Presidential candidate Obama promised time and again not to negotiate health care reform behind closed doors, to bring all parties together and to broadcast health care reform negotiations on C-SPAN.

It is truly unfortunate that President Obama did not keep those promises, but instead, chose to meet privately with health care executives, cut a deal with drug firms in secret, and outsourced the drafting of the Obamacare legislation to the extremely partisan, Democrat-controlled Congress.

1.     Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)

2.     Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)

3.     Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)

4.     Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)

5.     Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)

6.     Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)

7.     Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)

8.     Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)

9.     Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)

10.   Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)

11.   Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)

12.   State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)

13.   Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)

14.   “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321, p. 211)

15.   Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321(d), p. 213)

16.   Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 322(b), p. 215)

17.   Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)

18.   Demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” (Section 1222, p. 617)

19.   Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)

20.   Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)

21.   Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)

22.   Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)

23.   Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)

24.   Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)

25.   Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)

26.   Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)

27.   Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)

28.   Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)

29.   Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)

30.   Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)

31.   National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)

32.   Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)

33.   Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)

34.   Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)

35.   Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)

36.   Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)

37.   Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)

38.   Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)

39.   Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)

40.   “Identifiable office or program” within CMS to “provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles” (Section 1905, p. 1191)

41.   Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)

42.   Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)

43.   Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)

44.   Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)

45.   Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)

46.   Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)

47.   Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)

48.   Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)

49.   Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)

50.   Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)

51.   Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)

52.   Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)

53.   Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)

54.   Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)

55.   Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)

56.   Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)

57.   Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)

58.   Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)

59.   Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)

60.   Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)

61.   Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)

62.   Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)

63.   Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)

64.   “No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza” demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)

65.   Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)

66.   Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)

67.   University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)

68.   Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)

69.   Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)

70.   Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)

71.   Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)

72.   Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)

73.   Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)

74.   Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)

75.   Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)

76.   Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)

77.   Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)

78.   Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)

79.   Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)

80.   Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)

81.   Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)

82.   National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)

83.   CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)

84.   CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)

85.   CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)

86.   Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)

87.   National Women’s Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)

88.   Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)

89.   Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)

90.   Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)

91.   Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)

92.   Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)

93.   Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)

94.   Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)

95.   Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)

96.   Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)

97.   Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)

98.   Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)

99.   Office of Indian Men’s Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)

100.Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)

101.Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)

102.Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)

103.Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)

104.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)

105.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)

106.Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)

107.Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)

108.Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)

109.Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)

110.Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)

111.Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

Is the cost of all this new bureaucracy included in the $1 trillion cost of the House Democrats latest version of Obamacare?

For weeks, President Obama has been indecisively dithering about whether to send more troops to Afghanistan to fight what he correctly calls a “war of necessity.” General Stanley A. McChrystal’s report, in which he requests more troops, was issued at the end of August.

The Commander in Chief, taking political heat for not having enough women in his inner circle, found golf a more important political expediency than finally making the Afghan decision. There was so much heat that an article in the New York Times began, “Does the White House feel like a frat house?” Obama apparantly needed headlines proclaiming that he golfs with a woman, more than he needed to make the life and death decision as to whether he will send more troops in support of his “war of necessity.”

Obama’s Afghan indecision has gone on for so long, some wonder if Obama has delayed his long overdo decision until after this year’s gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia in order to help struggling Democrat candidates Jon Corzine and Craig Deeds. Others have simply concluded that Obama is ignoring Afghanistan and breaking his vow to fight his “war of necessity.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, this report covers only spending on infrastructure and social programs being carried out by private companies, which were awarded about $16 billion in stimulus funds. That amounts to $526,610 per job created or saved.

Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers claims the stimulus and “other policy actions caused employment in August to be slightly more than one million jobs higher than it otherwise would have been.”

I can’t wait to hear the CEA’s Obama-speak explanation as to how the contractors’ measly 30,383 jobs supports the council’s million plus estimate.

We want to leave no misunderstanding that aggregate performance — the fact that jobs turn up somewhere else for some people — does not mean that there are not substantial costs borne by people, communities, firms in affected industries and affected areas. You saw that in manufacturing, and we would see that in response to changes that this legislation would produce.

Director Elmendorf also testified that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax would cut the nation’s gross domestic product by 0.25 to 0.75 percent in 2020 compared with “what it would otherwise have been,” and by 1 to 3.5 percent in 2050.

Elmendorf’s testimony undercuts the current position of President Obama and the Democrats’ congressional leaders, who claim cap-and-tax would help revive the economy. They make that claim despite the fact that presidential candidate Obama said his cap and trade plan will cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket” and will bankrupt anyone who builds a coal-powered plant.

During Sunday’s talk show Obamarama, the President acted as though he barely knew about ACORN. In an exchange with George Stephanopoulos, Obama said that ACORN “deserves to be investigated,” but did not endorse recent votes in Congress to cut off ACORN’s federal funding but did not endorse recent votes in Congress to cut off ACORN’s federal funding:

STEPHANOPOULOS:  How about the funding for ACORN?

OBAMA:  You know, if — frankly, it’s not really something I’ve followed closely.  I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.

STEPHANOPOULOS:  Both the Senate and the House have voted to cut it off.

OBAMA:  You know, what I know is, is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated.

STEPHANOPOULOS:  So you’re not committing to — to cut off the federal funding?

OBAMA:  George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country.  It’s not something I’m paying a lot of attention to.

Does Obama really expect us to believe that because he was one of he Senators that did not bother to vote for The Housing Assistance Tax Act of 2008 that he did not know that it provided a mechanism to provide community organizing groups like ACORN federal funding? Does Obama really expect us to believe that he was not aware of the brouhaha over efforts to include even more federal money to community organizing groups like ACORN in the big $700 billion bailout bill that Obama voted for during the heat of the Presidential campaign?

