Obama promised change but nominating insiders

[Ling Ling 22]

The Clinton administration was much more successful than Bush's.

the clinton administration also didn't have to deal with a terrorist attack on us soil. but that same administration, through negligence and arrogance, got us run out of somali by a bunch of thugs.

Many think that in the absence of the Bush administration, there may not have been a terrorist attack on US soil.

Others think the Bush administration has responsibility for ignoring and/or provoking threats.

good idea except for one glaring flaw: of the 19 hijackers that 9-11 is attributed to, Marwan al-Shehhi, Mohammed Atta, Ziad Jarrah, Hani Hanjour, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi (7) were in the usa before the nov 2000 elections were even held.

Talk about glaring flaws..."alleged hijackers", not to mention things like "cells" that are not activated until needed, or that they could have been

recruited after arrival in the US. I didn't say it was my idea....but interesting that you think it's a good one.

Honestly, I'm more concerned about ignorant Americans than I am of foreign terrorists.

[IAMX 3,055]

The Clinton administration was much more successful than Bush's.

But besides that, I think the disappoint comes from conservatives who were hoping Obama would appoint inexperienced people into administration posts. So that there is more of a chance that his administration would end in failure.

Yep. And Obama did not want to repeat Carter's mistake. He's being smart about his choices and he's already surrounded himself around people who are not only smart, but aren't afraid to contradict him. That's a huge change from the Bush Administration.

Indeed. Bush had this habit of appointing people who only agreed with him and who were friends. Anyone else was ousted (firings) or pushed into "stepping down".

Hell, one also only needs to look to the Iraq = WMD investigation to see Bush only wanted to hear what he wanted to hear. #### someone disagreeing with the almighty King.

Edited November 21, 2008 by SRVT

[Ban Hammer 14,184]

Well...the Dems have been in the majority in Congress since 2006. Look into some of the quotes from Barney Frank on the House Financial Services Committee. He ain't the only fool on Capitol Hill. The Hill is full of clueless fools.

The Dems have had a bare majority since 2006 and W has had his red veto pen out ever since. So no, you can't blame the Democrats for the current clusterfsck.

we can't even blame barney frank?

O.K., we'll let you blame him. Who can we blame in return?

it's baffling how barney is the invisible man. no one wants to see him or acknowledge his failures of leadership as chairman of the house financial services committee.

The United States House Committee on Financial Services (or House Banking Committee) oversees the entire financial services industry, including the securities, insurance, banking, and housing industries.

(from wiki)

The Clinton administration was much more successful than Bush's.

the clinton administration also didn't have to deal with a terrorist attack on us soil. but that same administration, through negligence and arrogance, got us run out of somali by a bunch of thugs.

The '93 World Trade Center bombing? Oklahoma bombing? Abortion Clinic bombings? Selective memory?

nowhere near the scale of 9-11, nor were 2 of the 3 by foreign nationals.

And how does that give Bush a free pass?

i didn't say it gave bush a free pass, did i?

i simply stated that none of the above near the level of destruction we saw on 9-11.

good idea except for one glaring flaw: of the 19 hijackers that 9-11 is attributed to, Marwan al-Shehhi, Mohammed Atta, Ziad Jarrah, Hani Hanjour, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi (7) were in the usa before the nov 2000 elections were even held.

Talk about glaring flaws..."alleged hijackers", not to mention things like "cells" that are not activated until needed, or that they could have been

recruited after arrival in the US. I didn't say it was my idea....but interesting that you think it's a good one.

Honestly, I'm more concerned about ignorant Americans than I am of foreign terrorists.

did you even read the same post i wrote?

[William33 110]

Charles has the facts straight.

Gotta love the internet. So many people espouse theory as fact, while sitting in their corporate cube. Spend time overseas in a counterterrorist operation and then reality becomes clear.

[Ling Ling 22]

Charles has the facts straight.

Gotta love the internet. So many people espouse theory as fact, while sitting in their corporate cube. Spend time overseas in a counterterrorist operation and then reality becomes clear.

I don't know if that was aimed at me, but I really am insulted by it.

I'm sitting in my corporate jet.

[Peikko 1,575]

Terrorism is only terrorism if it's committed by arabs and kills X # of people. Clearly.

[HAL 9000 96]

It really is amazing how we construct views of reality. For some folks, it means biasing oneself in looking at all points of views. For others, it is based on ignoring multiple perspectives in favor of agendas that are not always based on bipolar associations between truth and deception, right and wrong, or fact and fiction.

