Yes, Bush did make mistakes, but don't forget, Congress makes the laws, confirms appointments, and for the past two years provided legitimate "checks and balances". Now, we have ZERO checks and balances. Had it been a Dem in the white house, and the same members of congress (dem in majority) - the same laws would have been passed - and we'd still be in this situation.
Bush made mistakes, but you can't blame him for everything. Dem's had control of the law making department for two years - and now another 4.
There is ALWAYS WAR.......this just has a name and the media coverage.......it is either a war with bullets or a war with money or a war with commodities
ALL THE SAME........folks die in all the versions......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Clinton ready to forgo senate Former Obama rival will subserve, but post has perks BY BETH FOUHY The Associated Press
NEW YORK — For years, Hillary Rodham Clinton set aside her own considerable ambition to promote her husband’s political career. Now, as President-elect Barack Obama’s choice to be secretary of state, the former first lady faces the prospect of subsuming her political identity yet again — this time on behalf of the man who dashed her hopes of returning to the White House in her own right. Friends said the potential loss of her independence, hard won by her election to the Senate from New York in 2000, caused Clinton to waver last week as she considered Obama’s offer. But advisers said the discussions got back on track after he promised she would have considerable input on staffing decisions and plenty of access to him. Aides said that while the deal is not yet final, the president-elect is on track to nominate Clinton as the nation’s top diplomat after Thanksgiving. Obama’s decision to choose Clinton has stunned many observers riveted by the two Democrats’ epic primary battle, leading some to question how this high-profi le partnership might work. Among the issues: Why would Obama choose someone he repeatedly criticized for voting for the U.S. invasion of Iraq to be the face of his administration’s foreign policy? Why would he abrogate his famous “no drama” policy and embrace Clintonian theatrics? And why would Clinton subordinate her strong personality and views to be a global ambassador for Obama? Throughout the campaign, she insisted he didn’t have the experience to be president and dismissed his willingness to meet with rogue leaders as “irresponsible and frankly naive.” Obama’s advisers said the matter is simple: The strengths Clinton would bring to the job would outweigh the drawbacks. “Hillary Clinton is a demonstrably able, tough, brilliant person who can help … advance the interests of this administration and this country,” Obama strategist David Axelrod said Sunday in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” He added that Obama, as president, would set U.S. policy no matter how many strong personalities he had in his cabinet and on his staff. Indeed, perhaps as a counterweight to the Clinton pick, Obama is likely to name James L. Jones, a widely respected former Marine Corps commandant and NATO commander, to be his national security adviser. Jones would lend a powerful voice on foreign policy matters right in the White House, while Clinton was at the State Department or overseas. To be sure, not everyone is happy about the Clinton pick. Many bloggers at the liberal Daily Kos Web site have been venting frustration, decrying her campaign attacks on Obama and her repeated defense of her Iraq war vote. While Obama and Clinton’s primary battle was often fierce, friends say it was professional, not personal, and that they enjoy a mutual respect. And while they do not share the close bond President George W. Bush has with the current secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, or that Bush’s father shared with his widely respected secretary of state James Baker, they have a similar world view and know how to make strategic use of their shared celebrity. .......................
Hillary is Constitutionally Ineligible to Be Secretary of State
Seriously. This isn't hyperbole. This isn't conspiracy theory. It's written as plain as day in Article 1 Section 6 of the United States Constitution. Hillary is not eligible to be the Secretary of State.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
No great mystery here. In the time that Hillary has been in the Senate, there has been a pay increase for the Secretary of State passed. She is therefore ineligible. That's it, end of story.
I wish there was more analysis involved here, and I really wish that this little Constitutional lesson would be passed around as much as the email forwards we get about Obama not being a citizen, but the reality is that this will go largley unnoticed and only serve as one of many urinations on the Constitution by modern American political apathy from politicians, media, and citizens.
Ehhh..that's not exactly correct. All she has to do is resign from the Senate prior to the seating of the next Congress, and prior to Obama's inauguration. All this bit of legalese is about is preventing a "quick change" of positions "in term." As the current term is about to expire, she is fully eligible to become SoS in the next term. Sad, but true.
So much for change. We just changed back to the 'clinton era'.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Hillary Clinton plans a more powerful State Dept: NY Times
Tue Dec 23, 5:01 am ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to build a more muscular US State Department, with a bigger budget, high-profile special envoys dispatched to trouble spots and an expanded role in dealing with the global economic crisis, the New York Times reported Tuesday. The Times cited an unnamed Hillary Clinton adviser as saying her push for a more vigorous economic team stems from her belief that the State Department needs to play a part in the recovery from the global financial crisis, while economic issues also are at the heart of key diplomatic relationships, notably with China. The former first lady also is reportedly likely to name several high-powered envoys to world hotspots. The daily reported that Clinton and Obama have not yet settled on specific envoys or missions, although the name of veteran diplomat Dennis Ross has come up as a possible Middle East envoy, along with diplomatic trouble-shooter Richard Holbrooke and Martin Indyk, a former United States ambassador to Israel. The Times wrote that...........http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081223/pl_afp/ustransitionpoliticsclintonobama_081223100103
Gee, this must be a first. A Liberal getting into an office and increasing the budget? Wow, just imagine...and I bet she'll just ask someone to print the money so it won't cost anybody anything.
Logged
