NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06obama.html?hp
WASHINGTON — President Obama signed an executive order Thursday to create a new White House office for faith-based programs and neighborhood partnerships, building upon the initiatives started by the Bush administration to administer social services to people “no matter their religious or political beliefs.”

“No matter how much money we invest or how sensibly we design our policies, the change that Americans are looking for will not come from government alone,” Mr. Obama said. “There is a force for good greater than government.”

Shit. God damnit. This program needs to be shut down. Not expanded.

This is also brought up:

Can religious groups that receive federal money for social service programs hire only those who share their religion?


Anyway.Thoughts?

I heard the press briefing on that. While I would also prefer not to have the office at all, the new press secretary (forgot his name already) insisted that Obama's plan is to shift from the Bush admin's habit of giving money on a no-questions-asked basis (heh, sound familiar?) to faith-based organizations from only one religion, to a plan of making sure that faith-based organizations that provide services under a federal plan do so in compliance with federal non-discrimination laws. If that actually happens, it will be a major change in practice.

To the question of why religious groups should be getting fed money anyway, the press secretary mentioned that Obama believes that many churches are well organized and have long-established procedures and facilities for providing community services -- such as already having spaces that can house after-school programs, etc. That is undeniably true. Though I would prefer church-based services to remain privately funded -- i.e. from donations by their congregations -- I can understand why, in the current economy, the federal government would want to partner with groups that already have the facilities to run public programs.

I can see Obama's point and I trust his practical experience with community organizing. However, I will be keeping a critical eye on this one, because I really don't like the whole idea of "faith-based initiatives."

Btw, the reporter opened her question about this by asking pointblank, "Does President Obama believe in separation of church and state?" The press secretary stated categorically that Obama does believe in and adhere to the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. We can make of that what we will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06obama.html?hp


Shit. God damnit. This program needs to be shut down. Not expanded.


Why? AFAIK, its not a program which endorses any religion, nor does it discriminate against those with different beliefs, including those with no particular religious beliefs. Instead, it taps into a very powerful force to help people where government agencies cannot. Christian charities especially are good at getting money for starving children, homeless people, etc. So instead of all that government handout stuff that people complain about, why not allow the government to use these charitable organizations to do these good things? Believe it or not, despite the negative press that faith groups get on NSG, they do work wonders in working for people:

http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$545
http://peerta.acf.hhs.gov/pdf/faithprog.pdf

Failing that I prepared this for you:

Damn you Obama! Why are you such a Theocratic tyrant! Why do you hate freedom. ;):fluffle:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06obama.html?hp


Shit. God damnit. This program needs to be shut down. Not expanded.

This is also brought up:



Anyway.Thoughts?

you said you wanted someone who would compromise with the republicans...

Why? AFAIK, its not a program which endorses any religion, nor does it discriminate against those with different beliefs, including those with no particular religious beliefs. Instead, it taps into a very powerful force to help people where government agencies cannot. Christian charities especially are good at getting money for starving children, homeless people, etc. So instead of all that government handout stuff that people complain about, why not allow the government to use these charitable organizations to do these good things? Believe it or not, despite the negative press that faith groups get on NSG, they do work wonders in working for people:

http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$545
http://peerta.acf.hhs.gov/pdf/faithprog.pdf

Failing that I prepared this for you:

Damn you Obama! Why are you such a Theocratic tyrant! Why do you hate freedom. ;):fluffle:
Under Bush, not a single dollar went to any faith-based initiative that was not either Christian and Jewish, and only a very few Jewish programs got anything. The vast bulk of the money went to evangelical Christian groups. It just goes to show that, regardless of how the program is structured/worded, it can very easily be corrupted by a president who wants to support one religion over others. This is why I say the separation of church and state should be a wall, and a high wall at that.

Why? AFAIK, its not a program which endorses any religion, nor does it discriminate against those with different beliefs, including those with no particular religious beliefs. Instead, it taps into a very powerful force to help people where government agencies cannot. Christian charities especially are good at getting money for starving children, homeless people, etc. So instead of all that government handout stuff that people complain about, why not allow the government to use these charitable organizations to do these good things? Believe it or not, despite the negative press that faith groups get on NSG, they do work wonders in working for people:


Of course they will announce they do great work. Hey average american thank your for your taxes they will go well to spreading our religion. Wouldn't work very well now would it?

It's nothing more then a payout by the shrub to the Christian base.

Pro: Better regulation of the money.

Con: Churches will still get taxpayer dollars.

It's a good pro, but in my opinion not good enough. Religious organizations shouldn't get tax money. In fact, just the opposite should happen. Taxes on the Catholic CHurch alone could close the annual deficit. :tongue:

you said you wanted someone who would compromise with the republicans...