[William33 110]

It really is amazing how we construct views of reality. For some folks, it means biasing oneself in looking at all points of views. For others, it is based on ignoring multiple perspectives in favor of agendas that are not always based on bipolar associations between truth and deception, right and wrong, or fact and fiction.

Right....

Reality is what you know to be true, on the basis of real evidence. For example, living it and not speculating based on what you hear and read. True reality does not include weighing opinions and falling center, unless you have nothing else to rely on to formulate that basis. This was my point.

[HAL 9000 96]

It really is amazing how we construct views of reality. For some folks, it means biasing oneself in looking at all points of views. For others, it is based on ignoring multiple perspectives in favor of agendas that are not always based on bipolar associations between truth and deception, right and wrong, or fact and fiction.

Right....

Reality is what you know to be true, on the basis of real evidence. For example, living it and not speculating based on what you hear and read. True reality does not include weighing opinions and falling center, unless you have nothing else to rely on to formulate that basis. This was my point.

Sure. Constructing anything that is real is based on what is empirically experienced. Such is the power of observation.

Of course- the observer can always enter an experience with preconceived notions... which are always open to debate- and always usually treated according to the observer's bias. Which is my point.

[William33 110]

It really is amazing how we construct views of reality. For some folks, it means biasing oneself in looking at all points of views. For others, it is based on ignoring multiple perspectives in favor of agendas that are not always based on bipolar associations between truth and deception, right and wrong, or fact and fiction.

Right....

Reality is what you know to be true, on the basis of real evidence. For example, living it and not speculating based on what you hear and read. True reality does not include weighing opinions and falling center, unless you have nothing else to rely on to formulate that basis. This was my point.

Sure. Constructing anything that is real is based on what is empirically experienced. Such is the power of observation.

Of course- the observer can always enter an experience with preconceived notions... which are always open to debate- and always usually treated according to the observer's bias. Which is my point.

Fair enough.

[HAL 9000 96]

[IAMX 3,055]

Pretty funny when a moderator derails the thread..

[IAMX 3,055]

Here's a few more conspiracy theories -- The Bush Administration had a memo citing an attack was imminent. Did nothing. The Bush Administration also flew the Bin Ladens out of the country without detainment or questioning. So in the face of who's responsible, it involves both Bush and Clinton, but in this case, Bush clearly had the chance and blew it. No attack from these people happened under Clinton that blew up buildings and killed a few thousand Americans.

[William33 110]

Pretty funny when a moderator derails the thread..

Why not....So what about change and insider's?

How's that?

[kaydee457 13]

Change? Hillary?

Obama plans to nominate Clinton for top diplomat

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer Nedra Pickler, Associated Press Writer 2 hrs 15 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama plans to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state after Thanksgiving, a new milestone for the former first lady and a convergence of two political forces who fought hard for the presidency.

One week after the former primary rivals met secretly to discuss the idea of Clinton becoming the nation's top diplomat, an Obama adviser said Thursday that the two sides were moving quickly toward making it a reality, barring any unforeseen problems.

The senior adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president-elect is not prepared to officially announce the nomination, said Obama believes Clinton would bring instant stature and credibility to U.S. diplomatic relations.

Obama is convinced the advantages of Clinton serving far outweighed potential downsides, the adviser said.

Transition aides said the two camps have worked out financial disclosure issues involving Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, and the complicated international funding of his foundation that operates in more than 40 countries. The aides said Obama and Hillary Clinton have had substantive conversations about the secretary of state job.

Clinton has been mulling the post for several days, but the comments from the transition aides suggested that Obama's team does not feel she is inclined to turn it down. Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines would not comment, except to say that anything about Cabinet appointments is for Obama's transition team to address.

Clinton would have to surrender her New York Senate seat, which she has held for eight years, to take the job.

The nomination would be a remarkable union between the former first lady who was an early favorite to win the presidency and the first-term senator who upset her in the primary and cruised to a general election victory. Such a high-profile seat in the Cabinet for Clinton also would be another achievement for the most accomplished former first lady in U.S. history, who has been the first presidential spouse to serve in the Senate and run for the White House herself.

Obama was picking other Cabinet posts as well. Obama has informally selected Washington lawyer Eric Holder as attorney general and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle as health secretary and is likely to choose Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to be secretary of homeland security, Democrats said.

Any of the plans could be sidetracked by unexpected glitches in the final vetting process, officials note.

source