New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson Withdraws Appointment

FirefightnRick · January 4, 2009

http://news.aol.com/article/bill-richardso...tary-bid/292771

Rick

yyz28 · January 5, 2009

A former Clinton administration official is suspected of wrong doing? I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die from that surprise. ROTFLMAO!!!

Obama - Bringing real change (by re-assembling the Clinton Administration) to Washington.

Quoner · January 5, 2009

I usually don't consider a news story real until Compuserve or Prodigy pick it up - so nice try but no cigar!

UNTflyer · January 5, 2009

Obama - Bringing real change (by re-assembling the Clinton Administration) to Washington.

He just named Leon Panetta as CIA Director. It's really getting comical... how many Clinton-era retreads is he going to appoint? Bill Clinton for the new Commerce Secretary???

Quoner · January 5, 2009

I usually don't consider a news story real until Compuserve or Prodigy pick it up - so nice try but no cigar!

Come on - no appreciation for the Clinton reference?

KRAM1 · January 5, 2009

Let me get this straight...the definition of "change" in Mr. Obama's dictionary = Clinton Administartion retreads. OK, I've got it now! I see the change...it's in my rear view mirror! Good grief...Charlie Brown!

UNTFan23 · January 6, 2009

No experience necessary to lead CIA. :unsure:

SilverEagle · January 7, 2009

Lest we all forget. When Bill Clinton turned it over to Alfred E. Newman, we were at peace, and we had a budget surplus.

Also, no one died as a result of his getting a hummer in the White House.

Edited January 7, 2009 by SilverEagle

UNTLifer · January 7, 2009

Lest we all forget. When Bill Clinton turned it over to Alfred E. Newman, we were at peace, and we had a budget surplus.
Also, no one died as a result of his getting a hummer in the White House.

Well, since we shooting out "facts" let's not forget the following:

America was not attacked by terrorist on our soil during the Clinton years.

Clinton ignored terrorist attacks on American interests worldwide, USS Cole for instance.

Maybe no one died during his fling with Monica, but acceptance of adultery by the leader of our nation is an unfortunate snapshot of our society today.

GreenMachine · January 7, 2009

Lest we all forget. When Bill Clinton turned it over to Alfred E. Newman, we were at peace, and we had a budget surplus.
Also, no one died as a result of his getting a hummer in the White House.

a lot of little swimmers went down the windpipe and died!

SilverEagle · January 7, 2009

Well, since we shooting out "facts" let's not forget the following:
America was not attacked by terrorist on our soil during the Clinton years.
Clinton ignored terrorist attacks on American interests worldwide, USS Cole for instance.
Maybe no one died during his fling with Monica, but acceptance of adultery by the leader of our nation is an unfortunate snapshot of our society today.

Neither President Clinton OR Alfred E. Newman overtly responded to the attack. I suppose that Clinton should have gone out and recklessly attacked SOMEONE as long as they were an Arab country...regardless of their involvement.

And Bush (Rice) ignored warnings several months before 911, from George Tenate, that a terrorist attack was imminent.

And BTW, the beloved Dwight D. Eisenhower cheated on his wife.

untbowler · January 7, 2009

Neither President Clinton OR Alfred E. Newman overtly responded to the attack. I suppose that Clinton should have gone out and recklessly attacked SOMEONE as long as they were an Arab country...regardless of their involvement.
And Bush (Rice) ignored warnings several months before 911, from George Tenate, that a terrorist attack was imminent.
And BTW, the beloved Dwight D. Eisenhower cheated on his wife.

Didn't the World Centers get attacked while on Clinton's watch as well as the embassies in Africa?

Monkeypox · January 7, 2009

I suppose that Clinton should have gone out and recklessly attacked SOMEONE as long as they were an Arab country...regardless of their involvement.

Unless you count bombing pharmaceutical plants in the Sudan.

yyz28 · January 8, 2009

Lest we all forget. When Bill Clinton turned it over to Alfred E. Newman, we were at peace, and we had a budget surplus.
Also, no one died as a result of his getting a hummer in the White House.

We were not at Peace, we were in a war with Terrorists, we just had yet to find the nads to do something about it.

We did NOT have a budget surplus... ...this myth is my favorite... we had a PROJECTED surplus based on economic trends continuing. ...but we were on our way into a recession before Bush took office and then 9/11 happened.

