Obama quietly concedes to Cheney on national security and detainees

In the darkness of a Friday news cycle, Obama signed an executive order declaring the detention of terrorist detainees INDEFINITELY.

Hmm…let’s see, that’s exactly what the EVVIIILLL Bush did and the exact policy that Obama fiercely attacked while running for President.  Oh, and Dick Cheney, about a month ago, had to lecture the same Obama administration on detainees and interrogationwith the mindset that you don’t release enemy combatants while the war is ongoing (which it is if you don’t live in Obama and the Left’s made-up fantasyland of world community Utopia).  Now Obama is following the same policy….(AND has never denounced his right to interrogation either if HE sees fit to do so.)

From Washington Post via HotAir.com (my emphasis):

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said…

Of course, HotAir also realizes the politics involved here (my emphasis):

I’m still surprised that Obama’s willing to bypass Congress. It makes sense politically, I guess — a left vs. center battle on national security in the House and Senate is a headache he doesn’t need right now — but (a) taking sole responsibility via an executive order pits him squarely against the ACLU crowd and opens him up to charges of being too Bush-like and (b) the constitutionality of indefinite detention will be jeopardized by not having congressional backing per Justice Jackson’s analysis in Youngstown v. Sawyer. Although, who knows — maybe that’s The One’s plan. By putting himself on the worst possible legal footing, he increases the chances of the Supreme Court declaring the program unconstitutional, which in turn will put pressure on Congress to bless it, thereby giving him political cover.

Bottom line: No matter how much the left pouts, Barry O’s not risking a second term on letting questionable jihadis go until some other branch of government makes him.

On Obama’s rank dishonesty, from HotAir.com:

Obama has essentially endorsed the detention policies of George Bush without the courtesy of apologizing for slandering him over the last two and a half years.  Obama and his allies screeched endlessly about indefinite detentions, and not just in Gitmo, either.  They specifically railed against the holding of terrorists without access to civil courts in military detention facilities around the world, specifically Bagram, but in general as well.  Not even six months into his term of office, Obama realized that Bush had it right all along.

Did he even have the grace to admit that?  No.  Instead, the White House took the cowardly method of a late-Friday leak to let people know that Obama had adopted the Bush policy all over again.  Barack Obama just appeared at a press conference this last Tuesdayto discuss Iran, energy policy, and ObamaCare, where he could have told the national press that he had changed his mind on indefinite detention.  Instead, he kept his mouth shut, and had his media staff whisper it into phones to a couple of White House favorites in the press.

It’s a shameful performance, and the measure of the man in charge.

Addendum: I guess Obama has finally conceded to Dick Cheney on national security, hasn’t he?

At least for the time-being and until the political winds shift, he has.


Jon Voight: Let’s help bring an end to (the power of) this false prophet, Obama

At the NRSC-NRCC fund raiser last night, Jon Voight spoke truth in 10 minutes about Israel, Obama and his partners in crime tearing America down, the Left’s lies about Bush, and more.

Priceless to see one from Hollywood who understands Obama’s power grabs, his history, his associations and then have to the guts to speak truth to it.  Thanks for Jon Voight!

(H/T: Michelle Malkin; Video: Earth2Obama.org)

Quote of the Day

Amidst the media handing all of the credit over to Obama for the rescue of Captain Phillips and considering Obama’s irritating habit of blaming most issues as “inherited from Bush”, I thought this was a humorous take on the events of the last two days. 

From a commenter at JulesCrittenden.com:

I’m waiting for Obama to say this is the Navy he “inherited” from George W. Bush.

Torture Defined

With all of the talk of closing Gitmo and supposed torture (it all depends on what the meaning of torture is), I am really tired of the attempts by the left to somehow equalize or diminish the hateful actions of the  person that is a psychotic, jihadist madman while escalating and exaggerating the means used by our forces to extract (American) life-saving information.

