A fun video from Peter Cowman of MoveRed.org about Obama's Hanford flub has been posted on Hot Air.
But this is where the story gets interesting: Obama actually voted on cleanup for Hanford. Oops.
NB: the Hot Air story refers to a vote on H.R. 1815, but technically, that is not a vote for H.R. 1815 (which Obama cannot vote for, directly, as it is a House bill and he is apparently in the Senate), but a vote to proceed to conference committee to reconcile differences between H.R. 1815 and the Senate version, S.1042. But Obama voted for S.1042, too.
And make no mistake, Hanford was not buried deeply. Well, OK, S.1042 is a pretty huge bill. But S.1045, which originally contained the Hanford text, is pretty small -- about 10 pages -- and it was passed and inserted into S.1042 with unanimous consent (on the same day Obama was there voting for S.1042: November 15, 2005). So that's three votes on Hanford.
Here's Peter's video:
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at May 20, 2008 07:36 PM | Email ThisNote trivia SIDEBAR:
Believe you meant ''S.1042'' instead of ''S.1045'', where you said:
''... and inserted into S.1045 with unanimous consent ....''
In checking the actual legislation (and I thought some of the bills in the WA Leg were bad), this really was big. OTOTH, Hanford appears in the title of Sec. 3112; so as you said nobody can claim it was totally buried:
''SEC. 3112. COST ESTIMATE FOR WASTE TREATMENT AND IMMOBILIZATION PLANT PROJECT, HANFORD SITE, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON.''
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 20, 2008 08:21 PMWow, I really can't believe McCain hired this guy.
Posted by: Bob on May 20, 2008 08:23 PMThat McKinnon was going to leave was old news MONTHS ago. Just one of my pertinent links from google:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/politics/21consult.html?ref=us
But Bob is right about one thing:
McKinnon leaving as expected does not begin to compare with Obama voting for Hanford before he forgot about it: The McKinnon thing is down in the noise compared to the Hanford flubb.
John McCain is the only cannidate that will fufill our presidents war on islam. What we need in these endtimes is a good strong coneretive anti-libaral, non-hippie who holds true to the word of our lord. I really hope WHEN McCain becomes president he lives up to the republican platform and ends abortion, criminalizes gay sex and marrage and stops de-regulashion. We need to invade andor nuke iran and all these terriorists before its too late. This is exacly what the bible pridected would happen if the world fell away from his word. Armogeddon is close at hand we must stop them as a global force and unite christians and live as the word would tell us. and wage war against the non-beilevers and democarats and libarals.
Posted by: Truth In Words on May 20, 2008 08:41 PM"Three quarters of whites who have not completed college -- a bulwark of Clinton support this year -- also backed the New York senator. She has seldom done better this year with those blue-collar white voters.
Just 45 percent of whites in Kentucky said they would vote for Obama in a matchup with John McCain in the general election.
Racial attitudes were also striking. About one in five whites in Kentucky said race played a role in choosing their candidate -- on par with results in other Southern states. Nearly nine in 10 of that group backed Clinton -- the highest proportion yet among the 28 states where that question has been asked.
Only three in 10 whites in the state who said race was a factor said they would vote for Obama should he oppose McCain in November"
As I have said previously: Whites will not vote for a racist pig. ESpecially a black racist pig. But we will give AA to blacks who deserve it: Condi Rice & Colin Powell. Ain't AA grand?
Posted by: Truth In Words on May 20, 2008 08:52 PMAnd yes, it was its own section, but even then ... S.1042 is huge. But S.1045 is not.
Posted by: pudge on May 20, 2008 09:23 PMTo ask a Senator to know every single project in an over encompassing Defense Funding bill is also reaching. That isn't to say they should know, but the structure of the bill itself can be overwhelming (I believe). My guess most Senators will be concerned about two things in these types of bills: (1) What is in it for my state, and (2) What is in it that is a potential red flag that could come back to bite me.
Posted by: tc on May 21, 2008 07:35 AMSo you missed the part where he agreed via unanimous consent to approve S.1045 and include it in S.1042?
That was the point I made: that he agreed to a smaller bill about Hanford that was NOT an "over-encompassing" funding bill.
Posted by: pudge on May 21, 2008 08:10 AMYes, he should have known about Hanford, or if not, the dangers/challenges of cleanup and disposal of nukler materials.
Posted by: swatter on May 21, 2008 09:10 AM1) Because they are told to do so by their handlers; pastors, union officials, MSM talking heads they trust, etc.
2) Because of his skin color. Either because it matches their own, is not white, or because they feel that there should be an affirmative action program for the Presidency too.
