Tag Archives: during-the-bush

Jenna Bush Hager: I Totally Boned in The White House

Following the public outrage regarding Elizabeth Lauten’s comments about Sasha and Malia Obama , there’s been much debate over what sort of behavior we should expect from the American First Family. Naturally, the utmost decorum is expected from First Ladies (believe it or not, some people were pissed when Michelle Obama rapped about turnips ), but there’s no set standard for presidential offspring. So it’ll be interesting to see how the world reacts to Jenna Bush Hager’s insinuation that she got it on in the White House while her dad was in office: Jenna appeared on Bravo’s Watch What Happens Live this week and – as it pretty much always does when Andy Cohen is involved – the conversation turned to sex: “Listen, a lady never tells,” Bush replied when asked if anyone visited her oval office during the Bush years (pun overload!). “You know there was maybe some hanky-panky.” She quickly dialed back her comment, adding, “Maybe a kiss on the roof.” Riiiight. This morning, Jenna called into Today to clarify her remark, but still didn’t explicitly deny conducting an official White House probe: Jenna Bush Hager Talks White House Sex “One, it was not as Fifty Shades of Grey as people want it to be,” Jenna said. “Second of all, I think I single-handedly brought back the word hanky-panky.” Jenna, chill. You were engaged while your dad was still in office and you’re married to Henry Hager now. No one cares if you “voted for Johnson” before marriage. Plus, you know Bill Clinton and JFK both lived there, right? No matter what went on in your bedroom, those walls have seen worse. Dubya 1. George Dubya Bush George W. Bush is more popular than ever! Or at least since 2005. His approval ratings are back in positive territory.

Continue reading here:
Jenna Bush Hager: I Totally Boned in The White House

Schultz: Republicans Want To Politically ‘Assassinate’ Pres. Obama’s Agenda

How far have we come from the era of “Dissent Is Patriotic” stickers on the bumpers of your local lefties during the Bush administration?  A host on the second-highest rated cable news network has equated political dissent with . . . assassination.   On his MSNBC show this evening, Ed Schultz stated: “Now I’m putting my cards on the table tonight as I do every night. The Republican party is on a mission to politically assassinate the president’s agenda across the board.  They want to shoot down everything.” Note how Schultz reinforces the assassination theme by adding that Republicans want to “shoot down” everything.  Does political speech get much more vile than this?  Do Schultz’s MSNBC bosses approve this kind of reckless rhetoric?

View original post here:
Schultz: Republicans Want To Politically ‘Assassinate’ Pres. Obama’s Agenda

Cindy Sheehan Says Stop Voting for Either Wing of the War Party, Calls for Impeaching Obama

During the campaign, many colleagues and friends of mine, assured me that Obama was just saying this hostile crap to “get elected” and once he was elected that he would “do the right thing.” Well, first of all, why support such a pandering Jackwagon, and secondly, how has that ever worked? Three days after Obama swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, he drone-bombed a “target” in Pakistan killing 3 dozen civilians—and since that day he has elevated the art of drone bombings to new heights, while the so-called antiwar movement looks on in silent complacency and while Democratic operatives disguised as antiwar groups are hoping against hope that Obama comes out strong with a new antiwar marketing campaign to assure his “re-election.” Even though not one progressive issue has been propagated during his term, these war supporters are looking forward to another four years of the dance of death. Right foot kill—left foot torture—spin around for environmental devastation—allemande left for health care fascism—and shimmy right for bankster bailouts. Wasn’t eight years of this crap during the Bush stain enough for y’all? Many antiwar groups and people who claim they are for peace lose their minds during election season thinking that the razor-thin difference between the Democrat and Republican is enough to go ape-shit crazy in working for the Democrat. Just take the last two Democratic candidates, for example. Kerry and Obama both supported more war. An “antiwar” movement de-legitimizes itself when it works hard for a candidate who does not promise total and rapid withdrawal of troops from wherever they happen to be at the time AND does not promise to end war as an imperial tool of corporate conquest. The majority of the so-called antiwar movement, in fact, voted for a candidate that PROMISED to contract one war only to be able to profoundly EXPAND another. Obama all along said that he is not against all war, just “dumb wars.” If there existed an antiwar movement that had integrity—it would have said that “all wars are dumb,” and we withhold our support for just another dyed-in-the-wool warmonger. Read More at the Link: http://beforeitsnews.com/story/109/389/Cindy_Sheehan_Says_Stop_Voting_for_Either… added by: TomTucker

Obama to set higher bar for state secrets

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will announce a new policy Wednesday making it much more difficult for the government to claim that it is protecting state secrets when it hides details of sensitive national security strategies such as rendition and warrantless eavesdropping, according to two senior Justice Department officials. The new policy requires agencies, including the intelligence community and the military, to convince the attorney general and a team of Justice Department lawyers that the release of sensitive information would present significant harm to “national defense or foreign relations.” In the past, the claim that state secrets were at risk could be invoked with the approval of one official and by meeting a lower standard of proof that disclosure would be harmful.

View post:
Obama to set higher bar for state secrets