No one died as a result of Bush getting a hummer in the White House either... I'm not sure the relevance of this.

Anyone who claims Clinton OR Bush did enough to fight terrorism until 9/11 happened. Nobody took it seriously enough. But a couple of facts remain - Clinton DID have a chance to take out OBL. You can argue the whys and why nots, but he did have an opportunity, and he didn't take it. ...and Tenant has been pretty well discredited by most fair minded folks who have looked into his claims.

Don't attack Bush for being asleep at the Terrorist swtich and for running budget deficits of 400 Billion when the guy YOU JUST VOTED for and is about to take office is appointing Leon Panetta head of the CIA and is warning the country that we should expect to see 1 TRILLION dollar deficits under him as he rolls out New Deal II and massive Government spending despite the state of the economy.

SilverEagle · January 8, 2009

We were not at Peace, we were in a war with Terrorists, we just had yet to find the nads to do something about it.
We did NOT have a budget surplus... ...this myth is my favorite... we had a PROJECTED surplus based on economic trends continuing. ...but we were on our way into a recession before Bush took office and then 9/11 happened.
No one died as a result of Bush getting a hummer in the White House either... I'm not sure the relevance of this.
Anyone who claims Clinton OR Bush did enough to fight terrorism until 9/11 happened. Nobody took it seriously enough. But a couple of facts remain - Clinton DID have a chance to take out OBL. You can argue the whys and why nots, but he did have an opportunity, and he didn't take it. ...and Tenant has been pretty well discredited by most fair minded folks who have looked into his claims.
Don't attack Bush for being asleep at the Terrorist swtich and for running budget deficits of 400 Billion when the guy YOU JUST VOTED for and is about to take office is appointing Leon Panetta head of the CIA and is warning the country that we should expect to see 1 TRILLION dollar deficits under him as he rolls out New Deal II and massive Government spending despite the state of the economy.

Republicans and wall street don't recognize projections? Obama is just rolling out a projected deficite based on what was handed to him by President "What, me worry?".

The reference to the hummer in the White house was inaccurate. I meant the hummer in the oval office. Clinton got his jollies the conventional way in the oval office, President Alfred E. Newman (and his cabinet of chicken hawks) got their jollies in the oval office by planning and starting a bogus war with Iraq. Part of the huge deficite is that 10billion a month price tag for that bogus war. Of course, Lord Vader Cheney will get his cut from Halliburton when he leaves office.

Our incoming President was one of the few people in congress with the "nads" to vote against it.

yyz28 · January 8, 2009

Republicans and wall street don't recognize projections? Obama is just rolling out a projected deficite based on what was handed to him by President "What, me worry?".
The reference to the hummer in the White house was inaccurate. I meant the hummer in the oval office. Clinton got his jollies the conventional way in the oval office, President Alfred E. Newman (and his cabinet of chicken hawks) got their jollies in the oval office by planning and starting a bogus war with Iraq. Part of the huge deficite is that 10billion a month price tag for that bogus war. Of course, Lord Vader Cheney will get his cut from Halliburton when he leaves office.
Our incoming President was one of the few people in congress with the "nads" to vote against it.

The fiction section can be fun, but I find the reference section FAR more informative...

It isn't a matter of recognizing projections... ...but there was NEVER an actual Surplus. The Surplus projection reached a high in 1998, and was already on a backwards slide by 2001 when George Bush took office. The mini recession before 9/11 and the real recession post 9/11 combined with zero spending cuts AND the largest most expensive government handout program ever enacted (Medicare Prescription Drug Program) Has led to the current deficit of roughly $450 Billion. The war isn't responsible for these deficits. Don't confuse my defense of the facts as a lock-step with this Presidnet, this Administration or the Republican party. The party and this President have spent money and expanded government like drunken sailors. THAT is the problem, not continuing to fund the war in Iraq.

We can debate the wisdom and reasons for going into and staying in Iraq, but lets not pretend that is the root cause of all of our current problems. It simply isn't.

Bush is leaving Obama with deficits that have been averaging $400 per year, no doubt. ...but Obama isn't projecting what happens if we leave spending static - he's saying right up front he's going to spend ANOTHER $500 - $600 Billion a year that we don't have, driving a debt that is already most likely going to destroy this country for out kids and grandkids into orbit. Raising taxes and pushing spending up using money we have to borrow or print will do NOTHING to solve the problems in this economy. The last time a President prescribed this type of solution for this type of an Economy, we had the Carter years with record inflation and econmic stagnation.