No, see, I recognize that its good to comprimise, and I recognize thats what he should do...

But I wish hed just ignore their poltically irrelevent asses.
Con: Churches will still get taxpayer dollars.

This. This this this this THIS.

Pro: Better regulation of the money.

Con: Churches will still get taxpayer dollars.

It's a good pro, but in my opinion not good enough. Religious organizations shouldn't get tax money. In fact, just the opposite should happen. Taxes on the Catholic CHurch alone could close the annual deficit. :tongue:

Well, they DO owe 200+ years of back taxes. :D

Btw, the reporter opened her question about this by asking pointblank, "Does President Obama believe in separation of church and state?" The press secretary stated categorically that Obama does believe in and adhere to the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. We can make of that what we will.

Im going to be honest. Hes trying to get way to cozy with the religious right for my liking.

I hope its pandering. Im almost sure it is. But Im a cynic.

And now that hes in charge, my trust in him actually decreases. Im naturally distrustful of authority.

This. This this this this THIS.

As I understand the reasoning behind the motion, religious groups already have the support network necessary for things like charity, housing, etc, etc and they usually have them tailored to the specific area they cover. Funneling money through them in an unbiased fashion instead of setting up their own support networks seems to be an efficiency issue, making the most of what money you have.

Unless you propose nationalizing them that is...

Im going to be honest. Hes trying to get way to cozy with the religious right for my liking.

I hope its pandering. Im almost sure it is. But Im a cynic.

And now that hes in charge, my trust in him actually decreases. Im naturally distrustful of authority.
Compromise is not necessarily pandering. I hate the entire idea of "faith-based" anything being connected to government. But it's there now, and if using it will get us further along in getting some really urgent shit done in this country than dumping it would, then fine, use the fucking thing. I just want him to make it comply with US law, as opposed to the "let's give money to my Jeebus-buddies" club it was under Bush.

But the bottom line for me is that the fact that the SoB who invented the program immediately corrupted it is proof positive that it was a bad idea and should be scrapped. Sadly, not everything that should be scrapped can be scrapped, when we would like to scrap it.

Just wait and watch. The second an Islamic-based community group gets funded by this, the Busheviks will start screaming about how Sauron really is putting Stage One of Operation AmeriCaliphate into action.

I'm going to call a guy I know over at Clitoraid (interesting organization, based on the Raelian religious movement) and tell him to get some of that sweet fed moolah...

Just wait and watch. The second an Islamic-based community group gets funded by this, the Busheviks will start screaming about how Sauron really is putting Stage One of Operation AmeriCaliphate into action.

I'm going to call a guy I know over at Clitoraid (interesting organization, based on the Raelian religious movement) and tell him to get some of that sweet fed moolah...
Okay, NOW I'm in favor of the program. :D

Keep in mind the perspective here. Obama comes from a "bottom up" community organizing background. his whole perspective about building communities is start small, and work up. Don't impose social order from on high, but use organizations within the communities to improve them.

So what is typically the most prominent social institution in a community, especially poorer ones? The churches. There's nothing particularly wrong with using churches as centers for community building. In many communities they occupy an ideal, perhaps even exclusive position to do so.

I was afraid of this. The problem with funneling the money through faith based charities is that the people who need that aid are faced with less alternatives that don't also use the charity to proselytize, so it becomes like a time share pitch. Sure you get one of these fine prizes but you have to sit through the pitch first. Now their doing that on the people's dime, we're subsidizing the pitch as well as the services. That I'm not okay with. I didn't expect him to be perfect and this is one of these imperfections I expected. I'm just as against it as I was when Bush did it.

I'm willing to give him some time to implement it. But if this time next year, it's the same as it was under Bush, Obama might come to regret putting that email function on the whitehouse.gov site.

I'm willing to give him some time to implement it. But if this time next year, it's the same as it was under Bush, Obama might come to regret putting that email function on the whitehouse.gov site.

I suspect he probably already is, between the usual "Dark Lord of Mordor" meanderings some people are sure to send his way and sales pitches for penis enhancements clogging up his inbox. Sure, automated spam filters might work for a fashion, but spammers are usually a step or so ahead sometimes, and who would be able to resist?

I suspect he probably already is, between the usual "Dark Lord of Mordor" meanderings some people are sure to send his way and sales pitches for penis enhancements clogging up his inbox. Sure, automated spam filters might work for a fashion, but spammers are usually a step or so ahead sometimes, and who would be able to resist?
I'm a bad person, because I just got this horrible itch to start emailing NM's posts to the White House. *scolds self* ;)

the new press secretary (forgot his name already)
I call him the Sta-Puf Marshmallow Man.

