Tag Archives: obama

Home Approves Dollars for Wars, but Rift Deepens
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON — The Home of Representatives agreed on Tuesday to present $59 billion to continue financing America’s two wars, but the vote showed deepening divisions and anxiety between Democrats through the program in the almost nine-year-old conflict in Afghanistan.

The 308-to-114 vote, with strong Republican assist, came soon after the leak of an archive of classified battlefield reviews from Afghanistan that fueled new debate above the program on the war and whether or not President Obama’s counterinsurgency tactic could work.

But Mr. Obama and best military officials mentioned Tuesday how the disclosure on the papers need to not force a rethinking of America’s commitment to your war. As Mr. Obama told reporters with the Rose Garden, “While I’m concerned concerning the disclosure of sensitive data from your battlefield that could potentially jeopardize people or operations, the truth is these paperwork really don't reveal any problems that haven’t currently informed our public debate on Afghanistan.”

On a day of continuing political and military fallout above the leaked reviews, Pentagon officials stated that Pfc. Bradley Manning, 22, an Army intelligence analyst arrested final month on charges of leaking a movie of an American helicopter attack in Iraq and charged this month with downloading far more than 150,000 classified diplomatic cables, was a “person of interest” in an Army criminal investigation to uncover who provided the battlefield reviews on the group WikiLeaks.

Administration officials claimed passage with the shelling out bill, which now goes to Mr. Obama for his signature, showed how the leak experienced not jeopardized Congressional assist for your war and noted how the Senate passed the measure final week with no objection. Democratic leaders with the Property stated the Congress necessary to act to present the cash troops overseas.

“The president is taking a wise and balanced technique in Afghanistan, and it deserves our assistance,” stated Representative Steny H. Hoyer, the Maryland Democrat and majority leader.

Inside the Household vote, 148 Democrats and 160 Republicans backed the war shelling out, but 102 Democrats joined 12 Republicans in opposing the measure. Final year, 32 Democrats opposed a comparable midyear investing bill. Between individuals voting in opposition to the bill on Tuesday was Representative David R. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat along with the chairman in the Appropriations Committee, the panel responsible for your measure.

Some in the Democratic opposition stemmed on the choice by party leaders to strip in the bill income that experienced been included inside original Dwelling version to aid address the weak economy at house, which include funds to aid preserve teachers’ jobs. But some of individuals voting in opposition to it mentioned they had been influenced through the leaked files highlighting the American military’s struggles in Afghanistan and evidence that elements of Pakistan’s intelligence service had been helping the Taliban towards Americans troops in Afghanistan.

“All from the puzzle has been place together and it truly is not a fairly picture,” claimed Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts. “Things are actually ugly through there. I consider the White Property continues to underestimate the depth of antiwar sentiment here.”

On one more component of Capitol Hill, at a confirmation hearing for Gen. James N. Mattis to lead the military’s Central Command and oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Democrats about the Senate Armed Services Committee pressed Standard Mattis concerning the training course belonging to the war, though no much more so than they've other best military officials recently.

Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, pointedly asked Normal Mattis irrespective of whether he agreed that a July 2011 deadline for your commence of American withdrawals from Afghanistan would mean shifting within the current troop-intensive counterinsurgency technique to an “increasingly crucial emphasis” on counterterrorism. In other words, need to not the United States use the date to start moving toward a a lot more limited approach of hunting down insurgents without having attempting to rebuild Afghanistan? Standard Mattis speedily agreed.

“I imagine that is definitely the tactic, Senator,” he reported.

Standard Mattis and two Republicans about the panel, Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, made use of the occasion to denounce the leaks, which Mr. McCain claimed had been “simply an extended footnote to a well-known reading of current history.”

Overall Mattis agreed with Mr. McCain. “One from the newspaper headlines was that war can be a tense and unsafe factor,” he explained. “Well, if that is certainly news, I really don't know who it is news to that’s on this planet.”

In his opening statement towards the committee, Overall Mattis declared, “Despite any current papers leaked for the media, we're remaining inside the region; we're not leaving.”

