Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Maybe he should nominate Sarah Palin< yep- she could keep an eye on Russia from her window
Originally Posted By gadzuux Putin didn't use the WMD claims to invade iraq and start a "pre-emptive" war that continues to this day. Bush did. Big difference.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 he had the same info and confirm edit- let's not lose that fact....you're saying ala Oliver Stone there was this huge witholding and misrepresentation of facts-if Putin had the same ones this is rhetoric and nothing else. Of course Putin didn't start a war there - where does he get his oil from and sell arms to ? That doesn't change the fact the info was wrong.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Panetta is a curious choice, but not quite as curious as all that. There have been CIA chiefs picked before who were primarily political people with little intell experience prior to the pick - George HW Bush would be an example. Eyebrows were raised about him too at the time but most people think he did pretty well as CIA chief. LBJ picked someone like that too. It's unusual but hardly unprecedented. Also worth remembering is that in more recent years the head of the CIA has taken a back seat to the head of the DIA, who will be an intell-guy. Still, Panetta should be looked at closely and his lack of experience should be something the senators judge during confirmation. < Panetta and Feinstein have been colleagues for decades now - she's from SF and he's from nearby Monterey. She wouldn't be speaking out against him out of partisanship or bad blood. > I wouldn't be so sure of that, gad. Several folks I've seen weigh in on it say that Panetta and Feinstein have a certain long-standing rivalry that has been simmering since each considered running for Gov. of CA. And that Pelosi was ticked at not being consulted first, and the fact that the guy in question was her erstwhile rival just made her more ticked.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Russia's oil boom: Miracle or mirage? By Andrew E. Kramer Published: October 28, 2008 MOSCOW: After years of growth, Russia's once mighty oil machine is feeling the strains of declining production and energy prices as the industry copes with the worst economic crisis in Russia in a decade. Oil companies that coasted on high commodity prices, Soviet-era infrastructure and easy Western bank credit have quickly fallen on hard times. Foreign investors have pulled out and company share prices have wilted. Is this the end of the Putin boom? "We're watching Russia very carefully," David Fyfe, a senior oil market analyst at the International Energy Agency in Paris, said by telephone. Just this month, the state-controlled oil company Rosneft was compelled to meet a margin call on bank debt. Already, one Siberian oil company is unlikely to be able to roll over debt, and creditors could seize its assets, industry analysts say. Output is declining this year, for the first time in a decade. The pivotal question in the Russian oil industry is whether the government intends to support the companies, milk them for short-term funds to shore up other areas of the economy, or intentionally allow them to wither as an unstated curb on output to help support world prices. This being Russia, evidence of all three approaches seems to be surfacing at once. More Coverage Energy: A special report Today in Business with Reuters Gazprom dispute entangles EuropeEuro-zone inflation rate slid in DecemberFacing losses, German billionaire takes own lifeHigh-level energy officials in Moscow have signaled a policy shift toward closer ties with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Russia is the largest oil producer outside the group. Igor Sechin, a deputy prime minister, attended the OPEC meeting in Vienna in September, where members decided on the first of two output reductions this fall, totaling more than two million barrels a day. Then, in a sign that the cartel is seeking Russia's help to shore up prices, OPEC's secretary general, Abdalla Salem el-Badri, visited Moscow last week and met with President Dmitri Medvedev. During the meeting, Sechin proposed that Russia might divert some oil from export into a new national petroleum reserve, to limit supply and raise prices.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I think maybe some here are being a bit too sensitive about this. No one's saying Panetta is sure to bomb and no one is knocking him in general, or his integrity, or anything like that. It's just that for a job like the CIA, what's he done top show he can run the place? That's all that's being said here.<< And I have no qualms about that. I see you and someone like Feinstein raising legitimate concerns. I have the same concern, just on a lesser level. I see the flip side - that Panetta is a repudiation of the old way of doing things. That's a good thing. But there's generally two types of approaches to Obama right now, and LP is a microcosm of what I see happening. There's those who are supportive of the new President, they may or may not have voted for him. They have some concerns about a handful of things he's done thus far: Rick Warren and Leon Panetta, for example. They express those concerns in rational, reasonable, measured ways. Then there's the other side. Those still saying Obama supporters think he's perfect, incapable of doing any wrong. They seem to still hold a grudge that they didn't get a candidate they were excited about so they've got sour grapes that the Democrats got one they were happy about. They find fault just about anywhere they can while paying lip service to the fact that they hope he'll be a good President, but you can smell the skepticism a mile away. Frankly, I think vbdad fits this category, based on what I've seen from his recent posts that discuss Illinois politics ad nauseum but without specific evidence to show it will lead to a problematic Obama administration. Of course, vbdad is also largely reasonable and is nowhere near the extreme. I read plenty of commentaries after the Blagojevic scandal came to light, from people who claimed to wish the new President the best, who insisted Obama wouldn't even make it into office. Their glee was barely concealed; they're more interested in being right about Obama than giving a damn about their country. So in one regard I will plead guilty to being sensitive. The man hasn't even taken office yet, but people harp on every last thing he's done. It's easy to say, "Well, I support some things he's done and disagree with others." But actions (or in this case, posts) speak louder than words. If we never hear you posting what you like, then it's reasonable to conclude you don't like much. >>And to bring up Bush is really irrelevant. Move on and away from that already.<< Here's why I disagree. It isn't about Bush, but about the intent of posters who claim to be moderate, who claim to want Obama to succeed, and then turn around and express skepticism at every turn. I'll add, I also gave Bush the same courtesy I'd ask for Obama. I was equally irritated at the cries of stolen election after Gore had conceded, and at the refusal to give the man a chance. But in two months Barack Obama has demonstrated more capability as a leader and more competence that George W. Bush did for 8 years. I can't begin to express how discouraging it is to see those who defended Bush, not necessarily because they liked him or thought he was great, but because they objected to the demonization of him from the left, now do exactly the same thing to Barack Obama.