I call him the Sta-Puf Marshmallow Man.
Oh, now, that's not fair. He's too short for that. ;)

I'm a bad person, because I just got this horrible itch to start emailing NM's posts to the White House. *scolds self* ;)

Ok, hands up. Who wants Obama to make 9 friendship/commemorative rings and hand them out to world leaders as a gesture of goodwill? Just to see NM's reaction?

Ok, hands up. Who wants Obama to make 9 friendship/commemorative rings and hand them out to world leaders as a gesture of goodwill? Just to see NM's reaction?

Ohhhhhhh I would love to see that.

:D :D :D

*Raises hand*

Ok, hands up. Who wants Obama to make 9 friendship/commemorative rings and hand them out to world leaders as a gesture of goodwill? Just to see NM's reaction?

*snerk*

I must admit that would be fairly hilarious. :tongue:

Ok, hands up. Who wants Obama to make 9 friendship/commemorative rings and hand them out to world leaders as a gesture of goodwill? Just to see NM's reaction?

Francois Fillon already looks like the Witch King of Angmar....

“No matter how much money we invest or how sensibly we design our policies, the change that Americans are looking for will not come from government alone,” Mr. Obama said. “There is a force for good greater than government.”

This is one of the few things he's ever said that I think is sense. Also, 'Mr.' Obama? He's the President now, you should give him the title. Sloppy writing/editing, but then, it is the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06obama.html?hp


Shit. God damnit. This program needs to be shut down. Not expanded.


Meet the new boss, same as the old boss....

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss....

Yes, hes just like Bush, what with the whole shutting down Gitmo and everything.

He really ought just abolish that stupidity, not expand it. Ugh.

Yes, hes just like Bush, what with the whole shutting down Gitmo and everything.

Yeah, with that whole "let's keep rendition" thing...

I like the idea of helping people who are helping the bottom rungs of society. But religious organisations getting taxpayer money, hmmmmm. Depends how they go about deciding who gets money and how much. Throwing money at any church who thinks helping the poor and hungry is a good thing without making sure they're living up to it would be bad. Helping religious roganisations who are actually doing good work regardless of what religion they are, what harm?

Ok, hands up. Who wants Obama to make 9 friendship/commemorative rings and hand them out to world leaders as a gesture of goodwill? Just to see NM's reaction?

19 rings. I'm sure there are very serious cosplayers who would insist that they're elves, and we already have dwarfs. They'll do instead of dwarves.

Yeah, with that whole "let's keep rendition" thing...

Because he has the power to change all of Bush's policies on day one.

Yeah, with that whole "let's keep rendition" thing...

You were happy with Rendition and all sorts of civil rights violations inflicted on brown people under Dear Leader so don't act like Obama not getting to it right away pisses you off.

:rolleyes:

You were happy with Rendition and all sorts of civil rights violations inflicted on brown people under Dear Leader so don't act like Obama not getting to it right away pisses you off.

:rolleyes:

But don't you get it! Obama isn't changing anything!


WHERE'S THE CHANGE OBAMA!??!?!?!111!?!?1?///!?!

Because he has the power to change all of Bush's policies on day one.

He said he was "ready to lead from day one".

But I suppose you've forgotten that promise as well.

Looks like we're not going to prosecute CIA interrogators who tortured people, either:



Posted 06 February 2009 14:48
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writer 2 hrs 18 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will not prosecute CIA officers who participated in harsh interrogations that critics say crossed the line into torture, CIA Director-nominee Leon Panetta said Friday.

Asked by The Associated Press if that was official policy, Panetta said, "That is the case."

It was the clearest statement yet on what Panetta and other Democratic officials had only strongly suggested: CIA officers who acted on legal orders from the Bush administration would not be held responsible for those policies. On Thursday, he told senators that the Obama administration had no intention of seeking prosecutions for that reason.

Panetta, in an interview with the AP after a second day of confirmation hearings with the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that he arrived at that conclusion even before he began meeting with CIA officials.

"It was my opinion we just can't operate if people feel even if they are following the legal opinions of the Justice Department" they could be in danger of prosecution, he said.

He said he was "ready to lead from day one".

But I suppose you've forgotten that promise as well.

"Ready to lead from day one" does not mean he has the physical ability to undo all of George Bush's policies on day one. You cant undo eight years of work in one day.

Stop playing dense.

Looks like we're not going to prosecute CIA interrogators who tortured people, either:

Unsuprising. Im torn on whether they should be prosecuted or not. But anyone could have seen that decision coming from a mile away.

DK, I do find it amussing that you are pretending like any of this bothers you. Youre giddy that the CIA officers are going to walk, and that Obama hasnt gotten around to undoing rendition yet. Unless you became some champion of civil liberties after his election (is killing Muslims still better than sex?), stop pretending that this is anything but bitter partisan sniping and go back to crying into your Pap's Blue Ribbon.

