Change of Heart ?

The White House: Reports the reaction of the Obama Administration to the loss of the Gregg Nomination. The White House states the following, "Senator Gregg reached out to the President and offered his name for Secretary of Commerce. He was very clear throughout the interviewing process that despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace, and move forward with the President’s agenda. Once it became clear after his nomination that Senator Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama’s key economic priorities, it became necessary for Senator Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways. We regret that he has had a change of heart. " There is different view from Senator Gregg, in his view he didn't seek the office, he was chosen by President Obama not the other way around. The President has stated in a interview that it was Gregg that sought the office. Thus as stated in previous post a breakdown of communication. President Obama is finding that D.C rules are tough, politicians play to win, both in the Democratic and Republican Party.

Gone, Gone another Obama Nominee!

BBC News: Reports another Obama nominee; this time Republican New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg; has withdrawn his nomination because he could not support the Obama Economic Plan. In pure political terms President Obama has to look at his West Wing Operation, this is getting the silly, to many nominees that have had to withdraw due to legal or tax reasons, the latest shows a breakdown of communication. Obama needs a new Chief of Staff, he needs a Chief of Staff that can get Republican support but is moderate, again I suggest former Secretary of State James Baker, he was Chief of Staff to President Ronald Reagan, one of the best run political operations in history, he was Treasury Secretary when the market went in free fall and in the Administration of Bush 41 he was Secretary of State, thus was part of the team that had success in the Gulf, and the end of the Cold War. This would show that Obama could think outside the box, Ronald Reagan appointed Baker even after he had run the Bush Campaign against the Gipper.

NYT Attacks President Obama over Renditions

The New York Times: The Liberal, Left wing New York Times attacks President Obama for following the Bush policy when it comes to rendition, the Liberal Times writes the following, " Voters have good reason to feel betrayed if they took Mr. Obama seriously on the campaign trail when he criticized the Bush administration’s tactic of stretching the state-secrets privilege to get lawsuits tossed out of court...." The Liberal, Left wing Times is more interested in the protection of terrorists than the protect of the American citizen. The paper has shown constant contempt for the security of the United States, it has released secret information on the CIA secret prisons, it has attacked USA policy in Iraq, it is more interested in the rights of those terrorists than the protection and well being of the American citizen. It attacks those that don't agree with it a vicious manner, just ask Mr O' Reilly of the Factor on Fox News. Thus what can you expect from the Times, it supported Stalin while he killed millions. Thus President Obama must be doing something right, good on you Mr President.

Democrats at War?

Politico: Reports on the internal war between the House and Senate Leadership over the Obama Economic Plan. This is typical of Democrats, they are only united when they have a Republican President to attack such as Bush 43. When they control all aspects of Government they cant help themselves, its fun to see Democrats as Democrats.

Mad Men, 2nd Season

Just seen the first episode of the Second Season of Mad Men, it was fantastic, one of the best shows on TV, intelligent, witty, fun, does not talk down the audience, if you haven't watched it, start with the first season DVD, then watch, a great intelligent show for the thinking man.

UK Limited Surge in Afghanistan

The Times: Reports that the UK is ready to send another three hundred troops to Afghanistan, in the hope that the Obama Administration will not ask for any more troops. I think PM Gordon Brown is whistling in the wind on this issue, if the President sends another thirty thousand troops to back up the UK he will expect more that just three hundred troops from the UK. Lets see if PM Brown can hold the line at this total, have my doubts, he wants Obama as his best friend, thus the cost will be more combat troops.

USA Surge in Afghanistan ?

CNN News: Reports that President Obama will make his decision on more troops for Afghanistan quite soon. Here is my advice to the new President, no surge of troops to Afghanistan, more troops wont help, in less your going to go big and quick in to Pakistan, to clean out the tribal areas of the terrorists bases. Otherwise its wiser to keep Afghanistan at its present low level of conflict. Also when it comes to Iraq, start to withdraw troops but over a twenty three month period, also change the status of most of the combat troops to trainers of the Iraqi Army and Police. If Obama sends troops in to Afghanistan but does not deal with Pakistan he is doing a LBJ, sending in troops but not attacking the supply area with combat troops, in the case of Vietnam, it was North Vietnam, in the case of Afghanistan its Pakistan. Thus Afghanistan will become Obama's War. He might find that he wishes had kept his troops in Iraq and kept Afghanistan a low level War.