pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 18 Feb 2009 11:21:47
From: Travel
Subject: Here's Some More "Change"
And this is from the New York Times...

Looks like Obama's pulling the rug out from under "JerseyRudy".
.......................................................................
............


updated 12:02 a.m. ET Feb. 18, 2009


The New York Times

NYT: Obama's war on terror may resemble Bush's
Administration quietly signals continued support for some approaches

By Charlie Savage
The New York Times

WASHINGTON - Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other
sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush ’s “war on terrorism,” the
Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other
major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda .

In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees
endorsed continuing the C.I.A. ’s program of transferring prisoners to
other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining
terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a
war zone.

The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments
that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on
the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to
resuming military commission trials.

And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the
United States in declining to release information about the alleged
torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration
issued a statement thanking the British government “for its continued
commitment to protect sensitive national security information.”

These and other signs suggest that the administration’s changes may
turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared — prompting
growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication
among supporters of Bush-era policies.

In an interview, the White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig , asserted
that the administration was not embracing Mr. Bush’s approach to the
world. But Mr. Craig also said President Obama intended to avoid any
“shoot from the hip” and “bumper sticker slogans” approaches to
deciding what to do with the counterterrorism policies he inherited.

“We are charting a new way forward, taking into account both the
security of the American people and the need to obey the rule of law,”
Mr. Craig said. “That is a message we would give to the civil liberties
people as well as to the Bush people.”

Within days of his inauguration, Mr. Obama thrilled civil liberties
groups when he issued executive orders promising less secrecy,
restricting C.I.A. interrogators to Army Field Manual techniques,
shuttering the agency’s secret prisons, ordering the prison at
Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, closed within a year and halting military
commission trials.

But in more recent weeks, things have become murkier.

During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan , the nominee
for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance
Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention
without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the
Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.

Ms. Kagan’s support for an elastic interpretation of the “battlefield”
amplified remarks that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made at his
own confirmation hearing. And it dovetailed with a core Bush position.
Civil liberties groups argue that people captured away from combat
zones should go to prison only after trials.

Moreover, the nominee for C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta , opened a
loophole in Mr. Obama’s interrogation restrictions. At his hearing, Mr.
Panetta said that if the approved techniques were “not sufficient” to
get a detainee to divulge details he was suspected of knowing about an
imminent attack, he would ask for “additional authority.”

To be sure, Mr. Panetta emphasized that the president could not bypass
antitorture statutes, as Bush lawyers claimed. And he said that
waterboarding — a technique that induces the sensation of drowning, and
that the Bush administration said was lawful — is torture.

But Mr. Panetta also said the C.I.A. might continue its “extraordinary
rendition ” program, under which agents seize terrorism suspects and
take them to other countries without extradition proceedings, in a more
sweeping form than anticipated.

Before the Bush administration, the program primarily involved taking
indicted suspects to their native countries for legal proceedings.
While some detainees in the 1990s were allegedly abused after transfer,
under Mr. Bush the program expanded and included transfers to third
countries — some of which allegedly used torture — for interrogation,
not trials.


Mr. Panetta said the agency is likely to continue to transfer detainees
to third countries and would rely on diplomatic assurances of good
treatment — the same safeguard the Bush administration used, and that
critics say is ineffective.

Mr. Craig noted that while Mr. Obama decided “not to change the status
quo immediately,” he created a task force to study “rendition policy
and what makes sense consistent with our obligation to protect the
country.”

He urged patience as the administration reviewed the programs it
inherited from Mr. Bush. That process began after the election, Mr.
Craig said, when military and C.I.A. leaders flew to Chicago for a
lengthy briefing of Mr. Obama and his national security advisers. Mr.
Obama then sent his advisers to C.I.A. headquarters to “find out the
best case for continuing the practices that had been employed during
the Bush administration.”

Civil liberties groups praise Mr. Obama’s early executive orders on
national security, but say other signs are discouraging.

For example, Mr. Obama’s Justice Department last week told an appeals
court that the Bush administration was right to invoke “state secrets”
to shut down a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees who say a Boeing
subsidiary helped fly them to places where they were tortured.

Margaret Satterthwaite, a faculty director at the human rights center
at the New York University law school, said, “It was literally just
Bush redux — exactly the same legal arguments that we saw the Bush
administration present to the court.”

