Business as usual as Obama continues the agenda

Not surprising.
Expect him to revoke the patriot acts and illegal wiretapping next… oh hang on…he’s a politician

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7717669.stm

[quote]Obama ‘to honour’ missile plans

US President-elect Barack Obama will go ahead with plans to build part of a controversial missile defence system on Polish soil, Poland has announced.

President Lech Kaczynski’s office said the pledge was made during a telephone conversation between the two men.

Russia opposes the US plans, and early this week said it planned to deploy missiles on Poland’s border and electronically jam the US system.

This is the first signal that Mr Obama plans to continue George Bush’s policy.

During the US election campaign, Mr Obama said he wanted to review the system to build a missile defence system in central Europe to ensure it would be effective and would not target Russia.

Moscow says the plan to locate 10 interceptor missiles in northern Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic will do exactly that.

In his first state of the nation address earlier this week, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said Moscow would neutralise the system by deploying short-range missiles in its western enclave of Kaliningrad on Poland’s border.

The US military insists the shield is incapable of destroying Russian rockets and is designed solely to knock down long-range missiles fired from the Middle East.

This is also the first signal from the US president-elect that he has no intention of backing down in the face of the Russian threats.
[/quote]

UPDATE:
Sounds like the Obama camp is pissed off at Poland leaking this out…

This is the revised BBC page:

[quote]Obama denies Poland missile vow

US President-elect Barack Obama has not given a commitment to go ahead with plans to build part of a US missile defence system in Poland, an aide says.

He was speaking after Polish President Lech Kaczynski’s office said a pledge had been made during a phone conversation between the two men.

But Mr Obama’s foreign policy adviser, Denis McDonough, denied this.

Russia opposes the US scheme and has announced plans to deploy missiles on Poland’s border as a counter-measure.

On Friday, EU leaders said the decision would not contribute to creating a climate of confidence or to the improvement of security.

‘No commitment’

In a statement published on his website on Saturday, Poland’s president said Mr Obama had “emphasised the importance of the strategic partnership of Poland and the United States and expressed hope in the continuation of political and military co-operation between our countries.”

His position is as it was throughout the campaign, that he supports deploying a missile defence system when the technology is proved to be workable
Denis McDonough
Foreign policy adviser to Mr Obama

“He also said that the missile defence project would continue,” the statement added.

When asked about the declaration, McDonough said that the US president-elect had had “a good conversation” with Mr Kaczynski about the American-Polish alliance and discussed missile defence, but “made no commitment on it”.

“His position is as it was throughout the campaign, that he supports deploying a missile defence system when the technology is proved to be workable,” Mr McDonough told the Associated Press.

In the past, Mr Obama has said he wants to review the plans for a missile defence system in central Europe to ensure it would be effective and not target Russia.

But the BBC’s Adam Easton in Warsaw says the Russian government believes the plan to locate 10 interceptor missiles in northern Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic will do exactly that.

In his first state of the nation address on Wednesday, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said Moscow would neutralise the system by deploying short-range missiles in its western enclave of Kaliningrad on Poland’s border.

The US military insists the shield is incapable of destroying Russian rockets and is designed solely to guard against missile attack by so-called “rogue states”, such as Iran. [/quote]

Poland is a sovereign country. What is this a joke? You’re talking about the President of the United States now.

Oh really?

Barack Obama prepares to reverse hundreds of Bush directives

From the article posted by Vay:

[quote]During the campaign Mr Obama indicated that he wanted to end limits on stem cell research, which the scientific community has claimed has hampered the effort to combat a range of diseases.

He may lift a ban that prevents international family planning organisations that receive US government aid advising women about the possibility of abortion and in some cases discouraging common contraceptive methods.[/quote]
:banana: :bravo:

Yes, he’s continuing the agenda.
Not the Bush agenda, the agenda of his backers.

He’ll tax the air we breath and blame it on climate change (global warming is the old term, ‘climate change’ allows them to tax us on cooling or warming).

I guarantee as I have a hole in my arse, Obama will soon have blood on his hands and he’ll do things for business interests.
And you know that Obama is going to do something Bush would have done.
And will you criticise him, like you would have Bush?

Obama can fuck things up and just blame everything on the Bush legacy (like the snake Blair did in the UK, blaming the previous government for years and years, while making things beneficial for business interests).