On the issue of the lefties…they knew the techniques for interrogation, yet didn’t say a word until their “hardline” constituency had their BDS and Cheney-hate epiphanies and demanded the closing of Gitmo and torture for Bush and Cheney.  From Ace of Spades:

And let’s not pretend this was some rogue operation designed simply to amuse Dick Cheney and his dinner guests. Top Democrats, including now Speaker Pelosi, were briefed on these methods in 2002. What did she or one of her colleagues ask, were “the methods were tough enough“?

Ace of Spades has a great definition and benchmark for torture…..until the madmen have been treated as described below (which, by the way, most of them deserve), the argument is moot!

You want torture? I’ll give you f&^%$g torture. How about this…you are at work and suddenly there is a tremendous crash and fire. After huddling with your co-workers you realize you are 80 stories up and cut off from rescue by an out of control fire below you. The heat is becoming so intense that you can’t stand it much longer. So you you try and call your loved ones and if you’re lucky you get through. Maybe you get to say goodbye to them directly or you leave leave a voice mail that will haunt them forever. Then you break a window, hang hundreds of feet above the ground and let go.

That’s torture.

You know, the murderers cloaking themselves in the name of Allah sit down there at Gitmo with clean accommodations, square meals, Korans, and the call to prayer 5 times a day.   The fact that we choose to treat them better than the Left would do for Bush or Cheney speaks volumes about our country….

The fact that Obama is appeasing his left wing followers with attempts to close Gitmo is enraging….especially considering that most of their home countries won’t take these prisoners back and we certainly don’t want them here…especially if Obama wants to give them the courtesy of creating propaganda while enjoying our legal system….

Not to mention that 61 of the jihadist detainees that HAVE ALREADY been released at Gitmo have gone on to terrorize another day!

Summed up well at Ace:

I can’t believe that we are going to spend the next couple of years gazing at our navels wondering if in the aftermath of 3,000 people being killed on our soil if we were gentlemanly enough in how we went about ensuring it never happened again. Yet here we are.

We’re killing ourselves with “kindness”.

Obama: Go ahead and Kumbaya, while I pretend to be a centrist and then obliterate George Bush’s orders

Apparently there are many of us out there who are laughing in the face of Democrats (including Obama) who believe we should all bow to the alter of the Far Left Socialist crowd and forget the hatred, vitriol, and derangement that swept the Left in the last 8 years…..It would be funny, if they weren’t so darn serious.

Sure, we on the right side do intend to work to solve this country’s problems….unfortunately, the President-Elect is soon to be part of that problem. 

In any case, working for the country does not mean disbanding our conservative principles and jumping on board the “Transform and Remake America” Express just because the peaceniks no longer have George Bush to beat upon. 

And it certainly doesn’t mean that we should suddenly silence ourselves on the issues of Obama’s associations, his far-left belief system, his Socialist plans, the holes in his past that are conveniently left that way, the Alinsky tactics he has already used, and vigor with which the Democrat leaders will pull Obama further left.  These were all issues with Obama, Pelosi and Reid last Monday, November 3 and they continue to be issues worthy of discussing.  I have not doubt that new and excitingly dangerous issues are just around the corner as well….

But now let’s go back and contrast the left’s demands in the last 8 years with their demands now.   In 2000 via David Limbaugh:

Remember in 2001, after liberals had already bludgeoned President Bush for 36 days and accused him of stealing an election they’d tried to steal, when they demanded he show bipartisanship? That is, those who lost insisted that those who won reach out to them. They said Bush didn’t have a mandate and should voluntarily dilute his conservative policy proposals in the interest of getting along.

In that case, bipartisanship meant that conservatives should become more liberal on their own instead of the two factions fighting for their respective programs and letting the votes fall where they may.

Now Obama words in 2008, just yesterday, and after his first “non-telemprompter” event when he callously took a jab at Nancy Reagan (then apologized after someone had to inform him “that wasn’t nice”).  From Reuters:

Barack Obama said on Saturday that, with the long U.S. presidential election campaign over, now was the time for Americans to put aside political differences and work together to solve the economic crisis.