Under Bush, not a single dollar went to any faith-based initiative that was not either Christian and Jewish, and only a very few Jewish programs got anything. The vast bulk of the money went to evangelical Christian groups. It just goes to show that, regardless of how the program is structured/worded, it can very easily be corrupted by a president who wants to support one religion over others. This is why I say the separation of church and state should be a wall, and a high wall at that.

Quite true. There were a number of Wiccan and other Pagan groups who were in positions to offer the same sort of programs and were denied the opportunity because they weren't considered religions by the people in power.

Under Bush, not a single dollar went to any faith-based initiative that was not either Christian and Jewish, and only a very few Jewish programs got anything. The vast bulk of the money went to evangelical Christian groups. It just goes to show that, regardless of how the program is structured/worded, it can very easily be corrupted by a president who wants to support one religion over others. This is why I say the separation of church and state should be a wall, and a high wall at that.

Uh...in Ohio I know first hand that the Office charged with distributing the "Faith Based and Community Initiatives" funding the state received, gave money to several areligious groups. Heck, I audited several of them.

Ok, hands up. Who wants Obama to make 9 friendship/commemorative rings and hand them out to world leaders as a gesture of goodwill? Just to see NM's reaction?
Ooh, yes! *raises hand*

Ok, hands up. Who wants Obama to make 9 friendship/commemorative rings and hand them out to world leaders as a gesture of goodwill? Just to see NM's reaction?

Wouldn't it be best to make 19 of them and make one for himself?

There were 3 for the elves.
Seven for the dwarves.
Nine were gifted to men.

And then, of course, the one ring.

I haven't determined who to give the three to, but the seven should all be given to east asian countries.

“No matter how much money we invest or how sensibly we design our policies, the change that Americans are looking for will not come from government alone,” Mr. Obama said. “There is a force for good greater than government.”

This is one of the few things he's ever said that I think is sense. Also, 'Mr.' Obama? He's the President now, you should give him the title. Sloppy writing/editing, but then, it is the NY Times.
You do know, don't you, that George Washington, when asked by the Congress how he wished to be addressed as president, said that he should be addressed as "Mr."

That is why, for the entire history of our country, the president has been addressed as "Mr. President" and referred to as either "President <name>" or "Mr. <name>"

Uh...in Ohio I know first hand that the Office charged with distributing the "Faith Based and Community Initiatives" funding the state received, gave money to several areligious groups. Heck, I audited several of them.
Why were you giving faith-based initiative money to arelgious groups?

And what does that have to do with the statement of mine that you quoted?

Why? AFAIK, its not a program which endorses any religion, nor does it discriminate against those with different beliefs, including those with no particular religious beliefs.

No, but the money sometimes goes to organizations which do. Well, pretty much all of the faith-based initiatives do the former, but some also do the latter.

The whole idea of giving tax dollars to religion-based groups makes me uneasy, but my real concern is that the money not be used for proselytization or in a discriminatory manner. And that includes hiring practices. Unfortunately, I don't think such restrictions could be easily enforced.

You do know, don't you, that George Washington, when asked by the Congress how he wished to be addressed as president, said that he should be addressed as "Mr." That is why, for the entire history of our country, the president has been addressed as "Mr. President" and referred to as either "President <name>" or "Mr. <name>"

George Washington used to wear powdered wigs and own slaves, too. The man's been dead for 200-odd years, I think we can safely move away from WWGWD. The point I was making was that Pres. Obama has earned(after a fashion, I suppose)the title that goes with the office and it should be used, the same way you'd use Dr. or Rev. or what have you.

Isn't this just to ensure that a larger group of gullible voters feel like they're more involved with their government and are more willing to go along with it?

Isn't this just to ensure that a larger group of gullible voters feel like they're more involved with their government and are more willing to go along with it?

They're onto us!

*tazers Straughn*

Why? AFAIK, its not a program which endorses any religion, nor does it discriminate against those with different beliefs, including those with no particular religious beliefs. Instead, it taps into a very powerful force to help people where government agencies cannot. Christian charities especially are good at getting money for starving children, homeless people, etc.

Of course they are--as long as those starving and homeless convert and spread the good word.

They're onto us!

*tazers Straughn*
Lower. Lower. A lot lower. Lower. TOO LOW! .... lower.
http://plot.bek.no/~marieke/site_marieke/pix_06_jun/zapp_brannigan.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06obama.html?hp


Shit. God damnit. This program needs to be shut down. Not expanded.

This is also brought up:



Anyway.Thoughts?

Haha. Obama is sticking it to the atheists. I thought he stuck it to them during his inagural address, but now he is really going to town!

No, see, I recognize that its good to comprimise, and I recognize thats what he should do...

But I wish hed just ignore their poltically irrelevent asses.