Overall Mattis, who's expected to be confirmed through the committee along with the full Senate, is always to replace Gen. David H. Petraeus, whose tour at Central Command was cut short when Mr. Obama asked him to take command with the allied mission in Afghanistan following Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal was relieved for comments he produced to Rolling Stone magazine.

In the White Residence, Mr. Obama echoed current statements from his advisers and claimed how the troubles that came to light inside the leaked docs experienced lengthy been regarded and that he was addressing them having a new method he set in location previous year. “Indeed, they point on the exact same challenges that led me to conduct an extensive review of our policy final fall,” he stated.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, created a equivalent argument on Tuesday in Baghdad. “I feel it is essential to recognize, or emphasize, that these are papers that cover the period 2004 to 2009,” Admiral Mullen mentioned. “Much has changed because 2009, especially with respect to our focus, our new technique in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

In the Pentagon, officials declined to say irrespective of whether Personal Manning was a prime suspect inside the investigation, but they did say that an Army criminal investigation to the leaks that Personal Manning experienced been charged with — the diplomatic cables plus the movie — experienced now broadened to contain an inquiry to the source in the leak in the classified battlefield reviews.

“He is definitely of interest to investigators,” stated Col. David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman.

In April, WikiLeaks posted the video clip, an explosive tape of an American helicopter attack in Baghdad that left 12 individuals dead, which include two employees with the Reuters news agency. Adrian Lamo, a personal computer hacker who traded instant messages with Personal Manning, has explained the soldier claimed that he experienced leaked the cables and video clip to WikiLeaks and that he turned him to the authorities for national security causes.

WikiLeaks, in keeping with its policy to safeguard the anonymity of its sources, has not acknowledged receiving the cables or movie from Personal Manning. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has refused to say no matter whether the war reviews came from Personal Manning, but he has reported that WikiLeaks experienced offered to assist with Personal Manning’s legal defense.

Real estate agents hounding BP for compensation for losses

WASHINGTON (AP) – The administrator of a $20 billion oil spill compensation fund said Wednesday he’s been besieged by real estate
agents and brokers, demanding that they become eligible for payments.

Kenneth Feinberg, in congressional testimony singled out the real estate agents’ demands as one of many tough eligibility decisions he’ll have to make in the coming weeks.

Feinberg told the House Judiciary Committee he’s working only for victims, not BP or the Obama administration. Operations of the independent fund will begin next month, starting with six-month
emergency checks that will be processed within a day and paid out within the next two days.

The emergency payments will not require a release from future claims. Long-term settlements – for current and future injury or loss – will require agreements to accept the offer as final payment. Victims can reject the money and pursue claims independently in court.

Feinberg said he’ll need to work out a system for those who develop illnesses from the cleanup years afterward.

Feinberg said he has heard from many real estate agents and brokers about their lost income, and promised to address their concerns.

“The Realtors and real estate brokers are a major political force,” he said. “I’m hearing from them constantly. I’m not sure whether they have a valid legal claim. I’m not sure they can win if they litigate.? “If I am going to do justice here, we’ve got to do something.”

Real estate agents hounding BP for compensation for losses

Pressure mounts for Geithner to resign

Days Of Glory adds a new chapter for many of us to the tale of World War II. It is centered on Arabs and French soldiers fighting for different reasons.

The basic plot of Days Of Glory is one we have seen before during many Sunday afternoons. Volunteers of an occupied territory (in this case North Africa) join the army to liberate their mother country (France) and fight against a greater evil (Nazi Germany). Our core group of heroes goes through the trials of being the new recruits and low men on the totem pole.

They get their first taste of combat and face some sort of major battle or tragic loss (losing all but four men in a mine field) before the grand finale where they fight to the death to hold the position, down to the last man. All the while, the sergeant is a jerk who shows moments of feelings and heart for his troops.

What sets this film apart is its twist to this tale. Our heroes are Arabs, one of whom only has one hand, from Algeria and they fight with other “African Troops.” The prejudices they face are greater than merely being new recruits. They are seen as cannon fodder, for the most part, in the eyes of the regular French military leaders and soldiers.