This speaks to a fundamental recognition that here in America we can compete vigorously in elections and challenge each other’s ideas, yet come together in service of a common purpose once the voting is done,” Obama said in the Democratic Party’s weekly radio address….

……..”Some of those choices will be difficult, but America is a strong and resilient country. I know that we will succeed if we put aside partisanship and work together as one nation. And that is what I intend to do.”

Just remember, this is the same guy who also committed to take public financing versus millions of dollars in illegal foreign donations and then reneged on his promise….just saying!

David Limbaugh has more on the contrast between the losers in 2000 and the winners in 2008 (one and the same):

Now the liberals have won, and again, they are calling for bipartisanship. But they’re not demanding from themselves, as the victors, the same standard they demanded of President Bush in 2000 or 2004. They aren’t counseling themselves to moderate their own positions to make them more palatable to congressional conservatives; they’re saying that congressional Republicans should move toward Obama in a spirit of “bipartisanship.” Heads I win; tails you lose.

So, you see there is reason that we should not fall for the “let’s all get along” meme now that the rabid, hatey, hopey, changey left is in power…and that Obama has claimed bipartisanship even while he has never exemplified it and is currently working to undermine work of the Bush Administration as first order of business….more thoughts about that from JammieWearingFool:

………..the Bushes had offered to do all they couldto help with Obama’s transition.

Bush’s graciousness is met with news that Obama will now be reversing up to 200 executive orders and administration actions.

Sure, that’s some coming together. (From Washington Post):

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

and…..By the way, if we all don’t work together, I’ll (Obama) reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine and silence the opposition, so get in line, bitches.

There are further examples already presented since Tuesday that a President Obama will not govern from the center and will “change” his message and tactics as needed to woo the public….Examples here and here.

Further proof that a lessons from mistakes already made in Washington won’t be learned anytime soon. 

 And, of course, blatant proof that LOSER lefties don’t like to make nice.

Stay tuned for the ride of your life….

52-48, Kumbaya, and how the left now “wants us all to just get along”

Since Tuesday’s election, and aside from Wednesday, when I was pretty tired and sitting in disbelief that America soon will have a radical, Socialist President, I have been of the mindset that we who believe conservatism wins at the polls need to fight on for at least two major things:

  1. Continue to expose the corrupt Democratic leadership and talk about Obama’s inexperience, his radical associations, his total lack of world issues experience, his dangerous policies, and all Democrat leaders’ intent to slide us well into a Socialist nation status, if not worse.
  2. Work to bring real conservative leadership into the Republican party, kick out the RINOs and corrupt Republicans, restore respect for the Constitution and take the country’s leadership back to a place that more closely resembles the make-up of this country…after all, we are still a right-center country!

I have continued that effort in several posts since Tuesday and all the while I continue to get commenters who claim to be “moderate” or who are the lone Democrat in a Republican family…you get the picture.   They (and many other commenters like them on other blogs) have tried to paint any facts about Obama or references to Socialism or really just any direct or impassioned language as Hate….and Anger….and Right Wing Extremism.  Funny how those same people all just want to get along now….and have this intense need for me and others to just shut up and praise “The One” already.

Well I refuse to be silenced and, as I have said on various comments, even if they want to avoid facing the facts surrounding the man they just elected, I won’t ignore the facts and I will continue to talk about them.  Remember, I am not talking about stupid notions like “he’s not my President” or “impeach Obama”—you won’t find that here (unless we find something for which he is worthy of being impeached)…I am talking about the issues, facts and opinions of the day that apply to those 2 topics mentioned above.

With all of that said, I was reading other bloggers today and found some really great comments others have made regarding this very phenomenon of “unity now” from the left…the one where the “lovers in the left” for 8 years have had an intense rabid Bush hatred, mentioned Bush death wishes, and sported “abort Sarah Palin” logos, but now they all just believe we need to get along—be unified—we are one! 