This. This this this this THIS.

They are not irrelevant as long as they can filibuster. And as long as they can nitpick parts of oh say the stimulus package they can get away with it.
So heres the choice
No more churches getting money but the stimulus package gets filibustered to hell.
Or the churches get a little money we can stop giving them later and Obama can lean on some of the republicans who depend religious voters in their states to vote against the filibuster.

Besides didn't I mention before that the African American voting block within the democratic party tends to be more open to this sort of thing then the normal Union worker/college student voting block of the democratic party.

Haha. Obama is sticking it to the atheists. I thought he stuck it to them during his inagural address, but now he is really going to town!Yeah, sure.
Must've been fun putting up with all that "Muslim" bullshit until now, eh?

Why were you giving faith-based initiative money to arelgious groups?



Because the mission of the Office is not to give money to solely faith-based programs, it's mission is to provide money to a fairly wide assortment of community and neighborhood non-profits. What makes it controversial is the fact that it can give money to faith based non-profits, amongst others.

The federal entities name is the The Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Community_Initiatives), and in Ohio it's the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives.

And what does that have to do with the statement of mine that you quoted?
You said that the program has only given money to Christian and Jewish groups, I have first hand experience that that's not true.

George Washington used to wear powdered wigs and own slaves, too. The man's been dead for 200-odd years, I think we can safely move away from WWGWD. The point I was making was that Pres. Obama has earned(after a fashion, I suppose)the title that goes with the office and it should be used, the same way you'd use Dr. or Rev. or what have you.
I see, so now that the president no longer owns slaves, you want to treat him like a king and grant him special titles. This is the US. Officials don't get special titles in this country. "Mr." is the traditional way to address the president and it is the socially accepted honorific for men who are respected in general as well. By both social custom and presidential tradition, "Mr. Obama" is the correct way to address the current president.

Next time your party wins, try to get a monarchy established and then you can dictate the "proper" way to show respect.

Because the mission of the Office is not to give money to solely faith-based programs, it's mission is to provide money to a fairly wide assortment of community and neighborhood non-profits. What makes it controversial is the fact that it can give money to faith based non-profits, amongst others.

The federal entities name is the The Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Community_Initiatives), and in Ohio it's the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives.
Is the Ohio office a state agency or a federal agency?

You said that the program has only given money to Christian and Jewish groups, I have first hand experience that that's not true.
No, I did not say that. I said that it had not given any money to religious groups that were not Jewish [or] Christian.

The fact that the office in Ohio also gives money to areligious groups -- and "areligious" indicates (a) secular groups or (b) groups that do not identify a religious affiliation -- does not in any way contradict my assertion that the federal program has never given money to any religious group that was not Christian or Jewish.

Now if you had evidence that the Ohio agency had taken federal funds and granted those federal funds to Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, etc, religious groups for community programs then you would be able to correct me. Do you have such evidence? It should be easy to look up. Believe me, I would rather be wrong about this.

Keep in mind the perspective here. Obama comes from a "bottom up" community organizing background. his whole perspective about building communities is start small, and work up. Don't impose social order from on high, but use organizations within the communities to improve them.
It's my understanding of his Chicago community organising days that this is not the case. The organisations he worked for weren't focused on 'bottom-up' action, but on making enough noise -- press coverage, demos, etc -- so that the powers-on-high would notice these small organisations and then act accordingly. Not so much 'bottom up' as 'bottom appealing to the top'.

Obama's very much in favour, as far as I can tell, of strong leadsership and executive power making change.



Unsuprising. Im torn on whether they should be prosecuted or not. But anyone could have seen that decision coming from a mile away.
Doesn't prevent it from being a shitty decision.

"White House Faith Office"

Also known as the presidency itself.

Of course they are--as long as those starving and homeless convert and spread the good word.

I strongly take issue with this. I come from a fairly large church in Bellevue, and we have never put conversion ahead of compassion. While we do like people converting and are more than happy to pray for people, that has never been a prerequisite for help. Ever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06obama.html?hp


Shit. God damnit. This program needs to be shut down. Not expanded.

This is also brought up:



Anyway.Thoughts?

Money continuing to be shunted to Churches. Just another way he's betrayed those of us on the Left.

Like this...

Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy, the core plan on his Web site is as plain as day: Obama would "immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

Is the Democratic candidate's troop-withdrawal strategy plausible?It is a plan that, no doubt, helped Obama get his party's nomination, but one that may prove difficult if he is elected president.


Sustainable Security
Military personnel in Iraq are following the presidential race closely, especially when it comes to Iraq.

The soldiers and commanders we spoke to will not engage in political conversation or talk about any particular candidate, but they had some strong opinions about the military mission which they are trying to accomplish, and the dramatic security gains they have made in the past few months.

