter's observation that they were on the cusp of a three-day weekend.

"It's good to have kids to keep things in perspective," he chuckled.

Despite some early speculation that perhaps the president would politely decline the honor, Mr. Obama sent an e-mail to supporters explaining his decision to accept it.

"To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many ... transformative figures," he wrote.

"But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes," he said, describing the award as "a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of change in the 21st century."

After his embarrassment at the hands of the International Olympic Committee, which rejected Mr. Obama's personal pitch for Chicago as an Olympic host, the Nobel award represents a clear return to the prevailing narrative of Mr. Obama's campaign for the White House and the central theme of his early presidency - that he is attempting to "re-set" relations with the rest of the world after an icy eight years under Mr. Bush.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose country's bitter opposition to the Iraq war came to embody the diplomatic breakdown between the U.S. and Europe under Mr. Bush, was among the first to explain how the award was being viewed overseas.

The Obama choice, he explained, "sets the seal on America's return to the heart of all the world's peoples."

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon agreed that the Nobel announcement represented a symbolic welcoming of the new American approach.

"President Obama embodies the new spirit of dialogue and engagement on the world's biggest problems - climate change, nuclear disarmament and a wide range of peace and security challenges," he said.

The president's political supporters welcomed such sentiments as a sign that Mr. Obama was delivering on his promise to rekindle relations between the U.S. and its top allies.

To others, though, the shock of the announcement came in seeing so esteemed an award handed out before Mr. Obama even had time to build a tangible record of accomplishment that might justify it.

Mark Salter, an author and longtime adviser to Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, called the decision "morally reprehensible," even if Mr. Obama himself was not at fault.

"No president's statecraft, whether you agree with its direction or not, can be expected to bear fruit in less than nine months," Mr. Salter said.

"I think the morally correct and politically shrewd response from the White House would have been to refuse the honor."

What struck an especially ironic chord with some Republicans was the Nobel committee's suggestion that Mr. Obama's call for a nuclear weapons-free world "has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations."

It was Mr. Bush, they said, who persevered with dramatic reductions in the world's nuclear arms stockpiles begun under President Clinton.

From 1992 to 2000 the world's nuclear arms stockpiles fell from nearly 53,000 to about 31,500, according to the Clinton Presidential Library.

Nuclear stockpiles fell another 8,000, to 23,375 during Mr. Bush's eight years in office, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

The basis for the Nobel committee's praise was likely Mr. Obama's speech in Prague earlier this year, where he began to lay out his vision for eliminating nuclear arms.

He is also working to beat an end-of-year deadline to write a new arms control agreement with Russia.

Non-proliferation groups said those negotiations led Mr. Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to refocus the world on a real problem.

"This award reflects a new international consensus that whatever stability nuclear arsenals may have provided during the Cold War is now outweighed by the growing risks of proliferation and nuclear terrorism and that the only way in the long term to eliminate the nuclear threat is to eliminate all nuclear weapons," said former Ambassador Richard Burt, the chief U.S. negotiator for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

But the praise for Mr. Obama's efforts struck many as premature at best.

Denver talk-radio host Mike Rosen compared the honor to awarding Major League Baseball's Most Valuable Player to a promising rookie after he draws a walk in his first game.

He suspected this was the Nobel committee's way of thanking Mr. Obama for ousting the Republican Party from the White House.

"It's obviously a slap in the face to George W. Bush," Mr. Rosen said.

John R. Bolton, Mr. Bush's ambassador to the U.N. and before that the Bush administration official on nuclear arms proliferation, said at the very least it was tough to make the case that Mr. Obama had already earned the award.

"Ronald Reagan also called for a world without nuclear weapons - where was his Nobel Peace Prize?" Mr. Bolton said.

"The problem on the proliferation side is the same with the problem, I think, more generally, and that is we have traditionally understood the Nobel Peace Prize to be a record of accomplishment, and there isn't a record of accomplishment here yet."

Mr. Bolton, who was among those calling on Mr. Obama to decline the prize, said he found the president appropriately "gracious and modest" in the way he accepted it.

But he also found it striking that the committee has recognized former President Carter, former Vice President Al Gore and now Mr. Obama, but not Mr. Clinton.

"They want to reward a particular kind of American - an American who thinks like Europeans do," he said.

Jon Ward, Valerie Richardson and Joseph Weber contributed to this article.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/o...not-being-bush/

"Analysis: A great prize, but will it help goals?"

By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP White House Correspondent

Fri Oct 9, 8:41 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Now that he's Nobel laureate Barack Obama, will he find smoother sailing for his plans to rid the world of nuclear weapons, to forge Mideast peace and stabilize Afghanistan, to halt climate change?

Not likely.

The Nobel committee members made no bones about it:

Helping Obama achieve ambitious peacemaking goals was their goal in awarding the prize Friday to an as-yet mostly unaccomplished U.S. president.

But while the prestige could give Obama and his efforts a boost, nations steer their courses according to their own interests and little else.

U.S. lawmakers, too, aren't going to be influenced in politically difficult votes on climate change legislation or nuclear-reduction treaties by the Nobel Peace Prize, no matter who wins it.

That's not to say it wasn't an impressive achievement.

At just 48 years old and not even nine months in office, Obama became only the third sitting U.S. president to win the prize.

The widespread reaction, however, when the stunning news hit the nation was:

For what?

Obama said so himself.

"To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize," he said hours after being awakened — and surprised — by spokesman Robert Gibbs.

Comments from Nobel committee members revealed that they fully intended to encourage, not reward.

Consider this:

The nomination deadline was only 12 days after Obama first entered the Oval Office.

It's an enduring myth that the prize is only about accomplishment — it actually was created as much to supply momentum for peace as to celebrate it.

Indeed, with a leftist slant, the five-member committee was applauding Obama as much for what he's not — his predecessor.

Former President George W. Bush was much reviled overseas for "cowboy diplomacy," the Iraq war and his snubbing of European priorities such as global warming.

So some cheerleading probably can't hurt, as Obama presses forward on efforts to repair America's relations with Muslims, bring Israelis and Palestinians into fruitful negotiations and turn back climate change.

The committee especially singled out Obama's aims to create a nuclear weapons-free world and to set out a new, more cooperative diplomatic doctrine.

"I hope it will help him," Nobel committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said of the award.

"Obama is the right man at the right time, and that's why we want to enhance his efforts."

"I will accept this award as a call to action," Obama said.

"This award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity."

Still, Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners'.

For instance:

• He and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have set negotiators working toward an agreement to significantly reduce nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles.