Originally Posted By ecdc Rereading my post, it comes across as more personal towards vbdad than I intended. I apologize. Honestly, I'm not trying to say Obama's perfect. I'm just weary. After 8 years of misery, of watching the U.S. fall apart economically, lose the respect of the rest of the world, watch soldiers come home in boxes, I'm bloody weary. Obama hasn't even taken office yet. I just can't fathom the negativity. Let him do something worth criticizing first. I find the current complaints frustrating and exhausting, and it's probably clouding my judgment.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Wow, we're still on this issue? Seriously? No one's said Obama's word is gospel or perfect.>> I take it your familiar with one Keith Olbermann
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <So in one regard I will plead guilty to being sensitive. The man hasn't even taken office yet, but people harp on every last thing he's done. It's easy to say, "Well, I support some things he's done and disagree with others." But actions (or in this case, posts) speak louder than words. If we never hear you posting what you like, then it's reasonable to conclude you don't like much. < then you don't read very closely - I was the absolute first one to step out and say that Rahm Emmanuel ( even though there are Illinois politicians to fear out there) - was an excellent choice was I not? And the reasons why he was an excellent choice. I also have repeatedly said I think he is further centrist than most thought and that has been proven by his transition team. So your conclusion is wrong.For some reason if a poster is not leftof center you seem to feel allthe rest of us are one poster. If you have an issue with a few posters here,again I could care less. But there are others here who were not Obama supporters - who nonetheless would like to see him do well asit serves us all that that happens.If he does well I will vote for him ( if he is the best candidate) next time. I don't expect him to fix everything - it's too broken -- but yes I expect himto fix the devise politics of the past. If he made statements like - Pelosi didn;t get what she wanted before so she can do what she wants now- guess what - he'll bea one term president. What I don't continue to get is how it's okay if Pelosi or Reid have totally partisan politics,but not others on the other side. Either it's wrong or it's right.If we are going to fix this mess then I believe it's wrong. However I think one is a bad choice ( and I am far from alone on this ) andsuddenly all the Bush sucks stuff comes flying out. I really am sick of that being invoked anytime someone disagrees with Obama. Bush was a bad president - I get it - we all freakin get it. But yet we've got to make him Hellboy 3 or we're not happy. If you're going to step out andbe against anyone and anything that belongs to a moderate or God help us a conservative thought - then be up front and state so- and become the antithesis to a few other posters we have here. Or else understand one can criticize a move made by Obama and not be Karl Rove.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Obama hasn't even taken office yet. I just can't fathom the negativity. Let him do something worth criticizing first. I find the current complaints frustrating and exhausting, and it's probably clouding my judgment.>> Obama has two things to accomplish in my book. 1. Domestically-Find a way to get this country back on track financially in a way that doesn't hurt anyone. 2. Internationally-Find ways to keep us safe from those who wish to harm us. Re-establish some broken friendships that may have occured in the last eight years but don't be afraid to do what's right for America.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I have a thrill going up my leg " Didn't Chris Matthews say that?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I think one is a bad choice ( and I am far from alone on this ) andsuddenly all the Bush sucks stuff comes flying out.<< I'M SORRY! I'M SORRY! It was meant as a joke. Just a little joke. And now all this. I never wanted it to end this way. Sniff.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Rereading my post, it comes across as more personal towards vbdad than I intended. I apologize. < Accepted and I offer the same. My fear is that you & I are a microcosm of what's going on out there right now. The you're 100% for us or your against us. And I hate that regardless of what 'side' is displaying it. Truly, I want Obama to do well,I don't care that he was not my candidate.I had ( and still have some ) concerns with him due to lack of experience and some ties here in Illinois. He is ( at least it appears) trying to break from some of the reallybad people here ( and there are more than the Gov - trust me) - and if he surrounds himself with good people - the president is somewhat of a general manager - he will be fine
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya Oh lord, kumbaya Someones singing lord, kumbaya Someones singing lord, kumbaya Someones singing lord, kumbaya Oh lord, kumbayah Someones laughing, lord, kumbaya Someones laughing, lord, kumbaya Someones laughing, lord, kumbaya Oh lord, kumbaya Someones crying, lord, kumbaya Someones crying, lord, kumbaya Someones crying, lord, kumbaya Oh lord, kumbaya Someones praying, lord, kumbaya Someones praying, lord, kumbaya Someones praying, lord, kumbaya Oh lord, kumbaya Someones sleeping, lord, kumbaya Someones sleeping, lord, kumbaya Someones sleeping, lord, kumbaya Oh lord, kumbaya Oh lord, kumbaya
Originally Posted By mawnck <----- old enough to remember when people took that song seriously. It was nice.