If you ACTUALLY believe that the war was waged by Cheney and Bush for profit, you've been reading move-on.org too much, and making such statements don't do much for your credibility.

Until we have a govnerment in place with the balls to cut spending, return powers to the state that SHOULD be at the state level and who will SERIOUSLY reform the tax code, we are in a downward spiral towards the end of this Country as we know it, no matter who is in power. When the Debt explodes (which will happen the MOMENT the Chineese determine we need them more than they need us and they start calling loans due) we will be a 3rd rate nation and will no longer be the economic and military power we are today.

I don't care what a politicians social views and policies are today. I don't care if they are screaming conservative or screaming liberal on issues like abortion, gay rights, church & state, etc. We need a HARDCORE fiscal conservative to get our financial house in order, or this country is doomed, and there are fewer days ahead than behind if we don't start getting this under control, and SOON! Obama isn't that guy. Neither was McCain.

Censored by Laurie · January 8, 2009

The fiction section can be fun, but I find the reference section FAR more informative...
It isn't a matter of recognizing projections... ...but there was NEVER an actual Surplus. The Surplus projection reached a high in 1998, and was already on a backwards slide by 2001 when George Bush took office. The mini recession before 9/11 and the real recession post 9/11 combined with zero spending cuts AND the largest most expensive government handout program ever enacted (Medicare Prescription Drug Program) Has led to the current deficit of roughly $450 Billion. The war isn't responsible for these deficits. Don't confuse my defense of the facts as a lock-step with this Presidnet, this Administration or the Republican party. The party and this President have spent money and expanded government like drunken sailors. THAT is the problem, not continuing to fund the war in Iraq.
We can debate the wisdom and reasons for going into and staying in Iraq, but lets not pretend that is the root cause of all of our current problems. It simply isn't.
Bush is leaving Obama with deficits that have been averaging $400 per year, no doubt. ...but Obama isn't projecting what happens if we leave spending static - he's saying right up front he's going to spend ANOTHER $500 - $600 Billion a year that we don't have, driving a debt that is already most likely going to destroy this country for out kids and grandkids into orbit. Raising taxes and pushing spending up using money we have to borrow or print will do NOTHING to solve the problems in this economy. The last time a President prescribed this type of solution for this type of an Economy, we had the Carter years with record inflation and econmic stagnation.
If you ACTUALLY believe that the war was waged by Cheney and Bush for profit, you've been reading move-on.org too much, and making such statements don't do much for your credibility.
Until we have a govnerment in place with the balls to cut spending, return powers to the state that SHOULD be at the state level and who will SERIOUSLY reform the tax code, we are in a downward spiral towards the end of this Country as we know it, no matter who is in power. When the Debt explodes (which will happen the MOMENT the Chineese determine we need them more than they need us and they start calling loans due) we will be a 3rd rate nation and will no longer be the economic and military power we are today.
I don't care what a politicians social views and policies are today. I don't care if they are screaming conservative or screaming liberal on issues like abortion, gay rights, church & state, etc. We need a HARDCORE fiscal conservative to get our financial house in order, or this country is doomed, and there are fewer days ahead than behind if we don't start getting this under control, and SOON! Obama isn't that guy. Neither was McCain.

Spend money to make money.

Stupid poor...needing their meds...pillheads.

yyz28 · January 8, 2009

Spend money to make money.
Stupid poor...needing their meds...pillheads.

Spend money to make money doesn't work at the Government level. Never has, espcially when you're printing money to spend, thus creating inflation. Economics 101.

Poor needing pills was covered in Medicare/Medicaid before the PDP was put in place. The PDP allows retirees who are in GREAT financial shape to have the Government pick up the cost of their pills.

Its nice to want to "take care" of the less fortunate, but when the govnerment spends and spends and spends what it doesn't have (like it has) and put more and more of a burden on the producers (like it has) it will eventually all collapse. All you have to do is realize that the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes in this country and it becomes pretty clear that we're REALLY close to having 1 contributor per 1 on the government till.

We can't sustain that as a socieity for long - the entire system and the economy collapses. ...then who's gonna take care of the poor guy who needs a vial of heart meds?