-
rbleier commented on the blog post “As I plan to inform the White House”
Bmaz wrote:
Other than on the two SCOTUS confirms, the Obama crew is ridiculously uninvolved in this regard and apparently unmotivated or concerned to so be involved. It shows.Well said. However let’s go deeper as Marcy suggested. Why are they so uninvolved? No one would argue they’re stupid. But it’s also wrong to argue that they’re weak or lacking in fight.
The question is whether Obama is the fox in sheep’s clothing; a traitor to the hopes and needs of his base. Is he the worst kind of Reagan Democrat, in fact the secret leader of the Tea Party?
Take a look at Binyamin Applebaum’s follow up article in the NYT (6.7.11.Frustration Grows as Nominee for the Fed Withdraws
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/business/07nominate.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=printWASHINGTON — The decision by a noted economist Monday to end a 14-month wait for a seat on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors is renewing concerns among some Democrats about the fighting spirit of the Obama administration.
There’s some really good quotes in Appelman’s article which between the lines the Democrats are basically saying: there’s something deeply wrong here.
But let’s go onto the list the Times offers of the unfilled and unnominated positions that Obama has xchosen to leave open.
The withdrawal leaves two empty seats on the Fed’s seven-member board, which, along with selected presidents of the Fed’s regional banks, sets monetary policy. The position of vice chairman for supervision, created last year as a top bank regulatory post, also is vacant.
President Obama has not nominated a head for the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, which oversees national banks, or a new chairman for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures bank deposits and cleans up failed banks. There is no nominee to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
What can we conclude? If it was Bush-Cheney we’d simply say: they’re anti regulation. But with Bush-Cheney they’d appoint the people who would embody their views.
Since Obama would have political difficulty nominating such people, he chooses the next best option: nominate no one.
Ronald Bleier -
rbleier commented on the blog post DOJ: Iraq Had No Al Qaeda Affiliates (Working Thread on KSM Indictment)
Thanks as always to the incomparable Marcy W. and her always brilliant analysis.
However, once again she seems to take for granted that KSM and the others were guilty one way or another of terror activities against the US.
I’d like to see the evidence she relies on.
How about an analysis of why Eric Holder today said: we give up. It’s military commisssions. What he was saying is that they have no evidence against KSM or the others.
Even the PBS Newshour (for god’s sake) analysis pointed out that the Obama administration waited and waited throughout 2009 until Congress finally got the hint in 2010 and said: no legitimate trials.
So Obama breathes a sigh of relief. He came into office understanding that there was no evidence against KSM–for the simple reason he didn’t do anything, so how was he, Obama, going to proceed?
Simple, stall for time until it was impossible to give him a fair trial.
Ronald Bleier
rbleier at igc dot org -
rbleier commented on the blog post Report Concludes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Personally Killed WSJ Reporter Danny Pearl
Thanks for taking this up, Marcie.
David Ray Griffin in his first 9/11 book, The New Pearl Harbor, took up the Danny Pearl case and presented evidence that the USG had Pearl killed because he was getting too close to information that could have proved embarrassing.
Funny how 911 conspiracy seems to explain all the data, not least the KSM case.Ronald
S