But getting to zero nuclear weapons across the globe — something Obama acknowledged "may not be completed in my lifetime" — means corralling both friend and foe abroad and lawmakers at home behind a mind-bendingly thorny web of treaties and agreements.

• Obama said he would end the Iraq war.

But he launches deadly anti-terror strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere and is running a second war, in Afghanistan, that he has already escalated once and is considering ramping up again while trying to persuade mostly reluctant NATO allies to contribute more.

• He has pushed for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

But there's been little cooperation so far from them.

• His administration is talking to U.S. foes, like Iran, North Korea and Cuba.

But there's not much to show from that, either.

• He pledged to take the lead against climate change.

But the U.S. seems likely to head into December's crucial international negotiations in Copenhagen with legislation still stalled in Congress and nations crucial to global agreement, including China and India, showing reluctance to come on board.

With many seeing the award as premature, there's the chance it could provoke a small backlash that makes Obama's work harder.

So, no doubt the news of the prize brought trepidation along with joy.

As Obama's former foe for the White House, Republican Sen. John McCain, said:

"He now has even more to live up to."

Perhaps one reason there was no public celebrating at the White House on Friday.

___

Matt Moore in Oslo contributed to this report.
___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Jennifer Loven is the AP's chief White House correspondent.

"No Peace, No Prize"

Posted by Joe Klein Friday, October 9, 2009 at 9:37 am

There is a slight whiff of condescension attending the announcement that Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

There is the sense that he has won simply by not being George W. Bush.

Effete Europe is congratulating rowdy America for cleaning up its act and not bringing guns to the dinner table.

Well, I'm as relieved as anybody that the Bushian gunslingers have been given the gate and, as regular readers know, I'm a big fan of patient, rigorous diplomacy--and there's a certain lovely irony to any prize that brings the Taliban and the neoconservative Commentary crowd together in high dudgeon--but let's face it: this prize is premature to the point of ridiculousness.

It continues a pattern that holds some peril for Obama: he is celebrated for who he is not, and for who he might potentially be, rather than for what he has actually done.

If he doesn't provide results that justify the award, this Nobel will prove a millstone come election time.

And so, how to handle this "triumph" becomes a strategic puzzle that requires serious thought.

Two immediate thoughts occur: he can't reject it, but accepting it can't be about him.

He can and should immediately say something like, "I don't deserve this."

That's a no brainer.

The question is, what should he say after that?

Perhaps:

"But the American people do."

For creating and sustaining a stable and civil democracy that is the envy of the world.

And he should celebrate the essential American idea: that the things we have in common as human beings are more important than the things that divide us.

It doesn't matter who you are, where you come from, whether you believe in God or not--this American principle, the belief in certain inalienable rights, should be the basis for international interactions as well.

This should be followed by the necessary caveats--the things that conservatives call "apologies" but are required for credibility--especially the idea that we haven't always abided by our founding principles in dealing with the rest of the world.

But enough of the high-blown stuff: the Nobel needs to be an excuse for an action agenda.

One idea, which Zbigniew Brzezinski has been touting, would be to announce the parameters for a Middle East peace settlement--and recruit the rest of the world to get behind it.

This would not please those Israelis--and their American enablers--who want to hold onto lands that they gained by conquest, nor would it please those Palestinians harboring fantasies of regaining lands they left 60 years ago, but most people have a rough sense of what constitutes justice in this tortured patch of earth and Obama might use his Peace Prize to actually create some peace in the world's most vexing place.

I'm sure there are other things he can and should do--starting with finding an appropriate place to donate the $1.4 million that comes with the award.

I'd give it to Greg Mortenson or someone else who has a successful track record of building schools in difficult places.

In the end, this premature prize is a significant challenge for the President:

Will Barack Obama use it to demonstrate that he actually has the courage, moral fortitude, intelligence and creativity that the award portends?

The expectations bar has always been set impossibly high for Obama.

This raises it.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/09...?xid=yahoo-feat

"Attacks demonstrate Taliban resurgence in Pakistan"

By RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press Writer

11 OCTOBER 2009

ISLAMABAD – A week of terror strikes across Pakistan, capped by a stunning assault on army headquarters, show the Taliban have rebounded and appear determined to shake the nation's resolve as the military plans for an offensive against the group's stronghold on the Afghan border.

The 22-hour attack on Pakistan's "Pentagon" in the city of Rawalpindi, which ended with 20 dead Sunday, was the third terror attack in a week to shake this nuclear-armed nation.

It demonstrated the militants' renewed strength since their leader was killed by a U.S. missile strike in August and military operations against their bases.

The U.S. has long pushed Islamabad to take more action against Taliban and al-Qaida militants, who are also blamed for attacks on U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, and the army carried out a successful campaign against the militants in the Swat Valley in the spring.

But the army had been unwilling to go all out in the lawless tribal areas along the border that serve as the Taliban's main refuge.

Three offensives into South Waziristan since 2001 ended in failure and the government signed peace deals with the militants.

On the heels of the Swat victory, the military launched a campaign of airstrikes on the militants in Waziristan and in recent weeks officials said they were preparing a full offensive there.

That was before the embarrassing attack on army headquarters bolstered militants' assertions they are ready to take on the military, and threatened to deflate the army's newfound popularity.

In the wake of the seige in Rawalpindi, the government said it would not be deterred.

The military launched two airstrikes Sunday evening on suspected militant targets in South Waziristan, killing at least five insurgents and ending a five-day lull in attacks there, intelligence officials said.

"We are going to attack the terrorists, the miscreants over there who are disturbing the state and damaging the peace," Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira said.

"Wherever they will be, we will follow them."

"We will pursue them."

"We will take them to task."

In London, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the insurgents are "increasingly threatening the authority of the state, but we see no evidence they are going to take over the state."

She and British Foreign Minister David Miliband said there was no sign Pakistan's nuclear arsenal was at risk.

Available information suggests that Pakistan's secret nuclear sites are protected by crack troops and multiple physical barriers.

"It's not thought likely that the Taliban are suddenly going to storm in and gain control of the nuclear facilities," said Gareth Price, head of the Asia program at London think tank Chatham House.

Security at army headquarters did not prevent a team of 10 gunmen in fatigues from launching a frontal assault on the very core of the country's most powerful institution Saturday morning, setting off a gunbattle and hostage drama that ended a day later after a commando raid.

The violence killed 20, including three hostages and nine militants, while 42 hostages were freed, the military said.

Many of them had been held in a single room by militant wearing a suicide vest, who was shot by commandos before he could detonate his explosives, the army said.

The military said it captured the militant's ringleader, who was known as Aqeel or "Dr. Usman."

Army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said the militant's nickname derived from the time he spent as a guard at an army nursing school before he joined the insurgents.

