Obama v Petreus....who do you feel more comfortable with?

White House: July 2011 Afghan withdrawal 'firm'

BY: ANNE GEARAN, AP National Security Writer

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is reaffirming its pledge to begin pulling U.S. Toops out of Afghanistan next summer.

But the Pentagon and the White House are still saying different things about how many troops will leave — and when.

President Barack Obama's Chief of Staff tells ABC's "This Week" that the July 2011 date to begin withdrawal is firm. Emanuel isn't disputing quoted remarks from Vice President Joe Biden that "a whole lot" of troops would leave.*

Gen. David Petreus who oversees the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, told Congress last week that he'd recommend putting off the withdrawal if need be. He said security conditions and the Afghan government have to be ready to handle a U.S. drawdown.

Z: Imagine if any country in the history of the world had told its enemy when it was leaving? The experts on the ground believe this isn't a good idea, of course. But, apparently, our White House Commander in Chief knows better.

Do you think we should tell the people of Afghanistan "a whole lot" of troops will be leaving (I wonder if Biden could have picked different words than that?) Is it a good idea to tell our enemies ANYTHING about our tactics, as if we're giving tips to our enemy? We can't be there forever, God forbid, nobody wants that, but it's seems so counter intuitive to tell enemy factions our exit plan, dates, numbers (if "whole lot" means anything to anybody), it sends such a message to Afghanistan that America doesn't trust the input of our military commanders, doesn't it? But, OBAMA KNOWS better. REALLY? How?

What do you think? Is this for Obama's political situation at home....playing to the very far left, the "war is never the answer... he TOLD us we'd be leaving Afghanistan!" gang? Because, of course, nobody ever tells an enemy when he's leaving. A fifth grader knows what happens then.

* Robert Gates is getting me more and more nervous. He said this morning that he didn't think Biden had said this...that it was only printed somewhere but HE hadn't heard him and he couldn't imagine he had. Robert Gates has become a HACK. Just what we need in a Secretary of Defense.

z

Does NOTHING ever stick to THEIR GUYS?

(-Anybody got a caption for Rahm and Barry in the picture?? Fire away)

February 17, 2009

NEWS broke last week that Rahm Emanuel, now White House chief of staff, lived rent- free for years in the home of Rep. Rosa De Lauro (D-Conn.) - and failed to disclose the gift, as congressional ethics rules mandate. But this is only the tip of Emanuel's previously undisclosed ethics problems. (Z: News broke LAST WEEK? Did you hear about that 'last week'?)

One issue is the work Emanuel tossed the way of De Lauro's husband. But the bigger one goes back to Emanuel's days on the board of now-bankrupt mortgage giant, Freddie Mac.

Emanuel is a multimillionaire, but lived for the last five years for free in the tony Capitol Hill townhouse owned by De Lauro and her husband, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg.

During that time, he also served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee - which gave Greenberg huge polling contracts. It paid Greenberg's firm $239,996 in 2006 and $317,775 in 2008. (Emanuel's own campaign committee has also paid Greenberg more than $50,000 since 2004.)(Z: Wait. Not the same Greenberg in whose home he lived free?!! What a coincidence, huh?!)

To be fair, Greenberg had polling contracts with the DCCC before - but each new election cycle brings its own set of consultants. And Emanuel was certainly generous with his roommate.

Emanuel never declared the substantial gift of free rent on any of his financial-disclosure forms. He and De Lauro claim that it was just allowable "hospitality" between colleagues. Hospitality - for five years? (Z: for a millionaire?)

Some experts suggest that it was also taxable income: Over five years, the free rent could easily add up to more than $100,000. (Z: "some experts suggest?" H&R Block knows this! Heck, I KNOW this!!)

Nor is this all that seems to have been missed in the Obama team's vetting process. Consider: Emanuel served on the Freddie Mac board of directors during the time that the government-backed lender lied about its earnings, a leading contributor to the current economic meltdown.

The Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Agency later singled out the Freddie Mac board as contributing to the fraud in 2000 and 2001 for "failing in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention." In other words, board members ignored the red flags waving in their faces. (Z: and Oh, brother, are WE paying for that now)

The SEC later fined Freddie $50 million for its deliberate fraud in 2000, 2001 and 2002.

Meanwhile, Emanuel was paid more than $260,000 for his Freddie "service." Plus, after he resigned from the board to run for Congress in 2002, the troubled agency's PAC gave his campaign $25,000 - its largest single gift to a House candidate.

That's what friends are for, isn't it?

Now Rahm Emanuel is in the White House helping President Obama dig out of the mess that Freddie Mac helped start.

The president's chief of staff isn't subject to Senate confirmation, but his ethics still matter. Is this the change that we can depend on? (Z: CHUMP CHANGE)

By Dick Morris and Eileen McGrath

OKAY....Sometimes, people do the wrong thing...RIGHT? Now picture this: ANYBODY on Bush's staff did anything CLOSE to all of this and what would the media be doing?! Ya, I know, too.

z