They want centralization. They want to control everything we do.
It’s Neo National Socialism. The Stasi would be proud at the way the US is heading.
Illegal wiretaps, patriot acts, meanwhile the border’s wide open (which doesn’t matter as the North American Union is slowly approaching).
That’s why these politicians leaders are calling for global this and global that. Nationalise the banks, nationalize the currencies then head to a global currency. We have the Euro already. Amero and African currency will follow along with an Asian currency…

Anyway, with Obama at the helm, the kool-Aid drinkers won’t complain when he pulls of a how can I say it, Bush move?,

And he wants an Obama Youth. It wouldn’t surprise me if they wore brown shirts.

How long will it take before people wake up to the Shyster Obama?[quote][quote][/quote][/quote]

[quote=“cake”]
He’ll tax the air we breath and blame it on climate change…

They want centralization. They want to control everything we do.
It’s Neo National Socialism. The Stasi would be proud at the way the US is heading.

That’s why these politicians leaders are calling for global this and global that. Nationalise the banks, nationalize the currencies then head to a global currency…[/quote]

Granted not even Obama can/will wash off all of the blood that’s on the hands of the US, but if you really believe the statements above, you’ve got to lay off the GOP’s crackpot kkkool-aid because it’s making you come across as a little ignorant, or at least confused…

And, it might be prudent to wait until he’s actually president before criticizing his performance as president.

Yeah dude. As rabidly zealous as I seem to some, I actually gave Bush the benefit of the doubt when he came into office. (It wasn’t until the invasion of Iraq that I began to actively despise him.) That’s not a luxury the Republicans will give Obama, I’m sure. Just as with Clinton, they’ll be dog-piling him every chance they get and doing their best to insure he accomplishes as little as possible during the next 4-8 years.

I agree with Cake. (A little bit.) Corporations will still control us, but there is a difference, and at least Obama is a bit more liberal than the Republicans.

I do not believe that Obama is a bit more liberal. Not one bit. I think he will appear to be liberal for his first 9 months (that’s guess) of taking office, but he is very much middle of the road type of policy person. I think liberals will be disappointed by his first year.

Isn’t “middle of the road” usually the best policy if one requires cooperation from others in order to get things done?

Likewise, I don’t know why the term “compromise” is so often used perjoratively. During business negotiations, compromise is often essential to reach the best solution and achieve the greatest good for ones own side (while incidentally also achieving good for the other side). The alternative is head-butting, stubborn, steadfast stalemate, waste of time and resources and lack of progress. Seems logical the same should apply in politics.

Isn’t “middle of the road” usually the best policy if one requires cooperation from others in order to get things done?

Likewise, I don’t know why the term “compromise” is so often used perjoratively. During business negotiations, compromise is often essential to reach the best solution and achieve the greatest good for ones own side (while incidentally also achieving good for the other side). The alternative is head-butting, stubborn, steadfast stalemate, waste of time and resources and lack of progress. Seems logical the same should apply in politics.[/quote]

An excellent post. I think it would make perfect sense for Obama to be ‘middle of the road’, especially at this early stage of his presidential career (or whatever you call it). And as you note, compromise is a virtue not a vice.

Obama has only got a mandate for the middle - not for going far left.

Are Democrats compromisers? I question that premise.

Are Democrats compromisers? I question that premise.[/quote]

I guess they are. I’m a Democrat and I believe compromise can be a good thing.

We are embarking on a permanent Democratic majority. We don’t need no stinking compromise.

Are Democrats compromisers? I question that premise.[/quote]

I guess they are. I’m a Democrat and I believe compromise can be a good thing.[/quote]

Compromise as an abstract principle or actually compromising on something significant in the real world? Can you give an example of something Democrats should be willing to compromise on? Supreme Court justices? Parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion? Corporate tax rates? Affirmative reaction . . . ?

Mind you, I don’t believe Republicans are capable of real compromise these days either. Rigid ideological entrenchment is pretty much the order of the day in American society.

obamaimpeachment.org/
I haven’t got any free money yet.

The problem for Obama is that he’s walking into one of the largest shitstorms a recent president has inherited, and his scope for big plays is extremely limited. Markets hate uncertainty.

HG

The problem for Obama is that he’s walking into one of the largest shitstorms a recent president has inherited, and his scope for big plays is extremely limited. Markets hate uncertainty.[/quote]

Excellent point.