Related
Sam Dissects 'Myth' Behind Troops in IraqWATCH: McCain's Strategy for IranCalculate the '08 Map to the White House!We spent a day with Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond in Sadr City. He is the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which is responsible for Baghdad. Hammond will likely be one of the commanders who briefs Barack Obama when he visits Iraq.

"We still have a ways to go. Number one, we're working on security and it's very encouraging, that's true, but what we're really trying to achieve here is sustainable security on Iraqi terms. So, I think my first response to that would be let's look at the conditions.


"Instead of any time-based approach to any decision for withdrawal, it's got to be conditions-based, with the starting point being an intelligence analysis of what might be here today, and what might lie ahead in the future. I still think we still have work that remains to be done before I can really answer that question," Hammond said when asked how he would feel about an order to start drawing down two combat brigades a month.

Asked if he considered it dangerous to pull out if the withdrawal is not based on "conditions," Hammond said, "It's very dangerous. I'll speak for the coalition forces, men and women of character and moral courage; we have a mission, and it's not until the mission is done that I can look my leader in the eye and say, 'Sir, Ma'am, mission accomplished,' and I think it is dangerous to leave anything a little early."

That phrase, "sustainable security," is something you hear a lot in Iraq.

Barack Obama arrives in Iraq with the first portion of his foreign trip on track -- and helped with a boost from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which could serve to put John McCain more on the defensive than Obama.
(ABC News Photo Illustration)Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, who is the operational commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq, says he has seen things improve significantly here.

As for Obama's stated plan to bring home the troops within 16 months, Austin said, "I'd have to see the entire plan. I'd have to understand the strategic objectives of the leadership, and based on those strategic objectives, come up with operational objectives. It's very difficult to comment on one way or the other, whether one plan would work or one plan wouldn't work. Right now, we are helping the Iraqis achieve sustainable security, and helping them to increase the capability of the Iraqi security forces, and we are making great progress along those lines."

On the streets of Baghdad, where a suicide bomber had struck just days before, Capt. Josh West told us he wants to finish the mission, and that any further drawdown has to be based on conditions on the ground.

Related
Parsing McCain's Vice Presidential PicksWATCH: Sam on Seeing the Cost of WarExamining the Democratic Veepstakes"If we pull out of here too early, it's going to establish a vacuum of power that violent criminal groups will be able to fill once we leave," West said.

Capt. Jeremy Ussery, a West Point graduate on his third deployment, pointed to his heavy body armor as we walked in the 120-degree heat, saying, "The same people keep coming back because we want to see Iraq succeed, that's what we want. I don't want my kids, that hopefully will join the military, my notional children, to have to come back to Iraq 30 years from now and wear this."


But Ussery added, "You can't put a timetable on it -- it's events-based."


Logistics
Success on the battlefield is not the only complication with Obama's plan.

Physically removing the combat brigades within that kind of time frame would be difficult, as well.

The military has been redeploying troops for years, and Maj. Gen. Charles Anderson, who would help with the withdrawal, told us as we toured Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, "We have the capacity to do a minimum of two-and-a-half brigade combat teams a month -- can we expand that capacity? Sure. Can we accelerate? It depends. It depends on the amount of equipment that we bring back. And it's going to depend on how fast we bring them out."

It is the equipment that is the real problem.

In the kind of redeployment that Anderson is talking about, the troops head home, but much of their equipment stays behind. Two combat brigades means up to 1,200 humvees in addition to thousands of other pieces of equipment, like trucks, fuelers, tankers and helicopters.

Related
Does Jesse Jackson Resent Obama?WATCH: George on Impact of Jesse JacksonWatch Out, Jesse, This Mic Is OnAnd 90 percent of the equipment would have to be moved by ground through the Iraqi war zone, to the port in Kuwait, where it must all be cleaned and inspected and prepared for shipment. This is a place with frequent dust storms, limited port facilities and limited numbers of wash racks.


While Anderson and his troops have a positive attitude, several commanders who looked at the Obama plan told ABC News, on background, that there was "no way" it could work logistically.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5351864&page=1

He never had any intention of withdrawing, and is using this as a fig leaf.

I see, so now that the president no longer owns slaves, you want to treat him like a king and grant him special titles.

You're either retarded or high and whichever it is, it's interfering with your comprehension. I never said anything about treating him like a king. Way I figure it, enough people already act like he's the Second Coming, I don't need to throw in my efforts. Also, I'm not granting anyone anything. 'President' is a title that he has earned(more or less, after a fashion, I suppose). Trust me, if I had the power to grant or withhold the Presidency, the current occupant of that office would be SOL.

This is the US. Officials don't get special titles in this country.