The name matched that of a militant suspected of orchestrating an attack in Lahore earlier this year on Sri Lanka's visiting cricket team.

Hakimullah Mehsud, the new leader of the Taliban, had claimed responsibility for that attack.

A police intelligence report from July obtained by The Associated Press on Saturday warned that members of the Taliban along with the Punjab-based Jaish-e-Mohammed were planning to attack army headquarters after disguising themselves as soldiers.

The report was given to the AP by an official in Punjab's home affairs ministry.

Officials have warned that Taliban fighters close to the border, Punjabi militants spread out across the country and foreign al-Qaida operatives were increasingly joining forces, dramatically increasing the dangers to Pakistan.

The weekend strike was a stunning finale to a week of attacks that highlighted the militants' ability to strike a range of targets in different cities, seemingly at will.

On Monday, a suicide bomber dressed as a paramilitary police officer blew himself up inside a heavily guarded U.N. aid agency in the heart of the capital, Islamabad.

On Friday, a suspected militant detonated an explosives-laden car in the middle of a busy market in the northwestern city of Peshawar, killing 53 people.

Before the attacks, Pakistani officials said their operations against the militants and the killing of Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud in a CIA drone attack had left the insurgency in disarray.

But the militants coalesced around his former deputy, Hakimullah Mehsud, who promised vengeance last week for the deadly airstrikes and warned that his fighters were prepared to repel any government offensive into Waziristan.

"They are well organized, and if the army takes action, they are able to hit back," former intelligence chief Jawed Ashraf Qazi said.

He warned of more militant attacks ahead of an offensive:

"The longer the delay, the more these actions are likely to occur."

Qazi estimated 6,000 battle-hardened Uzbek fighters are waiting in the mountains, along with thousand of local fighters from the Mehsud tribe of warriors with years of experience fighting the U.S. and Pakistan.

"The militants have had five, six years to build up infrastructure, so they're prepared," said Kamran Bokhari, an analyst with Stratfor, a U.S.-based global intelligence firm.

"This is jihadist central in the country, so going in there is not going to be easy."

Yet, the recent attacks have left the government little choice but to confront the Taliban on their home turf, and the military appears better prepared than during its previous forays into the area, he said.

The army reportedly sent two divisions totaling 28,000 men to the area.

They have blockaded the region, choking the Taliban's supply lines, cutting deals with local militias to prevent them from joining up with the militants and using airstrikes to take out insurgent leaders and keep the group on the run.

"This time the preparation is there."

"This time the resolve is there."

"This time pretty much everybody is on board," Bokhari said.

"(The militant attacks) make it all the more clear that if you don't do this, this monstrosity that's out there in the tribal belt is not going away."
___

Associated Press reporters Jill Lawless in London and Zarar Khan in Islamabad contributed to this report.

"Late-Night Comedians Turning on Obama"

By Douglas J. Rowe

Sun Oct 11, 11:49 AM PDT

"That's pretty amazing, winning the Nobel Peace Prize," Jay Leno said Friday night of President Barack Obama's latest accolade.

"Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far ... winning the Nobel Peace Prize."

That joke may be indicative of the TV comedy world sharpening its arrows a bit more when the current occupant of the White House is the target, The New York Times reports.

The Times quotes Bob Lichter, who has tracked themes in late-night humor for 21 years, as saying "it will be telling to see how the comedians treat" the president's winning the peace prize:

Is there now a caricature taking hold of a man more celebrated than accomplished?

Lichter, of George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs, said it was too soon to tell whether the Oct. 3 Saturday Night Live skit suggesting that Obama has accomplished nothing is a "harbinger" or not.

"The danger is that Mr. Obama is going to be defined by inaction and not living up to expectations," he said.

SNL this weekend joined in the jokes about Obama not deserving the prize just yet, suggesting that honors like People's Sexiest Man designation may soon go to children.

Last week Jon Stewart continued with the "done nothing" theme on The Daily Show, chiding Obama for not yet getting around to reversing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy about gays.

He cited Obama's "full plate" of business.

Stewart then acted apoplectic, displaying his exasperation.

"All that stuff you've been putting on your plate?" he said.

"It's [expletive] chow time, brother."

"That's how you get things off your plate."

Ric Keller, a former Republican congressman from Florida who once wrote jokes for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, told the Times:

"There have been some clear shots coming across the bow from the comic left."

But Jeff Nussbaum, a Democratic speech and joke writer, disagreed that late-night comedy is a leading indicator of the zeitgeist.

"To use an economic term, it is more of a lagging indicator," he said.

Those old enough to remember Watergate might recall that it took Johnny Carson awhile to start making jokes about President Richard Nixon and his connection to the break-in.

But once the Tonight show host did, it felt like the beginning of the end for the U.S. leader who eventually resigned.

Barack Obama is in fact a bonifide Mystery Man. Other than what he has written about himself, there is really very little information in the public domain about the persaon, Barack Obama. I personally think that he has a lot of personal power...It didn't seem to have been made manifest prior to his address to the Democratic Convention 9n 2004. If there are people out there who know much about his life before this time, maybe this would be a good place to share such information...What can you add that would make him less a mystery?

Maybe, like Topsy, he was just born yesterday ....

And so ...

If someone made a list of the 500 most powerfull people in the world, we would see that Barack Obama has a close personal relationship with at least 250 of them. How could someone accomplish that in 5 years....?...

An interesting thought, rla ....

Someone would have had to been opening doors for him to get so far in so few years .......

WHO was that?

And so ...

"Gunmen, bomber hit 4 sites in Pakistan; 37 die"

By BABAR DOGAR and MUNIR AHMAD, Associated Press Writers

15 OCTOBER 2009

LAHORE, Pakistan – Teams of gunmen attacked three security sites Thursday in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore while a suicide bomber hit a northwestern town, killing a total of 37 people.

The strikes were part of an escalating wave of terror aimed at scuttling a planned offensive into the militant heartland on the Afghan border.

One of the attacks, on a commando training facility on Lahore's outskirts, lasted into Thursday afternoon before security forces killed the five attackers and freed a family they were holding hostage, police said.

The assaults paralyzed the cultural capital of this nuclear-armed U.S. ally, showing the militants are highly organized and able to carry out sophisticated, coordinated strikes against heavily fortified facilities despite stepped up security across the country.

No group immediately claimed responsibility, though suspicion fell on the Taliban who have claimed other recent strikes.

The attacks Thursday also were the latest to underscore the growing threat to Punjab, the province next to India where the Taliban are believed to have made inroads and linked up with local insurgent outfits.

President Asif Ali Zardari said the bloodshed that has engulfed the nation over the past 11 days would not deter the government from its mission to eliminate the violent extremists, according to a statement on the state-run news agency.