Mr. Craig said Mr. Holder and others reviewed the case and “came to the
conclusion that it was justified and necessary for national security”
to maintain their predecessor’s stance. Mr. Holder has also begun a
review of every open Bush-era case involving state secrets, Mr. Craig
said, so people should not read too much into one case.

“Every president in my lifetime has invoked the state-secrets
privilege,” Mr. Craig said. “The notion that invoking it in that case
somehow means we are signing onto the Bush approach to the world is
just an erroneous assumption.”

Still, the decision caught the attention of a bipartisan group of
lawmakers. Two days after the appeals court hearing, they filed
legislation to bar using the state-secrets doctrine to shut down an
entire case — as opposed to withholding particular evidence.

The administration has also put off taking a stand in several cases
that present opportunities to embrace or renounce Bush-era policies,
including the imprisonment without trial of an “enemy combatant” on
domestic soil, Freedom of Information Act lawsuits seeking legal
opinions about interrogation and surveillance, and an
executive-privilege dispute over Congressional subpoenas of former
White House aides to Mr. Bush over the firing of United States
attorneys .

Addressing the executive-privilege dispute, Mr. Craig said: “The
president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what
happened. But he is also mindful as president of the United States not
to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the
presidency. So for that reason, he is urging both sides of this to
settle.”

The administration’s recent policy moves have attracted praise from
outspoken defenders of the Bush administration. Last Friday, The Wall
Street Journal’s editorial page argued that “it seems that the Bush
administration’s antiterror architecture is gaining new legitimacy” as
Mr. Obama’s team embraces aspects of Mr. Bush’s counterterrorism
approach.


Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties
Union , said the sequence of “disappointing” recent events had
heightened concerns that Mr. Obama might end up carrying forward “some
of the most problematic policies of the Bush presidency.”

Mr. Obama has clashed with civil libertarians before. Last July, he
voted to authorize eavesdropping on some phone calls and e-mail
messages without a warrant. While the A.C.L.U. says the program is
still unconstitutional, the legislation reduced legal concerns about
one of the most controversial aspects of Mr. Bush’s antiterror
strategy.

“We have been some of the most articulate and vociferous critics of the
way the Bush administration handled things,” Mr. Craig said. “There has
been a dramatic change of direction.”

This story, "Obama's war on terror may resemble Bush's in some areas,"
first appeared in The New York Times.


Copyright © 2009 The New York Times







MSN Privacy . Legal© 2009 MSNBC.com

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com




 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 09:55:45
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Here's Some More "Change"
I think most of the people who voted for Obama knew that he was a careful
and deliberate person who would be thoughtful about all the issues and not
make any decisions in haste in order to satisfy the left-wing.

He has been in office for 30 days...it would be irresponsible for him to
gut the policies of the prior administration pertaining to national
security that were put in place over the course of 8 years. If that's the
kind of "change" you were anticipating, then it just shows how wrong you
were about Obama.

This article is confirming that all of the Bush era policies are being
reviewed: "Gregory Craig urged patience as the administration reviewed the
programs it inherited from Mr. Bush. That process began after the
election, Mr.Craig said, when military and C.I.A. leaders flew to Chicago
for a lengthy briefing of Mr. Obama and his national security advisers.
Mr. Obama then sent his advisers to C.I.A. headquarters to “find out the
best case for continuing the practices that had been employed during the
Bush administration.' "

What this article also confirms (aside from the fact that extreme
right-wingers such as yourself do view the New York Times as a credible
source, but only when it reports on things that you agree with) is that
all the people like you who were using the typical scare tactics during
the election (such as "Obama is a socialist!" "Obama is a radical who
will destroy this country" "Obama will be the best friend of terrorists")
were wrong.




On Feb 18 2009 12:21 PM, Travel wrote:

