The Obama administration has directed defense officials to sign a pledge stating they will not share 2010 budget data with individuals outside the federal government.In an undated non-disclosure agreement obtained by Defense News, the administration tells defense officials that “strict confidentiality” must be practiced to ensure a “successful” and “proper” 2010 defense budget process.
More hopenchange I can believe in. What would lefties had called it if President Bush had required something like this? Fascist.
9 comments:
Way to make a mountain out of a molehill. But I would expect nothing less here. The budget's all going to come out. In one press release. Not in dribs and drabs as individuals leak to gripe. And at least Obama's budget process will clean up the dishonesty of Bush's lying budgetary smokenmirrors.
We can't even find out who Cheney conspired with on energy policy back in the day, due to the executive privilege he draped around every thought and action he engaged in. Bush 43 will endure as the most secretive administration in history. Period.
But go ahead, lodge your penny-ante complaints on insignificant transients. That's how you roll.
Do you deny that you and your conspiracy-loving friends, as well as the media, would have been a bit more tough on President Bush had he done this than they're being on President Obama? No, you just attack me--from a position of anonymity. That's how *you* roll.
I'm curious, though, what you think of this administration's current position on infinite detention of terrorism suspects, on the "discovery" that conditions at Guantanamo meet Geneva requirements, on renditions of terrorism suspects, on "harsh interrogation techniques" (but certainly not torture!), on warrantless wiretapping--need I go on, except to mention that this administration's policies are the same as the last's?
Or would you rather continue to drink the hopenchange-flavored kool-aid and think this guy is anything different from any other crooked Chicago machine-politician who wants to gather and maintain power?
And here I thought that leaks were patriotic.
At least they were during the Bush administration.
Anyone whose "About Me" name is "Darren" either imagines himself to be a one-name wonder (Cher, Britney, Madonna, Charo, etc.) or is maintaining a level of anonymity, himself. Are you in Witness Protection?
Along those same lines, just heard this morning that the Great Hope will be asking congress for an additional $200 billion to fund the war in Afganistan.
Waiting for the anti-war screaming from the left... waiting... still waiting....
Congrats Darren, you've risen to the top of the hit list of some uninspired scat-slingers.
Oh, and since I was raised to never come visiting empty-handed, perhaps our drive-by commenters could explain why the Obama administration is carrying on with the claim of executive privilege for those e-mails that were such a big bone of contention during the Bush administration? And why the Bush tax cuts aren't on the administration's hit list?
Then there's the anti-war left which is getting the presidential invitation to go pound sand.
I already have reasons to be unhappy with the results of the recent election but it's nice to know that folks on the other side of the aisle are scrambling to find rationalizations for why they aren't getting similarly unhappy.
You haven't heard any liberals criticize it? Okay. I think it's the wrong thing to do. He should not keep the budget secret. I do believe, however, that Obama's making as many things public as he can. Check out http://www.recovery.gov/ . Was there anything remotely like this under the Bush administration?? Absolutely not.
This post seems to criticize liberals for not complaining that Obama is doing bad things, but then you say "this administration's policies are the same as the last's"! I don't recall you ever criticizing Bush for these things.
When Obama does things the Bush Administration did, and I agree with those things, I don't fault Obama for doing them--I fault him for excoriating President Bush for doing them.
Down the road, there will be a point where folks can no longer deny that the office of the President makes demands on the individual that are beyond the answers A or B. Given the hand he was dealt, President Bush did a stellar job. Twice during his tenure, the market plummeted-once after 9/11 and once after Katrina. Both times they recovered not BECAUSE of government, but IN SPITE of government. Government has not and should never be the final solution for any problem other than defense. I too am angered when I hear the Obama camp make the same claims of executive privelege that Bush did, but the media goes into *cricket* mode. Doesn't this exemplify a type of media assassination? Or is it simply because Bush never wanted to be one of the gladhanders in the Beltway and he had a pretty good BS detector. People in the media tend to associate a southern drawl with a low IQ. I doubt that Bush is nearly as dumb as popular media likes to portray him. And I also doubt that Obama is nearly as smart as he likes to claim. We'll see down the road.
Post a Comment