"The enemy has started a guerrilla war," Interior Minister Rehman Malik said.

"The whole nation should be united against these handful of terrorists, and God willing we will defeat them."

The wave of violence halted activity in Lahore.

All government offices were ordered shut, the roads were nearly empty, major markets did not open and stores that had been open pulled down their shutters.

The violence began just after 9 a.m. when a group of gunmen attacked a building housing the Federal Investigation Agency, a law enforcement branch that deals with matters ranging from immigration to terrorism.

"We are under attack," said Mohammad Riaz, an FIA employee reached inside the building via phone by The Associated Press during the assault.

"I can see two people hit, but I do not know who they are."

The FIA building was the target of a suicide truck bomb in March 2008 that killed 24 people and wounded more than 100.

Thursday's attack lasted about 1 1/2 hours and ended with the death of two attackers, four government employees and a bystander, senior government official Sajjad Bhutta said.

Senior police official Chaudhry Shafiq said one of the dead wore a jacket bearing explosives.

Soon after that assault began, a second band of gunmen raided a police training school in Manawan on the outskirts of the city in a brief attack that killed nine police officers and four militants, according to police and hospital officials.

One of the gunmen was killed by police at the compound and the other three blew themselves up.

The facility was hit earlier this year in an attack that sparked an eight-hour standoff with the army that left 12 people dead.

A third team of at least eight gunmen scaled the back wall of an elite police commando training center not far from the airport and attacked the facility, Lahore police chief Pervez Rathore said.

Senior police official Malik Iqbal said at least one police constable was killed there.

Lt. Gen. Shafqat Ahmad said five attackers were slain in a gunbattle and suicide blasts in the facility, and Shafiq said security forces freed a family that was being held hostage at the compound.

Television footage showed helicopters in the air over one of the police facilities and paramilitary forces with rifles and bulletproof vests taking cover behind trees outside a wall surrounding the compound.

Rana Sanaullah, provincial law minister of Punjab province, said police were trying to take some of the attackers alive so they could get information from them about their militant networks.

Officials have warned that Taliban fighters close to the border, Punjabi militants spread out across the country and foreign al-Qaida operatives were increasingly joining forces, dramatically increasing the dangers to Pakistan.

Punjab is Pakistan's most populous and powerful province, and the Taliban claimed recently that they were activating cells there and elsewhere in the country for assaults.

In the Taliban-riddled northwest, meanwhile, a suicide car bomb exploded next to a police station in the Saddar area of Kohat, collapsing half the building and killing 11 people — three police officers and eight civilians — Kohat police chief Abdullah Khan said.

The U.S. has encouraged Pakistan to take strong action against insurgents who are using its soil as a base for attacks in Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are bogged down in an increasingly difficult war.

It has carried out a slew of its own missile strikes in Pakistan's lawless tribal belt over the past year, killing several top militants including Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud.

One suspected U.S. missile strike killed four people overnight Thursday when it hit a compound in an area in North Waziristan tribal region where members of the militant network led by Jalaluddin Haqqani are believed to operate, two intelligence officials said.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Pakistan formally protests the missile strikes as violations of its sovereignty, but many analysts believe it has a secret deal with the U.S. allowing them.

The militants have claimed credit for a wave of attacks that began with an Oct. 5 strike on the U.N. food agency in Islamabad and included a siege of the army's headquarters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi that left 23 people dead.

The Taliban have warned Pakistan to stop pursuing them in military operations.

The Pakistani army has given no time frame for its expected offensive in South Waziristan tribal region, but has reportedly already sent two divisions totaling 28,000 men and blockaded the area.

Fearing the looming offensive, about 200,000 people have fled South Waziristan since August, moving in with relatives or renting homes in the Tank and Dera Ismail Khan areas, a local government official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.
___

Ahmad reported from Islamabad. Associated Press Writers Rasool Dawar in Mir Ali, Ishtiaq Mahsud in Dera Ismail Khan and Riaz Khan in Peshawar also contributed to this report.

OF COURSE HE CAN'T ....

THEY ARE AFTERALL OBAMA'S LANDLORD ....

WITHOUT THEM, OBAMA HAS NO MONEY TO FUND HIS WARS AND GIVE-AWAYS AND HAND-OUTS ...

THUS, OBAMA HAS LEARNED HOW TO KOW-TOW ....

And so ...

"Administration declines to cite China on currency - Despite 'serious concerns,' Obama administration doesn't cite China as currency manipulator"

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, Associated Press

Last updated: 6:26 p.m., Thursday, October 15, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration on Thursday declined to name China as a country that is manipulating its currency to gain unfair trade advantages.

The Treasury Department did say it has "serious concerns" about a lack of flexibility in the value of China's currency against other currencies, and the country's rapid accumulation of foreign exchange reserves including U.S. dollars.

The latest finding is certain to spark protests among American manufacturers who contend that China is keeping its currency at artificially low levels against the dollar to gain unfair trade advantages.

The critics say the weak Chinese currency has resulted in lost U.S. jobs.

The decision came in a report the Treasury is required to submit to Congress twice a year.

Based on a 1988 law, the administration must designate countries judged to be manipulating their currencies to boost their exports to the United States or make U.S. products more expensive in overseas markets.

If China had been designated as a currency manipulator, it would trigger negotiations between the two countries and could lead to economic sanctions if the U.S. took a case before the World Trade Organization.

China was cited in previous reports from May 1992 through July 1994 during the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Those negotiations did not produce any major results and no country has been cited since 1994.

Treasury Secretaries John Snow and Henry Paulson, who served under President George W. Bush, also sought to increase pressure on China to allow its currency to rise in value against the dollar.

However, the Bush administration refrained from actually designating China as a manipulator.

President Barack Obama promised during the campaign to take a tougher stance against China on trade issues during the campaign for the White House last year.

But in April and the current report, the administration said China's actions did not meet the legal requirements to be named a currency manipulator.

Obama in September did decide to impose punitive tariffs on Chinese tire imports, agreeing to demands of U.S. manufacturers and their unions that a flood of cheap Chinese tires were costing U.S. manufacturing jobs.

American manufacturers contend that China's currency is undervalued by 20 to 40 percent against the dollar, giving the country a huge trade advantage.

An undervalued Chinese currency means that Chinese products are cheaper for U.S. consumers and American products cost more in the Chinese market.

The U.S. trade deficit with China totals $143.7 billion through August, the largest imbalance with any country.

Still, the figure is running 15.1 percent below the same period in 2008, a decline attributed to a recession that has depressed consumer demand.