We are shown this in the first battle scene and can sense it throughout the film. The Arabs have to fight for respect and personnel liberties, proving that they can perform and lead just like anyone else. Fumo points out that it's much like the American Civil War film Glory with its story of African-Americans former slaves and freemen seen as lesser soldiers because of who they are and the color of their skin.

At times the story of Days Of Glory comes across as too layered. Multiple layers are fine in most cases when there is three hours to fully explore certain elements, but here some elements are shown in a single scene and appear simply thrown in. We understand them, but agree that they add more questions. One example is a church scene with two of our main characters.

Why they stumble into the church is unknown; perhaps to secure it? They resist looting the collection box while gazing at a mural of the crusades; they even make the comment of how much the Christian god has suffered. The point being that our boys have respect for other people's myths like every other decent person of the world.

Example two: after the first battle, there is a scene where a German soldier is attaching our one-armed wonder. We see the sergeant save him but have no idea why or how he was there in the first place. The scene shows why the one-armed fellow loves the sergeant so much and becomes his lackey.

Bringing us to another question, why in the hell is a one-armed man in the army to begin with? He joined that way and it's not like the army would overlook such a thing. He doesn't get much crap for being handicapped, either. I think his fellow soldiers would have given him hell for it since it's not like it adds to his ability as a warrior.

Then there are the unexplored origins of the sergeant. His past is revealed as his lackey finds a photo with “Mother” written on the back. Sarge's mom is an Arab, making him a half-breed. He hides his past to gain rank in the French army, shades of Hitler himself, and when called on his past, Sarge gets violent and abusive towards his lackey.

No war film is complete without a story of lovers torn apart. One of the boys is with a French woman for one, yes one, night. They fall madly in love yet are kept apart by the war. The terrible army even goes as far as refusing to allow letters to pass between the two lamenting lovers, revealing that they are and capable of love.

Strong points of the film include the fine shots of the countryside. The director has a beautiful and creative way of opening some sequences by moving from black and white to color. As the Germans are beaten back and as the army advances the cloud of doom is being lifted from the land.

The tale itself is a strong point and the acting is fine, but it's the overall plot that could have been done better. The message is a simple one: in the end these soldiers fought and died for the greater good of mankind and wound up with nothing. The African soldiers even had their pensions stalled, and to most of the world they were forgotten as fighters in that war.

Included on the DVD is a short film titled The Colonial Friend whose plot would have made a more memorable full-length film while telling the story of these unsung heroes. The way it stands now we have a good story rolled into an average WWII plot.

Written by Fantasma el Rey & Fumo Verde

Tuesday news roundup: cribs recalled in Canada, Obama on

Posted is National Posts news blog, watching the news so you don't have to with up-to-the-minute breaking stories, news from the Internet and takes from National Post writers.

Microsoft-News Corp. Talks: A Marriage Made in Hell? – Search

Two weeks ago, I commented on Rupert Murdoch's threat that News Corp. was thinking of blocking Google from being able to search its Web sites: “Murdoch to Google: Drop Dead.” Now it appears that Microsoft and News Corp. are talking …

News Ticker: Usher, Bryan Ferry, The Black Keys, Tommy Lee

Bryan Ferry sent a note to fans announcing that he's begun work on a new solo album that's due in summer 2010 and features Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood, Flea and Nile Rodgers. Ferry posted some video from the studio on his official …

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is making few new friends in Congress these days, as a growing litany of bipartisan critics are questioning whether he should keep his job.

Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican House member on the Joint Economic Committee, on Thursday was the latest lawmaker to call for Mr. Geithner to resign, saying the nation has lost confidence in the Obama administration's ability to handle the economy.

“For the sake of our jobs, will you step down from your post?” Mr. Brady asked Mr. Geithner during a hearing of the panel.

Mr. Geithner, who was appointed by Mr. Obama and took office in January, shrugged off the request, saying that it was “a great privilege for me to serve this president.”

“I agree with almost nothing in what you said,” the secretary added. “And I think almost nothing of what you said represents a fair and accurate perception of where this economy is today.”