> And this is from the New York Times...
>
> Looks like Obama's pulling the rug out from under "JerseyRudy".
> ........................................................................
> .............
>
>
> updated 12:02 a.m. ET Feb. 18, 2009
>
>
> The New York Times
>
> NYT: Obama's war on terror may resemble Bush's
> Administration quietly signals continued support for some approaches
>
> By Charlie Savage
> The New York Times
>
> WASHINGTON - Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other
> sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush ’s “war on terrorism,” the
> Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other
> major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda .
>
> In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees
> endorsed continuing the C.I.A. ’s program of transferring prisoners to
> other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining
> terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a
> war zone.
>
> The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments
> that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on
> the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to
> resuming military commission trials.
>
> And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the
> United States in declining to release information about the alleged
> torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration
> issued a statement thanking the British government “for its continued
> commitment to protect sensitive national security information.”
>
> These and other signs suggest that the administration’s changes may
> turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared — prompting
> growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication
> among supporters of Bush-era policies.
>
> In an interview, the White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig , asserted
> that the administration was not embracing Mr. Bush’s approach to the
> world. But Mr. Craig also said President Obama intended to avoid any
> “shoot from the hip” and “bumper sticker slogans” approaches to
> deciding what to do with the counterterrorism policies he inherited.
>
> “We are charting a new way forward, taking into account both the
> security of the American people and the need to obey the rule of law,”
> Mr. Craig said. “That is a message we would give to the civil liberties
> people as well as to the Bush people.”
>
> Within days of his inauguration, Mr. Obama thrilled civil liberties
> groups when he issued executive orders promising less secrecy,
> restricting C.I.A. interrogators to Army Field Manual techniques,
> shuttering the agency’s secret prisons, ordering the prison at
> Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, closed within a year and halting military
> commission trials.
>
> But in more recent weeks, things have become murkier.
>
> During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan , the nominee
> for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance
> Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention
> without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the
> Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.
>
> Ms. Kagan’s support for an elastic interpretation of the “battlefield”
> amplified remarks that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made at his
> own confirmation hearing. And it dovetailed with a core Bush position.
> Civil liberties groups argue that people captured away from combat
> zones should go to prison only after trials.
>
> Moreover, the nominee for C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta , opened a
> loophole in Mr. Obama’s interrogation restrictions. At his hearing, Mr.
> Panetta said that if the approved techniques were “not sufficient” to
> get a detainee to divulge details he was suspected of knowing about an
> imminent attack, he would ask for “additional authority.”
>
> To be sure, Mr. Panetta emphasized that the president could not bypass
> antitorture statutes, as Bush lawyers claimed. And he said that
> waterboarding — a technique that induces the sensation of drowning, and
> that the Bush administration said was lawful — is torture.
>
> But Mr. Panetta also said the C.I.A. might continue its “extraordinary
> rendition ” program, under which agents seize terrorism suspects and
> take them to other countries without extradition proceedings, in a more
> sweeping form than anticipated.
>
> Before the Bush administration, the program primarily involved taking
> indicted suspects to their native countries for legal proceedings.
> While some detainees in the 1990s were allegedly abused after transfer,
> under Mr. Bush the program expanded and included transfers to third
> countries — some of which allegedly used torture — for interrogation,
> not trials.
>
>
> Mr. Panetta said the agency is likely to continue to transfer detainees
> to third countries and would rely on diplomatic assurances of good
> treatment — the same safeguard the Bush administration used, and that
> critics say is ineffective.
>
> Mr. Craig noted that while Mr. Obama decided “not to change the status
> quo immediately,” he created a task force to study “rendition policy
> and what makes sense consistent with our obligation to protect the
> country.”
>
> He urged patience as the administration reviewed the programs it
> inherited from Mr. Bush. That process began after the election, Mr.
> Craig said, when military and C.I.A. leaders flew to Chicago for a
> lengthy briefing of Mr. Obama and his national security advisers. Mr.
> Obama then sent his advisers to C.I.A. headquarters to “find out the
> best case for continuing the practices that had been employed during
> the Bush administration.”
>
> Civil liberties groups praise Mr. Obama’s early executive orders on
> national security, but say other signs are discouraging.
>
> For example, Mr. Obama’s Justice Department last week told an appeals
> court that the Bush administration was right to invoke “state secrets”
> to shut down a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees who say a Boeing
> subsidiary helped fly them to places where they were tortured.
>
> Margaret Satterthwaite, a faculty director at the human rights center
> at the New York University law school, said, “It was literally just
> Bush redux — exactly the same legal arguments that we saw the Bush
> administration present to the court.”
>
> Mr. Craig said Mr. Holder and others reviewed the case and “came to the
> conclusion that it was justified and necessary for national security”
> to maintain their predecessor’s stance. Mr. Holder has also begun a
> review of every open Bush-era case involving state secrets, Mr. Craig
> said, so people should not read too much into one case.
>
> “Every president in my lifetime has invoked the state-secrets
> privilege,” Mr. Craig said. “The notion that invoking it in that case
> somehow means we are signing onto the Bush approach to the world is
> just an erroneous assumption.”
>
> Still, the decision caught the attention of a bipartisan group of
> lawmakers. Two days after the appeals court hearing, they filed
> legislation to bar using the state-secrets doctrine to shut down an
> entire case — as opposed to withholding particular evidence.
>
> The administration has also put off taking a stand in several cases
> that present opportunities to embrace or renounce Bush-era policies,
> including the imprisonment without trial of an “enemy combatant” on
> domestic soil, Freedom of Information Act lawsuits seeking legal
> opinions about interrogation and surveillance, and an
> executive-privilege dispute over Congressional subpoenas of former
> White House aides to Mr. Bush over the firing of United States
> attorneys .
>
> Addressing the executive-privilege dispute, Mr. Craig said: “The
> president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what
> happened. But he is also mindful as president of the United States not
> to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the
> presidency. So for that reason, he is urging both sides of this to
> settle.”
>
> The administration’s recent policy moves have attracted praise from
> outspoken defenders of the Bush administration. Last Friday, The Wall
> Street Journal’s editorial page argued that “it seems that the Bush
> administration’s antiterror architecture is gaining new legitimacy” as
> Mr. Obama’s team embraces aspects of Mr. Bush’s counterterrorism
> approach.
>
>
> Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties
> Union , said the sequence of “disappointing” recent events had
> heightened concerns that Mr. Obama might end up carrying forward “some
> of the most problematic policies of the Bush presidency.”
>
> Mr. Obama has clashed with civil libertarians before. Last July, he
> voted to authorize eavesdropping on some phone calls and e-mail
> messages without a warrant. While the A.C.L.U. says the program is
> still unconstitutional, the legislation reduced legal concerns about
> one of the most controversial aspects of Mr. Bush’s antiterror
> strategy.
>
> “We have been some of the most articulate and vociferous critics of the
> way the Bush administration handled things,” Mr. Craig said. “There has
> been a dramatic change of direction.”
>
> This story, "Obama's war on terror may resemble Bush's in some areas,"
> first appeared in The New York Times.
>
>
> Copyright © 2009 The New York Times
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MSN Privacy . Legal© 2009 MSNBC.com
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
> Visit www.pokermagazine.com

--- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 11:06:40
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Here's Some More "Change"
On Feb 18, 10:54=A0am, "JerseyRudy" <a44f...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Feb 18 2009 1:40 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18 2009 10:55 AM, JerseyRudy wrote:
>
> > > I think most of the people who voted for Obama knew that he was a car=
eful
> > > and deliberate person
>
> > Right, the kind of person who signs an enormous spendulus bill without
> > reading it first. That kind of "careful and deliberate person," right?
>
> > <snip>
>
> That's the best response you can come up with? Totally lame.
>
> There has never been a President in the history of this country who has
> read every word of every law that he signed. Most of the actual words in
> legislation are legalese and procedural. Every President has a team of
> experts who advise him on whether there is anything in the actual
> legislation that is not consistent with what the President wants.
>
> If you object to something that is in the bill then fine; but to be
> against the bill because the President did not read every word in the
> legislation is total crap.

To be fair, Jason "smart, also!" was not saying that he was against
the bill because the President did not read every word, he said he was
against the President for that reason.

- Bob T.
>
> ----=A0
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 18 Feb 2009 11:24:24
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Here's Some More "Change"
On Feb 18 2009 2:06 PM, Bob T. wrote:

> On Feb 18, 10:54 am, "JerseyRudy" <a44f...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > On Feb 18 2009 1:40 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 18 2009 10:55 AM, JerseyRudy wrote:
> >
> > > > I think most of the people who voted for Obama knew that he was a
careful
> > > > and deliberate person
> >
> > > Right, the kind of person who signs an enormous spendulus bill without
> > > reading it first. That kind of "careful and deliberate person," right?
> >
> > > <snip>
> >
> > That's the best response you can come up with? Totally lame.
> >
> > There has never been a President in the history of this country who has
> > read every word of every law that he signed. Most of the actual words in
> > legislation are legalese and procedural. Every President has a team of
> > experts who advise him on whether there is anything in the actual
> > legislation that is not consistent with what the President wants.
> >
> > If you object to something that is in the bill then fine; but to be
> > against the bill because the President did not read every word in the
> > legislation is total crap.
>
> To be fair, Jason "smart, also!" was not saying that he was against
> the bill because the President did not read every word, he said he was
> against the President for that reason.
>
> - Bob T.
> >

ohhhhh ok then, that clarifies it. He is essentially saying that he is
against every President. As usual, a very valuable contribution from him.

--- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 10:40:34
From: Jason Pawloski
Subject: Re: Here's Some More "Change"
On Feb 18 2009 10:55 AM, JerseyRudy wrote:

> I think most of the people who voted for Obama knew that he was a careful
> and deliberate person

Right, the kind of person who signs an enormous spendulus bill without
reading it first. That kind of "careful and deliberate person," right?

<snip >

--
"Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)

----- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 18 Feb 2009 13:21:50
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Here's Some More "Change"
If you read JerseyJasckass' post carefully: I believe he just
spun himself inside-out.

I especially enjoyed the part about Obama keeping "third-country
renditions". The part about Obama starting up military tribunals again,
is very much the display of hypocrisy that we all expected and now
relish.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


    
Date: 18 Feb 2009 11:59:10
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Here's Some More "Change"
On Feb 18 2009 2:21 PM, Travel wrote:

> If you read JerseyJasckass' post carefully: I believe he just
> spun himself inside-out.
>
> I especially enjoyed the part about Obama keeping "third-country
> renditions". The part about Obama starting up military tribunals again,
> is very much the display of hypocrisy that we all expected and now
> relish.
>

Obama starting up military tribunals again? You must have access to a
different article than I do. The article I read, which was the same
article you originally cited, said this: "It (the Obama Administration)
has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials."

I'm not sure what your reading comprehension level is, but what the
article says and what you say the articles says are two very different
things.

When Obama announced that he was committed to shutting down GITMO within
one year, he announced a comprehensive review of all options, including
military trials, for dealing with the detainees. This is the way any
President who is careful about proceeding with a vital national security
issue would act. Again, the only thing this shows is that people like you
were dead wrong when you tried to scare everyone into believing that Obama
was some kind of dangerous radical.

I would prefer that the detainees be tried in federal court, but if they
are ultimately tried in military commissions that provide basic
constitutional rights after the stain that is GITMO is closed permanently,
then that would be fine.

------- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




     
Date: 19 Feb 2009 03:31:43
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Here's Some More "Change"
Lol, JerseyJackass, one of your great joys was the fact that there
would be court trials under an Obama administraton and the big meanie
Bush military trials would be abolished.

And that's just one example of the many points of Obama's campaign
promises that contrasts with the reality of the world in which Bush had
to swim and was so vehemently criticized by you and your phony ilk.

A little different tune, now that -you- have to produce and protect.

You're better off not posting at all than this laughable display of
utter hypocrisy, lack of any intellectual integity whatsoever, and
juvenile double-talk.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


      
Date: 19 Feb 2009 03:06:20
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Here's Some More "Change"
Rudy, just make a new name and start over
On Feb 19 2009 4:31 AM, Travel wrote:

> Lol, JerseyJackass, one of your great joys was the fact that there
> would be court trials under an Obama administraton and the big meanie
> Bush military trials would be abolished.
>
> And that's just one example of the many points of Obama's campaign
> promises that contrasts with the reality of the world in which Bush had
> to swim and was so vehemently criticized by you and your phony ilk.
>
> A little different tune, now that -you- have to produce and protect.
>
> You're better off not posting at all than this laughable display of
> utter hypocrisy, lack of any intellectual integity whatsoever, and
> juvenile double-talk.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
> Visit www.pokermagazine.com


Thanks for the memories, you lit up my life for a few precious moments
http://kuroiso.org/

_______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 18 Feb 2009 10:54:42
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: Here's Some More "Change"
On Feb 18 2009 1:40 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:

> On Feb 18 2009 10:55 AM, JerseyRudy wrote:
>
> > I think most of the people who voted for Obama knew that he was a careful
> > and deliberate person
>
> Right, the kind of person who signs an enormous spendulus bill without
> reading it first. That kind of "careful and deliberate person," right?
>
> <snip>

That's the best response you can come up with? Totally lame.

There has never been a President in the history of this country who has
read every word of every law that he signed. Most of the actual words in
legislation are legalese and procedural. Every President has a team of
experts who advise him on whether there is anything in the actual
legislation that is not consistent with what the President wants.

If you object to something that is in the bill then fine; but to be
against the bill because the President did not read every word in the
legislation is total crap.

---- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com