U.S. manufacturers say China has stopped allowing its currency, known as the renminbi, to appreciate in value against the dollar as the global recession has cut into China's trade surpluses.

"Both the rigidity of the renminbi and the reacceleration of reserve accumulation are serious concerns which should be corrected to help ensure a stronger, more balanced global economy consistent with the G-20 framework," according to the Treasury report.

Obama and other leaders of the G-20 major industrial countries and emerging economies pledged at a meeting in Pittsburgh last month to develop a program to attack worrisome global imbalances, including America's huge trade deficits and soaring budget imbalances and China's large trade surpluses.

The finance ministers of the G-20 countries are scheduled to meet in Scotland next month to discuss ways to accomplish the goals of reducing global imbalances.

in America, nobody opened the door for a black man, normally it is slammed in their face

they did not see him coming

the real question is- why did the press not investigate that Sarah Giggles was placed in her position by KKKarl Rove

When Kerry invited the relatively unknown Barack Obama to address the National Democratic Convention in 2004,
that was a major door opening...that is not to say that Obama had not done everything that could reasonably have
been expected to prepare himself for taking advantage of this opened door....the issue under discussion is what other doors were open and by whom and for what purpose?

Hogwash, graham ....

You've been listening to Eldridge Cleaver for far too long now ....

I opened the door for a black dude just a few days ago so he could get out of a coffee shop with his hands full of cups of coffee ...

"HERE, LET ME GET THAT FOR YOU", I said as I got up out of my seat and went over and opened the door for him ....

And so ...

OBAMA IS A DUDE WITH HIS TEATS CAUGHT IN THE WRINGER ....

AND HE IS IN UP TO HIS ARMPITS ....

And so ...

"Militants assault police compounds in Pakistan"

By CHRIS BRUMMITT, Associated Press Writer

15 OCTOBER 2009

LAHORE, Pakistan – Islamist militants launched coordinated assaults on three police compounds in Pakistan's second largest city Thursday, the latest in a wave of attacks by insurgents bringing the war to the country's heartland ahead of an expected offensive against their Afghan border sanctuary.

The dramatic escalation in violence appears to be an attempt by the Taliban- and al-Qaida-led insurgency to seize the initiative from the army and deliver a warning to the U.S.-backed civilian government:

Attack us in South Waziristan and we will fight back in your cities.

It also discredits Pakistani claims that the Taliban were on the ropes after this year's military campaign in the Swat Valley and the killing of their leader, Baitullah Mehsud, in a U.S. airstrike in August.

The United States wants Pakistan's army to launch the operation in South Waziristan to root out militants who use the remote mountainous region as a base for attacks in Afghanistan, where the American war effort is faltering amid spiraling violence eight years after the invasion.

Thursday's assaults in Lahore added to a sense of crisis in this nuclear-armed country, now shaken by five major attacks by the Islamic extremists in the last 10 days that have killed more than 150 people — including a 22-hour siege of army headquarters over the weekend.

At least 19 people were killed in the Lahore attacks, most of them security officers, along with nine heavily armed attackers.

Gunmen in all three attacks carried dried fruit and apparently were preparing to dig in for a long siege, said Rana Sanaullah, the provincial law minister.

"We are here to lay down our lives for Islam."

"Jihad will continue," two attackers shouted before blowing themselves up, according to one police officer.

Most of the militants detonated suicide belts after they were injured or cornered to avoid capture, witnesses said.

One of the targets in Lahore was a training center for an elite police unit tasked with fighting militants.

Many of the trainers there had received instruction from U.S. law enforcement officials under a little-publicized State Department program, officials said.

Suspicion fell on the Pakistani Taliban but it made no public claim of responsibility.

Geo TV reported on its Web site that that group had confessed, but did not attribute the information.

Two officials said initial investigations showed Taliban from the Afghan border region and militants from the Punjab province were responsible.

Such a link would be further evidence of increased coordination among militant groups, posing a new threat to the government.

"This was a well-coordinated Taliban operation supported by local groups," Umer Virk, the head of the Lahore anti-terrorist police, told The Associated Press.

He said two of the militants appeared to be Uzbeks.

Militants have now struck Lahore four times this year, including previous attacks on two of the compounds targeted Thursday.

Lahore, some 350 miles from South Waziristan, is a bustling city known for its liberal arts scene.

The city is home to many of the Pakistan's political and military elite and is the capital of Pakistan's most populated province, Punjab.

The assaults began about 9 a.m. when a gunman wearing civilian clothes and a suicide vest burst into the offices of the Federal Investigation Agency, the national law enforcement body, and began shooting, Sanaullah said.

The attacker killed two men and four civilians, but was slain by guards before he could detonate his explosives.

Soon after, four gunmen raided a police training school on the outskirts of the city, killing 11 officers and recruits before police killed all the attackers.

A third team then scaled the back wall of a police commando training center near the airport.

The attackers stood on the roof of a house, shooting at security forces and throwing grenades, said Lt. Gen. Shafqat Ahmad, the top military officer in Lahore.

The four assailants were killed, along with a police officer and a civilian, Sanaullah said.

Virk said officers seized 27 unexploded hand grenades, 50 pounds of explosives and one light machine gun.

Security officials said most of the gunmen were wearing suicide vests and blew themselves up when cornered.

"They were not here to live."

"They were here to die," said government official Sajjad Bhutta.

"Each time they were injured, they blew themselves up," he said.

"They were well trained to the extent they could jump over the walls and shoot well."

The attacks may have been timed partly to take advantage of a rift between the government and the army over a $7.5 billion U.S. aid package intended to symbolize U.S. support for the country's democratic transition after years of military rule, as well as its anti-terror fight.

The army and opposition politicians say conditions attached to some of the military assistance constitute American meddling and threaten Pakistan's sovereignty.

The Pakistani government and the U.S. deny this.

The outcry over the aid package is another headache for the Obama administration, which is reviewing Afghan strategy amid a resurgent Taliban, Afghan elections marred by large-scale fraud allegations and increasing doubts over how long to stay in the country.

"Taliban forces operating inside Pakistan and across the border understand that international strategy at the moment is in disarray," said Farzana Shaikh, assistant fellow at London think-tank Chatham House.

"Militants groups inside Pakistan understand there is potentially a conflict building up between the military, the U.S. and the Pakistani government."

"Set this against anti-American feeling inside Pakistan, and the militants feel they have a mood they can exploit," Shaikh said.

The Taliban have claimed responsibility for a wave of major attacks that began with an Oct. 5 strike on the U.N. food agency in Islamabad and included a siege of the army's headquarters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi that left 23 people dead.

President Asif Ali Zardari said the bloodshed over the past two weeks would not deter the government from its mission to eliminate violent extremists.