Another Texas Republican, Rep. Michael C. Burgess, went a step further than Mr. Brady in his criticism of the secretary.

“I don't think that you should be fired; I thought you should have never been hired,” Mr. Burgess told Mr. Geithner.

Mr. Burgess said questionable actions in Mr. Geithner's past, such his admission shortly after his nomination that he owed back taxes, made him unsuitable for the job from the beginning.

“It did not leave the American people with a good feeling about the person who was going to be responsible for this economic recovery,” he said.

The GOP rebukes came two days after the release of an embarrassing report by a Treasury Department watchdog that criticized Mr. Geithner's handling last fall of an initial emergency plan to save then-failing American International Group (AIG) while head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The report, conducted by Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), said that although the Federal Reserve's initial $85 billion credit line to AIG helped the company settle many of its outstanding contracts with outside parties, “its terms were unworkable.”

Even some liberals have been piling on Mr. Geithner. Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Democrat, said flatly on MSNBC on Wednesday that Mr. Geithner should quit.

Mr. DeFazio said that within the House Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of liberal House Democrats of which he is a member, there is a growing consensus that Mr. Geithner should leave his post.

“The populist caucus is considering questions regarding both him and some other members of the economic team in the near future,” he said.

The congressman also hinted that White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers should perhaps be shown the door.

The president “is being failed by his economic team,” Mr. DeFazio told Ed Schultz on MSNBC. “We may have to sacrifice just two more jobs to get millions back for Americans.”

But Mr. Geithner received a generally warm reception from Democrats during Thursday's hearing.

Sen. Bob Casey, Pennsylvania Democrat, told the secretary that he appreciates his public service.

“I voted for your confirmation, and it was the right vote,” he said.

Regarding policy issues, Mr. Geithner told the panel he doesn't support making TARP permanent, vowing to put the program “out of its misery” as soon as possible.

“No one will be happier than I am to see that program terminated and unwound,” he said. “We are moving very aggressively to close down and terminate the programs that defined TARP at the beginning of the crisis.”

He also urged Congress to move quickly in overhauling the nation's badly flawed financial rules, which he says is essential for the health of the economy.

The House this month passed a Wall Street overhaul bill that would allow the government to step in and dismantle a failing company in a way designed not to collapse the economy. The Senate banking committee last week introduced a similar measure.

Oops, you're not supposed to bow to him, silly!

Tuesday Funnies: People Who Don’t Bow To Japan’s Emperor

obamabows As NewsBusters reported Saturday, President Obama caused a bit of an international incident this weekend when he bowed before Japanese emperor Akihito. Not surprisingly, his adoring fans in the media have done everything in their power to cover for this peculiar demonstration by the most powerful man in the world. With this in mind, the College Republicans at the University of Connecticut have put together a marvelous video to demonstrate how world leaders across the globe have addressed the emperor recently without bowing (video embedded below the fold, h/t Andrew Malcolm):

Now THAT'S entertainment!

In regards to:

New gas stations

Dear CIA:

I found a way to contact you from an acquaintance of mine. I would like to start off by letting you know how irate I am with how the government has been handling gas prices by installing several new gas stations in the southwest near Roswell and along Route 66.

When I was driving on Route 66 I came across several gas stations that had rather cheap prices. But you wanna know what was wrong with them?! They had no gas! That's right, the first one I came up to the attendant, who was strangely dressed in a suit and tie, came up to tell me what I was doing here, as if I was the crazy one. When I responded that I was here for gas, he put his hand up to his ear and told me that it was done. When I gave him this look, all he said was that I thought I asked for gas.

I was enraged and decided that I would just find another gas station. Same story here, except this time, I screamed at the attendant to give me gas. And with that he once again put his hand up to his ear as if I had just said something obscure and out of the ordinary. What in Sam hill is bizarre about asking for gas at a gas station?! This attendant however was a tad more polite than the last and simply told me there was no gas here and I'd have to go elsewhere.