Anyway, much of this was stirred up with the recent 52-48 thing from the Obama supporters who believe with all of their heart “we are one”….A couple of pictures give you an idea of the “we really didn’t mean it about Bush…can’t we all just get along?” crowd who contributed to this “condescension posed as compassion” love fest:

52-48-3   52-48-2

Through Jim Treacher’s blog I was led to some great sentiments about this new left/winner/unity phenomenon….In fact, Treacher has a great acronym for the mindset we find ourselves in with these lefty efforts:

NUMB:  National Unity My Butt

And he says we can call ourselves NUMBSkulls—-we 48er’s sure do have a sense of humor…

But I digress…here are the comments for which I hold very similar sentiments — from an Australian blogger’s comment section…very appropriate (my emphasis below):

That website made me want to puke.  Those head-tilts are now not of compassion but condescension.  As if the left has anything to teach anyone about graciousness or moderation in attitude or behaviour. 

Of course conservatives will “get along” and make nice – it’s why they knew they could get away with all the atrocious things they’ve said and done the past 8 years.  Did anyone hear GWB whining about all the stuff that’s been said and written about him?  Has he blackballed a network for asking “tough” questions?  Has he querulously queried a news anchor about being a shill for the opposing side?

Do you know why conservatives generally have the capacity for graciousness in victory and defeat? Because, as a rule, conservatives are happy with who they are.  There’s no cognitive dissonance going on, because we live what we believe – we like free markets, so we consume; we actually care for our less fortunate neighbours, so we give generously (of our OWN money that we earn) and we buy their stuff so they can gain wealth; we don’t believe the economy works by taking from one and giving to the other (as though a dollar for you means a dollar less for me), so we work hard, pay our taxes grudgingly and rejoice at the success of others while working to secure our own; we don’t believe in AGW, so we don’t agonise over the recycling or flying or driving anywhere.  It’s bliss. 

If you’re a lefty in a western capitalist democracy, this is impossible because you are living off the wealth created by a system you think you despise.  You are inherently angry and bitter all the time, because your life can’t measure up to your impossible ideals, and you are naturally self-absorbed and self-centered because of this anger and bitterness.  It’s all consuming.

Of course, I’m generalising.  I’m sure some of the head-tilties pictured were appalled at the treatment of the conservatives at the hands of the minority (but vocal) radicalised elements of their pseudo-religion, and in the last 8 years raised their voices again and again in protest at such unprovoked and vicious assaults on the character and person of their political opponents, all the while gently counselling their wayward brethren to focus on critiquing ideas, and having genuine debates rather than resorting to name-calling.

And I know, some conservative once called you a name so we are just as bad.  Boo hoo.  Go cry in your victory herbal tea, winner, and try to figure out just how to run something and lead something for once, instead of making dopey-hopey-changey noises and singing “How many times must a man blah blah” while wearing your “Abort Sarah Palin” button on your “Sarah Palin is a C***” t-shirt while waving your “GWB is not my President” banner and throwing a molotov cocktail at the McDonald’s on the corner.  Oh, and did I forget to mention the “No War for Oil” hat on your head?

This makes me sound unhappy doesn’t it?  But the above is what the left actually DID.  It’s so bitter, angry, twisted and unhinged that merely stating the fact makes me sound bitter, angry, twisted and unhinged.  So sad. (head tilt) But I weally, weally wuv you guys and want to make it work so your heads don’t explode. M’kay?(/head tilt)

Love it….here’s another interesting one:

Well, in all honesty, after the vomit spewed at us over the past 8 years, nothing they can do now mollifies me.  I find the swarmy, phoney “can’t we all just get along” folks disgusting, but for every one of them, there are 5 sore winners gloating on right-wing blogs.  I almost prefer them to the “let’s all join together now and sing” fakers who are suddenly patriotic Americans.

I don’t ever see myself descending to the level of Daily Kos or Ted Rall.  I don’t want Obama to die or get assassinated, I don’t want his daughters raped or waterboarded, I am not praying for Biden to have a fatal heart attack.  I’ve read all of those sentiments expressed about Dubya and Cheney. 

Less than a week ago, a writer referred to Trig Palin as “it.” Not to mention all the other filth they’ve directed at Palin.