"The enemy has started a guerrilla war," Interior Minister Rehman Malik said.

"The whole nation should be united against these handful of terrorists, and God willing we will defeat them."

The Pakistani army has given no time frame for its expected offensive in the South Waziristan tribal region.

It has reportedly already sent two divisions totaling 28,000 men and blockaded the area.

Analysts say that with winter approaching, any push would likely have to begin soon to be successful.
_____

Associated Press writers Asif Shazad and Babar Dogar in Lahore, Zarar Khan and Nahal Toosi in Islamabad and Meera Selva in London contributed to this report.
[/quote]

Livyjr, correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to assume that Obama makes poor decisions because he is naive
and doesn't understand how the world works--that he is emotionally immature and too impressed with himself
and has an exaggerated need to prove his manliness...

I think he is young and way ahead of the oldie goldies in Congress. I live in Nebraska considered a Red State but Douglas County is very Blue and where Omaha the largest City in Nebraska lies on the Missouri River. I believe that Obama is thinking Smart, Taking his time, Prioritizing and listening to knowledgeable advisers helping to make America better no Nation Building as Bush Cheney spent their time on.
I qualify as an Oldie Golden person but my children are young, it is their future that is dis concerning after eight years of Republican leadership that for four of the years had complete control of our government.

The Democrats met and added a resolution to their Platform this week. It was sent to Ben Nelson our representative in the Senate.
RESOLUTION:
>
> WHEREAS, the heath care system of the United States is in crisis, with almost fifty million Americans lacking any health insurance, tens of millions more lacking adequate coverage, and millions more who do have private coverage paying increasingly unaffordable premiums, resulting in inadequate access to care and premature death, illness, or financial ruin for millions of Americans; and
>
> WHEREAS, public polls show that a majority of Americans want health care reform to offer the choice of a robust public option in order to inject real competition into the marketplace and, in the words of President Obama, "keep the insurance companies honest:" and
>
> WHEREAS, some in the healthcare insurance industry and their allies have organized and funded groups of extremists to disrupt efforts on the part of the majority and administration to discuss the issue with the American people reasonably, and have demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise in any way to pass meaningful health care reform;
>
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nebraska Democratic Party urge our members of Congress to vote for such health care reform proposals that contain a robust public option at all stages of the legislative process including conference and reconciliation, and encourage legislators to pass such reform;
>
> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Nebraska Democratic Party shall send a copy of this resolution to all members of Congress who represent any of our members

Well, rla ....

You can certainly come up with some interesting posts from time to time, and this is certainly one of them ...

Your a priori assumption is that Obama makes poor decisions ....

And then you seek to find causative factors for that failing, such as emotional immaturity ....

As for me, I just don't know, to be truthful ....

WHO is Barack Obama?

I don't have a clue, myself ....

WHO does he remind me of?

Julius Caesar, for one ....

WHAT does Obama remind me of might be the more appropriate way to phrase the question ....

WHAT he reminds me of, and I have been consistent with this, is a CON MAN ....

An OPERATOR ....

A MANIPULATOR ....

There is where I keep coming back to, rla ....

He certainly seems to be a dude who is quite full of himself, and he takes every opportunity that he can to pound himself briskly on his own back for all the good deeds he thinks that he is doing ....

I don't think he has a clue that there are ramifications to what he is doing ....

Especially in Pakistan and Afghanistnam ....

There, I think he is like a little stupid kid standing on a hill of biting red ants with a stick that he is using to knock down a nest of hornets, thinking how powerful he is because he can hit that hornet's nest a pretty good whomp from where he is standing ....

I think that Barack H. Obama is one of the most dangerous persons on the face of the earth, to be truthful ....

And so ...

AS OBAMA AND THE GIVE-AWAY DEMOCRATS GIVE AWAY MORE AND MORE MONEY, WHAT CAN ONE EXPECT FROM THIS DEMOCRAT FISCAL PROFLIGACY?

And so ...

"Federal deficit hits all-time high $1.42 trillion"

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

16 OCTOBER 2009

WASHINGTON – The federal budget deficit has surged to an all-time high of $1.42 trillion as the recession caused tax revenues to plunge while the government was spending massive amounts to stabilize the financial system and jump-start the economy.

The imbalance for the budget year ended Sept. 30, more than tripled last year's record.

The Obama administration projects deficits will total $9.1 trillion over the next decade unless corrective action is taken.

As a portion of the economy, the budget deficit stood at 10 percent, the highest since World War II, according to government data released Friday.

President Barack Obama has pledged to reduce the deficit once the Great Recession ends and the unemployment rate starts falling.

But economists worry the government lacks the will to make the hard political choices to cut spending and raise taxes to get control of the imbalances.

For 2009, the government collected $2.10 trillion in revenues, a 16.6 percent drop from 2008.

The plunge reflected declining income tax collections as millions of Americans lost their jobs or saw their wages cut.

Corporate taxes also plummeted as the recession squeezed companies' profit margins.

Government spending last year jumped to $3.52 trillion, up 18.2 percent over 2008.

The $700 billion financial bailout fund and increased spending and tax relief from the $787 billion economic stimulus program that Obama pushed through Congress in February drove the increase.

For September, a month when the government usually records surpluses, the deficit totaled $46.6 billion.

That's a sharp contrast to the $45.7 billion surplus in September 2008, the last time the government's books were in the black.

In issuing the final budget figures, top administration officials said the president was determined to get control of the deficits in coming years.

"It was critical that we acted to bring the economy back from the brink earlier this year," White House budget director Peter Orszag said in a statement.

"The president recognizes that we need to put the nation back on a fiscally sustainable path."

Failure to curb runaway deficits could trigger a financial train wreck that would push interest rates and inflation higher, and send the dollar crashing if foreigners suddenly started dumping their holdings of Treasury securities.

None of those problems are evident now as the worst recession since the 1930s has depressed borrowing by consumers and businesses, giving the government a break on the interest it paid this year on the record debt.

Net interest payments actually fell by about $10 billion in 2009 from 2008.

But economists worry investors will grow fearful of the nation's ability to repay all the debt unless the administration and Congress begin developing credible plans to deal with the deficit problem once the recession has ended and unemployment has begun to come down.

"Obama faces loneliness of power on Afghanistan"

by Stephen Collinson

Sun Oct 18, 1:57 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – It comes to every US president -- and now looms relentlessly for Barack Obama: the moment when he must shoulder the lonely duty of his office and take a fateful decision on national security.

After weeks of in-depth meetings and drawing counsel from top advisors, Obama will eventually have to make up his mind on whether to send thousands more troops into the cauldron of Afghanistan.