It took me four times of this ridiculous doublespeak, and each time they told me I should stop changing the orders on them. All I wanted was some freakin' gas, is that so hard to ask?! I finally actually got to a gas station that was attended by a normal person, and even though he had rather large eyes and didn't speak English, at least he understood me when I asked for gas.

To conclude this letter, I demand that instead of making more gas stations that you, I don't know, put gas in them?! Novel idea, huh?! I mean what the hell are you using the damn gas station for if you're not using them for gas?! Top secret anti-terrorist research so we can find weapons of mass destruction?! Well let me tell you that you're doing a bang up job in that department, aren't ya?!

Sincerely,

Your Proud American Citizen

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security consolidated 22 agencies and over 200,000 federal employees. (Walker, 2007, 3). The goal of the DHS was to improve communication and streamline coordination amongst domestic security agencies. Its inception constitutes the largest government reorganization since Truman reorganized national security to defend against the Soviet threat. (Ridge, 2002).

It follows logically that an amalgam of 22 agencies creates an atmosphere where tension, infighting and turf-wars are replete. As just one of many examples, a battle ensued between the DHS and the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) over who is to be the overseer of security on U.S. trains. (Mintz, 2005). This policy squabble is said to have slowed progress on the issue for over one year. Similarly, quarrels between DHS and FEMA ensued over the ownership of the National Response Plan. The various intelligence agencies (FBI, NSA, DHS, CIA) claim that their counterparts obfuscate vital information, which detracts from the intended mission of the DHS. Criticisms of this type keep DHS under scrutiny, and make it a prime candidate for reorganization or decentralization.

For all of the criticisms lobbed against the DHS, it does seem to have some successes. The initial goals of the department were to “1) to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, (2) to reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism, and (3) to minimize the damage and assist in the recovery from terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States.” (Carafano and Heyman, 2004, 7). The lack of terrorist attacks on domestic soil since September 11th seems to indicate that this goal has been achieved. In addition, the DHS has been credited with addressing vulnerabilities in the aviation system, forging high-speed communication links with state and local authorities, and effectively sweeping shipping containers for any traces of radiation materials. (Mintz, 2005).

In addition, the DHS creates a means for communication and accountability amongst federal agencies that did not exist before its inception. In June of this year, the Department of Homeland Security launched a five-day national exercise designed to coordinate federal, local, state and private sector partners in an effort to test capabilities against terrorist attacks. (DHS, July, 2009). Exercises of this type are necessary to refine interagency communication and test its readiness. They are also demonstrative of what a centralized agency is capable of providing.

However, even for its successes, that is not to say that the DHS should not be a candidate for reorganization in order to reduce bureaucracy and enhance efficiency. One cannot overlook the fact that infighting, inefficiencies and heavy bureaucracy slow down and detract from the original mission of the DHS. In order to meet this head on, Homeland Security must take stock of its successes and challenges, and reorganize accordingly.

A plan to reorganize DHS seems more feasible and necessary than a call to decentralize it. As the Carafan and Heyman report points out, there needs to be a “capacity to share and compare intelligence regarding terrorism.” (18). Clearly such an undertaking requires some type of oversight. Remanding Homeland Security to its regional components would make it more difficult to connect the dots amongst the various agencies. Dismantling a relatively nascent agency that has the important task of protecting American security lends itself to unwarranted vulnerability.

Even if decentralization does not seem feasible, that is not to say that there are no conditions that support this theory. If the component parts of the behemoth agency are disjointed, it becomes difficult to operate efficiently. A decentralized Department of Homeland Security would allow for lower-level decision-making. State and local agencies do much of their own homeland security legwork, and decentralizing DHS would remove federal guidelines for subnational governments. In addition, a regional decentralization coupled with relocation would move DHS from the already target-heavy Washington, DC. Should DC find itself under attack, it would behoove the DHS to be headquartered elsewhere to eliminate the threat of agency wide annihilation. Also, it can be effectively argued that decentralization may make sense where the missions are tangential. FEMA, for instance, is tasked primarily with responding to national disasters. The primary mission of DHS, on the other hand, is to prevent terrorist attacks. It becomes easy to see why the mission of FEMA may get mired in the counterterrorism priorities of DHS, and may need to be a separate schism.