Did any of the “We love you, 48” head tilters object to any of that while it was, you know, actually occurring?

Just today, Obama had to make a snide comment about Nancy Reagan and seances.  Nancy is in the hospital and recovering from a broken hip, and he called her afterward and apologized.  But he couldn’t get through his first press conference as president-elect without making a graceless dig at a conservative.

So stick it, folks.  No, I’ll never stoop as low as you did. But damned if I’m going to join hands and sing kumbaya with you. It’s your turn now.

And they all said…AMEN.

Should House Republicans just vote NO on bail out? (UPDATE: Video)

(UPDATED 9/29/08 with video at bottom of post)

(UPDATE #2 – VOTE IN HOUSE FAILS 228-205!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

The situation with the economy and credit locking up on Wall Street is enough to drive me crazy!


Picture of the WOLVES guarding the HENHOUSE (Pic: MichelleMalkin.com)

But when you have to mix in the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Frank, Dodd and Obama, it is unbearable!

Word today is that a plan has been agreed to.   You can review a summary at Michelle Malkin.

This is an extremely frustrating exercise to watch.  The same people who are mostly responsible for getting us into this mess, now claim they are getting us out….(I’ll get to how this mess started further below.)

An interesting thing to remember as you read about this bailout is that the Democrats probably have enough votes to pass the bill without House Republicans.

Pelosi and the Democrats, similar to last week and last week’s version of the plan, are counting on the Republicans to vote for the bill in large numbers so that if the plan goes sour, the Democrats haven’t voted alone on a failure to correct the financial crisis. 

A little background of the past few days….last week, as Christopher Dodd has even stated, the Democrats failed to include House Republicans at the table in working out a Bail Out plan.  When McCain decided to insert himself, sided with House Republicans in the White House meeting, and brought those Republicans to the table, the Democrats claimed the Republicans put a kink in the plans that had been agreed to…

Of course, the Democrats claimed a plan had been agreed to last Thursday in an attempt to pre-empt John McCain in his efforts to solve the problem. The Democrats knew they had not included House Republicans in the planning, yet they still wanted the support of the Republicans for political coverage, and then turned around and blamed those same Republicans for disagreeing with a plan for which they had no part in negotiating.

So, it seems to me that if the Democrats have the majority in both houses of Congress AND have enough votes to pass the new Bill without the House Republicans, I think the House Republicans should vote NO on the bill even if it has incorporated some of the items the Republicans requested after they came to the negotiating table.  (Unfortunately, since McCain has inserted himself in the process to fix the financial problem, politically he is probably forced to go along with the bill in whatever form it becomes.)

My reasons for believing Republicans should vote NO is that from all I’ve read about this issue, the American public is outraged that this crisis has occurred and because of the corruption that has made many involved in these failing companies multimillionaires.   Now, we, the taxpayer, are being forced to bail out Wall Street and hand over much of Wall Street’s market power to the power-hungry wolves in Washington DC.

(Just tonight, Michelle Malkin has laid out very clearly why this Bail Out plan is bad for America, and is arguably unconstitutional.)

Speaking of the hungry wolves in Washington, let’s get our facts straight on the roles that Congress and the Presidents had in this mess.

The main reason for the financial crisis is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were approving loans to those individuals who could not afford them. Back in the early 1990’s, the Clinton administration, in particular, brought pressure to bear on these companies if a sort of “quota” was not met in giving home loans to minorities and others who couldn’t afford the mortgages.

As Rich Lowry from National Review puts it:

 “The root of this crisis is subprime loans lavished on people who couldn’t truly afford their homes. This bad debt was securitized — i.e., chopped up — and spread throughout the system as complicated financial instruments.”

Thus, this is the way that many institutions are now party to the crisis that we have.

Also, in 1991, as stated in the Wall Street Journal:

“The first head of Mr. Obama’s vice-presidential search committee, Jim Johnson, a former chairman of Fannie Mae, was the one who announced Fannie’s original affordable-housing program in 1991 — just as Congress was taking up the first GSE regulatory legislation.