Now see, this is just flat out factually incorrect. Officials get special titles all the time, it's a function of their job. That's why we call Hillary 'Secretary of State' and not 'Hey, you.' Or why Pres. Obama's second-in-command is referred to as 'the Vice-President' and not 'Joe.' Those are special titles that are conferred on the official that has that job.

Is the Ohio office a state agency or a federal agency?

The Ohio Office is a state agency that distributes the federal funding, since the federal government distributes very little directly. It's just like Medicaid or SCHIP--federally funded, but state operated. Here's the GAO report on the matter: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06616.pdf


No, I did not say that. I said that it had not given any money to religious groups that were not Jewish [or] Christian.

The fact that the office in Ohio also gives money to areligious groups -- and "areligious" indicates (a) secular groups or (b) groups that do not identify a religious affiliation -- does not in any way contradict my assertion that the federal program has never given money to any religious group that was not Christian or Jewish.

I misunderstood what you said, and read it as money from the program only went to Christian or Jewish groups. All the same, funding is dispersed as part of this program to groups that are non-religious. Given that the money is not set aside for faith based programs, and they must compete with areligious non-profit 501(c)3 organizations as well, I'm not sure why you're unwilling to count the areligious as non-Judeo-Christian.



Now if you had evidence that the Ohio agency had taken federal funds and granted those federal funds to Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, etc, religious groups for community programs then you would be able to correct me. Do you have such evidence? It should be easy to look up. Believe me, I would rather be wrong about this.

While I can't find a link to it, I know the state distributed money to a Somali Islamic organization here in Columbus.

But, here's the 2003 recipients. Feel free to type in "Islam" or "Muslim" and search. While there are very few, they are there, and this list is out of date.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/faith_based_2003.pdf

You're either retarded or high and whichever it is, it's interfering with your comprehension.

If you are going to flame, at least put some effort into it. That was down right pathetic.

I never said anything about treating him like a king.

Again you are trying to evade. Mura made a valid statement and you brought up some gibberish about owning slaves and what not.

The Presidency has protocol. The shrub earned his disdain. The President hasn't been in power long enough to have done something bad. He may or may not. But so far he has done good things.
Way I figure it, enough people already act like he's the Second Coming, I don't need to throw in my efforts.

People have place high expectations on him. To his credit he has already mentioned a few times; the task at hand will not be simple. Far better then the previous approach of "don't worry just be happy"

Also, I'm not granting anyone anything. 'President' is a title that he has earned(more or less, after a fashion, I suppose).

Protocol is still correct. However, some people can understand the stance. However,

Trust me, if I had the power to grant or withhold the Presidency, the current occupant of that office would be SOL.


This invalidates your previous statement.

It must bug you, the President is educated and well spoken vs. the previous artard who I suspect you think was great.

Now see, this is just flat out factually incorrect. Officials get special titles all the time, it's a function of their job. That's why we call Hillary 'Secretary of State' and not 'Hey, you.' Or why Pres. Obama's second-in-command is referred to as 'the Vice-President' and not 'Joe.' Those are special titles that are conferred on the official that has that job.

She is correct. Titles are not allowed in this country.

He said he was "ready to lead from day one".

But I suppose you've forgotten that promise as well.

Looks like we're not going to prosecute CIA interrogators who tortured people, either:
So people won't be prosecuted for following legal orders and performing what critics call torture. Fuck my ass, that Obama is one evil son of a bitch. Not prosecuting people who didn't break the law? What kind of shit is this?
Wouldn't it be best to make 19 of them and make one for himself?

There were 3 for the elves.
Seven for the dwarves.
Nine were gifted to men.

And then, of course, the one ring.

I haven't determined who to give the three to, but the seven should all be given to east asian countries.
Cosplayers, I'm telling you.
Haha. Obama is sticking it to the atheists. I thought he stuck it to them during his inagural address, but now he is really going to town!

Sticking it to atheists? How?

The Ohio Office is a state agency that distributes the federal funding, since the federal government distributes very little directly. It's just like Medicaid or SCHIP--federally funded, but state operated. Here's the GAO report on the matter: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06616.pdf
Thank you. It is very difficult to keep track without a scorecard.

I misunderstood what you said, and read it as money from the program only went to Christian or Jewish groups. All the same, funding is dispersed as part of this program to groups that are non-religious. Given that the money is not set aside for faith based programs, and they must compete with areligious non-profit 501(c)3 organizations as well, I'm not sure why you're unwilling to count the areligious as non-Judeo-Christian.
Because non-religious groups are not religions other than Christian and Jewish. If the government is going to give money to religious groups (and I think it should stop doing that, but it's not up to me) then they must give it to groups from ALL religions, not just those from SOME religions. Unfortunately, I have not had time to dig up the data, but there has been a strong indication that the federal faith-based program denies or ignores applications for funds from groups representing religions other than Christianity and Judaism (and Judaism is grossly under-represented).