FEMA was once a cabinet-level post. Because of its non-homeland security mission, it may be necessary for it to return there. Apart from that decentralization, it seems that what the Department of Homeland Security needs is a vast reorganization, where oversight is present, divisions of power and responsibility are clearly delineated, spending is closely monitored and layers of bureaucracy are minimized.

References:

Carafano, James Jay, Ph.D. and David Heyman. (December, 2004). DHS 2.0 Rethinking the Department of Homeland Security. The Heritage Foundation, pp. 1-33. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/upload/72759_1.pdf.

“DHS Coordinates National Level Exercise to Prevent Terrorist Attacks with Federal, State, Local Tribal, Private Sector, and International Partners.” Press Release, Office of the Press Secretary, July 24, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1248450105741.shtm.

Grunwald, Michael and Susan B. Glasser. (December, 2005). Brown's Turf Wars Sapped FEMA's Strength. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202213.html.

Homeland Security Act of 2002. Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 ( Nov. 25, 2002. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/law_regulation_rule_0011.shtm.

Jenkins, Brian Michael. (January, 2007). Basic Principles of Homeland Security. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Homeland
Security of the House Committee on Appropriations. pp. 1-5. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2007/RAND_CT270.pdf.

Mintz, John. (September, 2003). Government's Hobbled Giant. The Washington Post, A01. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36519-2003Sep6.html.

Mintz, John. (February, 2005). Infighting Sighted at Homeland Security: Squabbles Blamed for Reducing Effectiveness. The Washington Post, Page A01. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55552-2005Feb1?language=printer.

Ridge, Tom. (September, 2002). “Director Ridge Addresses U.S. Conference of Mayors.” Remarks by Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge on the Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/speeches/speech_0025.shtm.

Two Profiles in Class

Monday, November 09, 2009

Two Profiles in Class [Rory Cooper]

This past weekend, Americans were treated to two completely different profiles in class. First there was former president George W. Bush. On Friday night, George and Laura Bush traveled by car to Fort Hood to meet with the devastated families of last week’s tragedy. They specifically asked the base commander not to alert the press, and spent hours simply doing what they could to comfort the grief-stricken families.

The story was eventually uncovered, as these moments tend to be, but clearly President Bush did not see this as a personal opportunity, nor did he want to upstage the current president. The former president saw his interactions with wounded soldiers and their families as private moments.

Twenty-four hours later, President Obama was not at Fort Hood, but rather on Capitol Hill lobbying a private meeting of Democrats, who must not have known his position on health care. Obama told the lawmakers, according to Democratic congressman Earl Blumenauer in the New York Times: “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit [Democratic voters] and it will encourage the extremists.”

Let’s dissect that statement. First, President Obama incorrectly states that conservatives are “anti-government,” which simply is untrue. Conservatives are in favor of the government’s performing its duties efficiently and effectively. Conservatives are not in favor of the government’s running a new national health-care entitlement that will surely fail. (The House passed a bill that costs $2.4 trillion, raises taxes by $700 billion, and massively expands a bankrupt Medicaid program — all while the nation’s unemployment rate stands above 10 percent.)

More disturbing is President Obama’s labeling his opposition as “extremists” and falling just short of using the profane “teabag” epithet that is popular among dismissive liberals. This is simply beneath the office he holds. When tens of thousands of multigenerational families descended onto Capitol Hill last week, they were protesting runaway federal spending and government control. They understood that while reform of our health-care system is necessary, the answer is not to compound the problem while ignoring uninsured Americans. These are not extreme views.

President Obama won a short-lived victory this weekend on health care, but he clearly misread the tea leaves if he believes that conservative Democrats will get more support in their home districts for supporting this disastrous plan. These electoral matters are not helped by the president’s demonization of a respectful and vigilant opposition to this government intrusion into their lives.

While President Bush was at Fort Hood consoling the victims of real radical extremism, President Obama was in Washington calling American families who don’t support his health-care plan “extremists.” A more enlightening profile of the two men could not be found.