"It's really coming down to him," said Julian Zelizer of Princeton University, author of a forthcoming book on US foreign policy.

"This is a lesson that presidents always learn when dealing with military affairs."

Obama has launched an exhaustive and collective review of Afghan policy within his national security council.

But the constitutional authority vested in the president means the buck stops sooner or later with the commander-in-chief.

"It is not a collective decision."

"Abraham Lincoln said there was only one vote that counted in his cabinet," said David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International peace.

"There is only one vote that counts at the national security council," added Rothkopf, author of a history of the president's top foreign policy body.

Signs are mounting that Obama may be nearing a critical point in his deliberations.

He said last week he would complete the process in "the coming weeks."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CNN:

"We've done a thorough job of analysis, and now we're moving into the decision phase."

Obama's stakes may match or even exceed those faced by other recent presidents, like Lyndon Johnson who agonized over the Vietnam War, or Bill Clinton who worried whether to intervene in Bosnia.

Soaring expectations at home and abroad may be on the line in a decision many observers feel could drain the reforming momentum from Obama's presidency should it go wrong.

Obama's own audacity, in refusing to temper high hopes and raising the stakes by likening himself to political greats like ex-president Lincoln and even his recent Nobel Prize may also stoke the pressure.

Not to mention the burden of the lives of any of more than 60,000 US troops at war, the tens of thousands who may follow, and unknown numbers of Afghans.

Pressure is building as Pakistan's insurgency worsens and US public support dims for the increasingly bloody fight in Afghanistan.

Critics accuse Obama of undue delay -- but the long wait may reflect the fact the president has few palatable options in the eight-year war.

Obama has conducted five extended briefings with top military, political, diplomatic and intelligence aides and has another this week.

Official photos from the secure White House Situation Room reveal intense sessions, with Obama in deep conversation with national security aides.

"I think the president has been extremely skillful in probing and asking all the hard questions," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CNN.

Broadly, Obama, who has already ruled out withdrawing troops, has three options -- unless he can conjure another that few analysts have considered.

He can go all-out with an Afghan counter-insurgency strategy advocated by war commander General Stanley McChrystal, which requires at least 40,000 more troops.

An approach pushed by Vice President Joe Biden would see more targeted tactics, focusing on destroying Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan, but eschewing a full-scale counter-insurgency.

A middle path, attractive to top Democrats in Congress, might see thousands of troops being deployed only to train the Afghan army.

Obama backers view his thorough analysis of US options in Afghanistan as a break from the gut-level decision-making of the Bush administration.

That NSC allowed power players like vice president Dick Cheney and secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld to freelance, with disastrous results in Iraq.

The Obama NSC has reined in the president's vaunted "team of rivals" cabinet of heavyweights, despite their healthy egos and political powerbases.

It also reveals Obama's own disciplined, "no drama" self-image as a leader, who probes every angle of a problem.

But is there a point when deliberation becomes procrastination?

"There is a certain time period when it looks like a president is being deliberative and thoughtful," said Zelizer.

"After that time period, it looks like a president who can't make tough decisions, either way -- the kind of Jimmy Carter syndrome."

Rothkopf added: "deliberations can go on too long -- I don't think they have yet."

The war function seems to operate like the artificial intelligence function of money...it more or less operates on default. The presumed decision making process is just a part of the on-going system, mostly for show...persons are placed into positions as a part of the process of the system maintaining itself...

"Obama looking at all options for creating jobs"

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer

Sun Oct 18, 8:18 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is considering all options to create jobs, including another stimulus package, while trying to pull the economy out of a deep recession and deal with a record deficit, White House advisers said Sunday.

With more than half of the $787 billion recovery package yet to be spent, Obama aides said the administration is not ready to commit to additional measures.

"Everything is on the table," senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said.

"You've got this huge national deficit and we've got to do what we can to bring that down."

"At the same time, it's important to stimulate the economy," Jarrett said.

"Let's wait and see."

"Let's let the recovery bill do its job."

Unemployment stands at 9.8 percent, with more than 4 million jobs lost this year.

The deficit has reached $1.4 trillion and the national debt $11.9 trillion.

Adviser David Axelrod cited progress on reviving the economy, with expectations for growth in the third quarter this year.

But he warned that the government should not make the mistake of ending its recovery initiatives too early at the risk of sending the economy back into recession.

"That doesn't mean that we don't look to the mid- and long-term for deficit reduction," Axelrod said.

"We have a stimulus program in place, an economic recovery program in place, that is not even 50 percent through."

"We have to see that through."

"And we'll see what other measures we need to take."

In appearances on the Sunday news programs, the advisers criticized those Wall Street firms that are paying huge amounts in compensation and benefits after accepting taxpayer assistance.

Goldman Sachs, for example, has said it has set aside $16.7 billion for compensation so far this year, more than $500,000 per employee.

Citigroup is paying $5.3 billion in bonuses to its employees and Bank of America $3.3 billion.

"I think the American people have a right to be frustrated and angry," said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

Emanuel and the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said the compensation issue comes as banks and other financial institutions oppose efforts by the president and Congress to put in place regulations designed to prevent the kind of financial meltdown that began last year.

"They have a responsibility to the whole system," Emanuel said.

"And it starts with not fighting the financial regulatory system and the reforms that are necessary to protect consumers, homeowners and others."

Dodd criticized banks for failing to make more credit available to small businesses and others.

"When you see these bonuses being paid out, it's a source of outrage in the country, and it should be."

"What are these people thinking about at these companies?" he said.

Dodd said he hopes that Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department's point man on compensation, can take action that will lead the firms to reconsider their compensation plans.

Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said he believes procedural differences holding up an extension of unemployment benefits will be resolved soon.

He said a way to cover an extension without adding to the deficit has been determined, but he offered no specifics.

Gregg said the latest deficit figures are evidence of "growing the government too much."

"This deficit is driven by us."

"I mean, you talk about systemic risk."

"The systemic risk today is the Congress of the United States," he said.

"We're creating these massive debts which we're passing on to our children."

"We're going to undermine fundamentally the quality of life for our children by doing this."

Jarrett and Dodd appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," Axelrod on ABC's "This Week," and Emanuel and Gregg on CNN's "State of the Union."

Friday, October 9, 2009

Washington Post

"Young Hamlet's Agony"

by Charles Krauthammer

The genius of democracy is the rotation of power, which forces the opposition to be serious -- particularly about things like war, about which until Jan. 20 of this year Democrats were decidedly unserious.

When the Iraq war (which a majority of Senate Democrats voted for) ran into trouble and casualties began to mount, Democrats followed the shifting winds of public opinion and turned decidedly antiwar.