3) Or worst, because they actually understand his Marxist policies and they want to advance such Progressive statist policy here in the US.
There's nothing rational or intellectual about a vote for Obama, because he is a very limited candidate. For most of the left that's fine, because it is more about being caught up in the emotion of a "movement" and less about what will actually be effective for the US.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 21, 2008 09:26 AMIt just goes to show how liberals are sheeple that simple go along without even understanding anything. As long as there is a "D" behind the name, twist their little minds and slap their big behinds as the STYX song goes (MR Roboto).
Posted by: pbj on May 21, 2008 11:13 AMIt's called being a US Senator. Serious PBJ, you think they read all the bills they pass? Clinton all but admitted she did not read the authorization to go to war on Iraq before she voted on it. Now that seems like a very important bill to read.
Hanford does not even appear to be the main focus of the bill, it's a vote on whether to fund defense of US Energy instillations.
PBJ, it sounds like you want to leave out nuclear reactors defenseless. You already stated you were willing to sell out US jobs, now you want to sell out our nuclear plants security? What kind of sick traitor are you?
PBJ, proud supporter of terrorism in the US
At least Hillary Clinton knows what Hanfor is.
"Hanford does not even appear to be the main focus of the bill, it's a vote on whether to fund defense of US Energy instillations."
So you are saying we shouldn't want a detail person as president? So if a nuclear treay 3,000 pages long contains a tiny clause buried on page 2,398 that states "The US shall immediately surrender all its property and become slaves of Iran", that is OK with you?
"PBJ, it sounds like you want to leave out nuclear reactors defenseless. You already stated you were willing to sell out US jobs, now you want to sell out our nuclear plants security? What kind of sick traitor are you?"
How can I make more of a fool of you than you have already done for yourself?
Posted by: pbj on May 21, 2008 01:10 PMAgain, this is a short bill. It has three titles, one of which is tiny, and another of which is just a couple of pages. The first and main title has two subtitles, and each section is short. All he'd have to do is just skim the table of contents.
Look, I am not saying this is a huge deal. But there is no question: he either read it and forgot, or he never read it. And he should have read it. Excuse it all you want, but he should have read it. And if he did and forgot, well, then maybe he just is a bit overwhelmed as a Presidential candidate.
You can say "you can't read every bill" all you like, but I expect my representatives to know everything they are voting for. And frankly, I think it is quite illustrative of leftist thinking to believe otherwise: it is a pro-big-government mindset to think "well, it doesn't matter what is in this bill, if they tell me it's needed I'll just blindlty vote for it." This is something I stand against, and something John McCain stands against. Not that he is perfect (or that I am), but the difference is that to a leftist, this sort of thing -- government is too big for our elected officials to know what they are voting on -- is normal and OK, and to a conservative, this is a problem to be solved.
Posted by: pudge on May 21, 2008 03:51 PMYou can't even spell it correctly. =P
So you are saying we shouldn't want a detail person as president?
I do think we need a detail President. Of course we don't want another 'Yes Sir' President like we have now. One who makes inane decisions about the life and death of proud American soldiers based on purposely misconstrued evidence.
So if a nuclear treay 3,000 pages long contains a tiny clause buried on page 2,398 that states "The US shall immediately surrender all its property and become slaves of Iran", that is OK with you?
Haha, never going to happen. You are such an idiot. =)
How can I make more of a fool of you than you have already done for yourself?
Takes one to know one. =P
If you're going to attack Bush, at least do it logically. Everyone knows this tired old claim is complete nonsense, and it only makes you look stupid to make it.
So then by inferrence, you don't think Obama should be president as he is not a detailed oriented person.
Thanks for clearing that up.
"Of course we don't want another 'Yes Sir' President like we have now. One who makes inane decisions about the life and death of proud American soldiers based on purposely misconstrued evidence."
You mean like these people?
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
Wow, such propaganda would make Geobbels blush.
Who does the terrorist group Hama want to win? Obama
Who has an unrepentant terrorist who said regreats he "didn't set enough bombs", on his staff? Obama.
Posted by: pbj on May 22, 2008 11:20 AMI guess my point is that other than broad generalizations, most people don't have much knowledge about what is happening here. What is worse I suppose, is what they THINK is happening here. You all would get a kick out of some of the stuff I have heard.
Posted by: Jimmy on May 23, 2008 07:39 AMHow is this point relevant to the discussion?
Posted by: pudge on May 23, 2008 08:55 AMHow many of those people you asked were running for president?
Posted by: pbj on May 23, 2008 11:11 AM