Over the years Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increasingly continued the practice of making bad loans and spreading the bad debt. They also were caught in the midst of an accounting scandal in the 2003-04 time frame. In 2003, Alan Greenspan requested more oversight of the companies, but by 2006, the bad loan practices snowballed. From the Wall Street Journal:

Subprime and Alt-A originations in the U.S. rose from less than 8% of all mortgages in 2003 to over 20% in 2006. During this period the quality of subprime loans also declined, going from fixed rate, long-term amortizing loans to loans with low down payments and low (but adjustable) initial rates, indicating that originators were scraping the bottom of the barrel to find product for buyers like the GSEs.

Seeing their success and not wanting oversight from Congress, the leaders of Freddie and Fannie continued to convince Congress that they were the “champions of affordable housing”. It worked…Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were allowed to continue their practices with the blessing of Democrats like Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, and others.

How did Fannie and Freddie “convince” Congress?   How about campaign donations and Democrat cronies being splashed with cash.

Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama received the #1 and #2 spots in the amount of campaign cash they received from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae…..can you say prid quo pro?

From FoxNews.com:

The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama. Now remember, he’s only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry — decades in the Senate — and (below) Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee……

……. Obama’s ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain — Sen. Obama — was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks.

Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate.

Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem.

Fannie and Freddie were also vehicles for Democrat friends and cronies to make millions.

From FoxNews.com:

Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration’s White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick — Clinton Justice Department official — worked for Fannie and took home $26 million.Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama’s VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.

Please note that Frankline Raines and Jim Johnson have been, and likely remain, advisers to the Obama campaign.

Over the past couple of weeks, in an effort to conceal the real blame, the Democrat talking points on this crisis has been that the Republicans and the Bush Administration are to blame for this mess.   Unfortunately it appears that many of our fellow Americans are believing it.

While the Bush Administration did, at one time tout the “no down-payment mortgage” idea, the Democrats are primarily to blame….

From USNews.com:

……a (New York Times) storyfrom September 2003, clearly showing that the first substantive Fannie and Freddie reform from inside government came from the Bush administration. Spurred by worries that Fannie and Freddie were cooking their books and taking too many risks, Treasury Secretary John Snow proposed placing the companies under Treasury oversight with strict controls over risk and capital reserves. The NYT labeled the proposal “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago” and noted:

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

So five years ago, there was one of those rare moments in Washington when the branches and personalities of government—in this case, the Bush administration—are less interested in protecting or expanding their turf than in fixing a looming catastrophe. What was Frank’s response to the proposal?

“These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Further, Bush had stated 17 times since 2001, in one way or another, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed more oversight and the practices of these firms could be detrimental to the economy. John McCain also warned about it numerous times and spoke up for reform when a 2005 bill was being considered. Obama was silent.

From the Wall Street Journal :

In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby.The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent.

In fact, the same party, the Democrats, who stopped the 2005 bill are now blaming the Republicans.It is quite possible we wouldn’t be in this mess today if that bill had been brought to the floor.

Again, from the WSJ:

If the Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote, the huge growth in the subprime and Alt-A loan portfolios of Fannie and Freddie could not have occurred, and the scale of the financial meltdown would have been substantially less.  The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it.

In summary, it seems to me to be just a game being played when those who are most responsible for getting us into this mess are now leading the charge to supposedly “get us out”….don’t bet on it…..

While I am not 100% convinced that the “crisis” is as urgent as has been portrayed, it does appear, however, that something serious must be done to prevent credit markets from seizing up.

It appears that relief MIGHT be coming in the form of $700 Billion with or without many Republicans in Congress. If for no other reason than protesting the very wolves who guard the chicken house, the House Republicans should vote NO!

UPDATE 9/29/08:

View this video showing excerpts from 2004.  What you will see clearly is the Republicans calling for reform for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and multiple Democrats saying there is nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie…..make no mistake…this mess lies largely on the shoulder of the very Democrats who are trying to bamboozle us in their efforts to “fix” the problem….(along with some of the spineless willing Republicans in Congress.)