But needing political cover because of their post-Vietnam reputation for weakness on national defense, they adopted Afghanistan as their pet war.

"I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as 'the right war' to conventional Democratic wisdom," wrote Democratic consultant Bob Shrum shortly after President Obama was elected.

"This was accurate as criticism of the Bush administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy."

Which is a clever way to say that championing victory in Afghanistan was a contrived and disingenuous policy in which Democrats never seriously believed, a convenient two-by-four with which to bash George Bush over Iraq -- while still appearing warlike enough to fend off the soft-on-defense stereotype.

Brilliantly crafted and perfectly cynical, the "Iraq war bad, Afghan war good" posture worked.

Democrats first won Congress, then the White House.

But now, unfortunately, they must govern.

No more games.

No more pretense.

So what does their commander in chief do now with the war he once declared had to be won but had been almost criminally under-resourced by Bush?

Perhaps provide the resources to win it?

You would think so.

And that's exactly what Obama's handpicked commander requested on Aug. 30 -- a surge of 30,000 to 40,000 troops to stabilize a downward spiral and save Afghanistan the way a similar surge saved Iraq .

That was more than five weeks ago.

Still no response.

Obama agonizes publicly as the world watches.

Why?

Because, explains national security adviser James Jones, you don't commit troops before you decide on a strategy.

No strategy?

On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this:

"Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan ."

He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan .

And to emphasize his seriousness, the president made clear that he had not arrived casually at this decision.

The new strategy, he declared, "marks the conclusion of a careful policy review."

Conclusion, mind you.

Not the beginning.

Not a process.

The conclusion of an extensive review, the president assured the nation, that included consultation with military commanders and diplomats, with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with our NATO allies and members of Congress.

The general in charge was then relieved and replaced with Obama's own choice, Stanley McChrystal.

And it's McChrystal who submitted the request for the 40,000 troops, a request upon which the commander in chief promptly gagged.

The White House began leaking an alternate strategy, apparently proposed (invented?) by Vice President Biden, for achieving immaculate victory with arm's-length use of cruise missiles, Predator drones and special ops.

The irony is that no one knows more about this kind of warfare than Gen. McChrystal.

He was in charge of exactly this kind of "counterterrorism" in Iraq for nearly five years, killing thousands of bad guys in hugely successful under-the-radar operations.

When the world's expert on this type of counterterrorism warfare recommends precisely the opposite strategy -- "counterinsurgency," meaning a heavy-footprint, population-protecting troop surge -- you have the most convincing of cases against counterterrorism by the man who most knows its potential and its limits.

And McChrystal was emphatic in his recommendation: To go any other way than counterinsurgency would lose the war.

Yet his commander in chief, young Hamlet, frets, demurs, agonizes.

His domestic advisers, led by Rahm Emanuel, tell him if he goes for victory, he'll become LBJ, the domestic visionary destroyed by a foreign war.

His vice president holds out the chimera of painless counterterrorism success.

Against Emanuel and Biden stand Gen. David Petraeus, the world's foremost expert on counterinsurgency (he saved Iraq with it), and Stanley McChrystal, the world's foremost expert on counterterrorism.

Whose recommendation on how to fight would you rely on?

Less than two months ago -- Aug. 17 in front of an audience of veterans -- the president declared Afghanistan to be "a war of necessity."

Does anything he says remain operative beyond the fading of the audience applause"

PUT THE FU*KING TROOPS TON THE FU*CKING PLANES...

"W.H. attacks worry moderate Dems"

Jonathan Allen

Fri Oct 23, 5:47 am ET

A White House effort to undermine conservative critics is generating a backlash on Capitol Hill — and not just from Republicans.

“It’s a mistake,” said Rep. Jason Altmire, a moderate Democrat from western Pennsylvania.

“I think it’s beneath the White House to get into a tit for tat with news organizations.”

Altmire was talking about the Obama administration’s efforts to undercut Fox News.

But he said his remarks applied just the same to White House efforts to marginalize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful business lobby targeted for its opposition to climate change legislation.

“There’s no reason to gratuitously piss off all those companies,” added another Democrat, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia.

“The Chamber isn’t an opponent.”

POLITICO reported earlier this week on an all-fronts push by the White House to cut the legs out from under its toughest critics, whether it’s the Chamber, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox News operation.

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has defended the push, saying the administration made “a fundamental decision that we needed to be more aggressive in both protecting our position and in delineating our differences with those who were attacking us.”

Congressional Republicans counterattacked Thursday.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the administration was “targeting those who don’t immediately fall in line” with “Chicago-style politics” aimed at “shutting the American people out and demonizing their opponents.”

Boehner’s No. 2, Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) complained that the nation’s problems are growing while the White House “bickers with a cable news network.”

Liberal Democrats have little heartburn over the administration’s attacks on Fox and Limbaugh.

But the attacks make moderates uneasy — especially when they extend to the Chamber of Commerce.

While Limbaugh and Fox commentators like Beck make no secret of their dislike for Democrats, the Chamber’s Republican lean is partially counteracted by nominal and financial support for pro-business Democrats who need to win votes from pro-business Republicans.

The campaign websites of moderate Democrats from across the country are filled with endorsements from the Chamber of Commerce.

Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, for example, has this testimonial from a Chamber official on his site:

“On issues ranging from lowering taxes to increasing trade, Indiana’s businesses and workers have no better friend than Brad Ellsworth.”

Ellsworth got a $5,000 campaign contribution from the Chamber in the past election.

Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), another recipient of a Chamber contribution, said Thursday that he had no intention of stepping into the middle of a fight between the White House and the Chamber, but he did note that he had won an award for his voting record from the national Chamber of Commerce.

A senior House Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity while questioning the wisdom of the White House strategy, said:

“I have no problem with [going after] Rush at all."

"I don’t have much of a problem with Fox."

"I think the Chamber’s another story.”

The Democrat took issue with Chamber leaders in Washington, who he said “do not do a good job of representing the interests of their members.”

But he also acknowledged the benefits the Chamber’s goodwill can confer on certain segments of the caucus.

He said that the White House is trying to “take advantage of the discontent within the Chamber."

"Several flagship companies, including Apple and PG&E, have cut ties with the Chamber to protest its opposition to the climate change legislation that passed the House earlier this year.

Some Democratic critics of the White House attacks say it may strengthen the relationship between the Chamber and moderate Democrats in Congress, who will fast become the organization’s best hope for addressing its concerns if it is frozen out by the White House.

“I don’t think the White House’s relationship with the Chamber will have any effect on individual members’ relationships with the Chamber,” said Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a centrist Democrat.

“I think we’ll be judged on how we conduct ourselves.”