While I can't find a link to it, I know the state distributed money to a Somali Islamic organization here in Columbus.

But, here's the 2003 recipients. Feel free to type in "Islam" or "Muslim" and search. While there are very few, they are there, and this list is out of date.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/faith_based_2003.pdf
Thank you. This makes me feel better. About Ohio, at least. If I get the time, I will try to dig up the information I had been thinking of. But it won't change my opinion. I disapprove of this program very strongly. I understand why Obama is keeping it up, but I don't like it. My reasons are not dependent on it being a biased program. That just supports my dislike of it.

You're either retarded or high and whichever it is, it's interfering with your comprehension. I never said anything about treating him like a king. Way I figure it, enough people already act like he's the Second Coming, I don't need to throw in my efforts. Also, I'm not granting anyone anything. 'President' is a title that he has earned(more or less, after a fashion, I suppose). Trust me, if I had the power to grant or withhold the Presidency, the current occupant of that office would be SOL.



Now see, this is just flat out factually incorrect. Officials get special titles all the time, it's a function of their job. That's why we call Hillary 'Secretary of State' and not 'Hey, you.' Or why Pres. Obama's second-in-command is referred to as 'the Vice-President' and not 'Joe.' Those are special titles that are conferred on the official that has that job.
The Black Forrest already dissected this for me -- with my thanks -- but I will just add this:

The present Secretary of State is properly addressed/referred to as "Madam Secretary" or "Mrs. Clinton" and that is exactly how she is addressed and referred to.

You would know this if you had ever listened to anyone in public talking to or about her. Your flamey tantrums might seem less silly if you made even the smallest effort to know what you are talking about.

The Black Forrest already dissected this for me -- with my thanks -- but I will just add this:

You can think of it as 'dissected' if you like. I'd have gone with 'babbled nonsense', but then, since they swooped in out of nowhere to defend you, you're probably a little more charitably inclined.

The present Secretary of State is properly addressed/referred to as "Madam Secretary" or "Mrs. Clinton" and that is exactly how she is addressed and referred to.

Right. And both 'Secretary of State' and 'Madam Secretary' (and, to a lesser, more casual extent 'Mrs.')are....wait for it kids...special titles. The very thing, a page ago, you swore didn't exist in the U.S. Apparently I'm not the one who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Yeah cause thats what we really need...

We're in the middle of a Recession...Should we make an easily passable Stimulus Bill...nah...

We should hand out public funds for people who dont pay Taxes, thats the ticket, lol...

You can think of it as 'dissected' if you like. I'd have gone with 'babbled nonsense', but then, since they swooped in out of nowhere to defend you, you're probably a little more charitably inclined.



Right. And both 'Secretary of State' and 'Madam Secretary' (and, to a lesser, more casual extent 'Mrs.')are....wait for it kids...special titles. The very thing, a page ago, you swore didn't exist in the U.S. Apparently I'm not the one who doesn't know what they're talking about.
No, you are still the one who doesn't know what he is talking about. Example: In your original remarks you blamed the newspaper for referring to the president as "Mr. Obama," on the ground that it was disrespectful not to use the title "President." However, above in this post, where you try so hard to talk down to me (and it's really cute), you acknowledge that it is okay to address/refer to the Secretary of State as "Mrs. Clinton."

Well, if it's respectful enough to address/refer to Hillary Clinton as "Mrs. Clinton" why isn't it equally respectful to address/refer to Barack Obama as "Mr. Obama"?

Self-contradiction for the win, yet again.

Oh, and by the way, referring to someone by their job title is not a "special" title. Referring to someone as Mr/Mrs/Ms is not a title at all. It's an honorific, and there is nothing special about it. Everybody gets to have one.

You making up a nonsensically overbroad definition of "special title" so that it will now include precisely the kinds of addresses/honorifics you were denouncing before as not respectful enough, just so you can claim that the US does give "special titles" to public officials, is also fun for me to watch.

Of course they are--as long as those starving and homeless convert and spread the good word.

That's not true. I know of many MANY faith based charities who do not attempt at ALL to convert people, whose main objective is to provide needs and not religion.

Haha. Obama is sticking it to the atheists. I thought he stuck it to them during his inagural address, but now he is really going to town!


Nevermind that when talkin about religious freedom, he specifically mentioned us, right?

Money continuing to be shunted to Churches. Just another way he's betrayed those of us on the Left.]

Last time you spoke about Obama during the election was two weeks before Nov 4th. You declared he had lost and it was game over. Did the sky fall then?


Like this...



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5351864&page=1

He never had any intention of withdrawing, and is using this as a fig leaf.

TCT already pointed out why this is absurd the last time you posted it.