There are a lot of connections between Obama and ACORN that Obama does not the public to scrutinize:

• ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis has strong ties to the Obama White House

• Obama ran a voter-registration drive for ACORN partner Project Vote

• Obama represented ACORN

• Obama taught classes for future Leaders of ACORN

• ACORN endorsed Obama’s presidential campaign

• Obama’s campaign paid more than $800,000 to ACORN - The 800,000 was allegedly for get-out-the-vote efforts, but the Obama campaign “mistakenly misrepresented” what ACORN was doing to The Federal Election Commission. Some found this “mistake” highly suspicious:

“Barack Obama’s failure to accurately report his campaign’s financial records is an incredibly suspicious situation that appears to be an attempt to hide his campaign’s interaction with a left-wing organization previously convicted of voter fraud.”

• ACORN received thousands of dollars from the Woods
  Fund during the time Obama served on the board of directors of the Woods
  Fund (1993 to 2002) –$45,000
  (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), and $40,000
  (2002) [Donors Forum website - ifs.donorsforum.org, accessed 6/10/08].

• ACORN was caught over and over again engaging in fraudulent voter registration. Something NBC, CNN and John Fund documented.

• Then there are the attempts to wipe the web clean of potentially damaging articles concerning Obama’s involvement with ACORN and the false claim, made on Obama’s so-called fight the smears website, that Obama was never an ACORN trainer.

• Obama told community organizers they will shape his presidency

If I was Obama and my community organizer experiences were so closely tied to ACORN and all it’s fraudulent and otherwise dubious activities as Obama’s are, I’d try to hide the connections too.

In a column entitled “Time to Get Out of Afghanistan,” Will expands upon comments he made on ABC’s “This Week” and argues we should reduce our forces in Afghanistan and “do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.”

The Will strategy comes a day after General Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, submitted a report that also calls for a new strategy in Afghanistan. According to the New York Times, McChrystal’s report lays the groundwork for more troops and “would invest the United States more extensively in Afghanistan.”

President Obama announced a new strategy for his war in Afghanistan and Pakistan at the end of March - less than six months ago. Can Obama sell another new, more intensive, Afghan strategy, while his leave Iraq by date certain policy continues to move closer to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in that theater of the struggle formerly known as the Global War On Terror?

Can Obama muster the public support or maintain Bush-like steadfastness absent public support? Last month a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found a majority, 54%, now oppose the war in Afghanistan. That percentage is sure to rise as the numbers of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan continue to rise.

Antiwar groups have now turned against Obama’s war and plan an autumn campaign against Obama.

How much longer will the Afghan war remain the Obama policy that Republicans like the most? How much longer will Republicans support Obama’s war when they think about how wrong Obama was about the Iraq surge. Obama was among those who stridently opposed the surge and predicted its failure. When even Obama realized he was wrong about the surge, team Obama engaged in a silly effort to hide the evidence by erasing his criticism of the surge from the web.

How much longer will unrepentant supporters of the Global War On Terror like me continue to support Obama’s war when Obama continues to back away from war on terror, insists on closing the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay without a clue as to where he will put the terrorists, gives the green light to political show trials of Bush administration officials and allows his government to investigate CIA operatives?

How much longer will you support Obama’s war? Al Qaeda and the Taliban don’t think it will be long enough for us to win.

Team Obama wants to use 9/11 to push back against protesters, referred to as “Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists” by calling Senators in support of the Obamacare public government option.

Today, the Obama campaign folks sent out a notice to “grassroots” supporters about the planned 9/11″health care organizing event”:

What day? Our US Senators return to DC the Tues after Labor Day. That next FRIDAY, Sep 11, is Patriot Day, designated in memory of the nearly three thousand who died in the 9/11 attacks.

All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.

The offensive notice has been scrubbed from the Organizing for America website, but I was able to get the following screenshot [click for larger image].

How dare they? Don’t contemplate the nearly 3,000 innocent souls murdered by the
terrorists. Instead, politicize a day of remembrance. Whatever happened
to what presidential candidate Obama said on September 11, 2008:

Americans across our great country came together to stand with the
families of the victims, to donate blood, to give to charity, and to
say a prayer for our country. Let us renew that.

What happened to all that hope?

Don’t let team Obama get away with hijacking Patriot Day, a day that should remain a day of remembrance. Don’t wait until the Obamatons launch the planned Senate assault. Call your Senators and your Representatives now. Let them know what you think about this despicable effort to politicize 9/11. Tell them what you think of the president’s campaign organization calling protesters terrorists. Do it now.

A big h/t to the Heritage Foundation.

During an interview on “FOX News Sunday,” Chris Wallace asked former Vice President Dick Cheney if he thinks Democrats are soft on national security? Cheney responded affirmatively, then added that in recent years the Democrats didn’t have as strong of advocates on national defense or national security as they used to have — the pro defense wing of the Democratic party isn’t as strong as it once
was.

The video and transcript of the interview are available below.

A “Terrible, Terrible Precedent”

This was Cheney’s first interview since the Obama justice Department named a prosecutor to investigate possible CIA abuses of terror detainees. Asked about that action against CIA personnel, Cheney called it a terrible, terrible precedent:

CHENEY: I think it’s a terrible decision. President Obama made the announcement some weeks ago that this would not happen, that his administration would not go back and look at or try to prosecute CIA personnel. And the effort now is based upon the inspector general’s report that was sent to the Justice Department five years ago, was completely reviewed by the Justice Department in years past.

They made decisions about whether or not there was any prosecutable offense there. They found one. It did not involve CIA personnel, it involved contract personnel. That individual was sentenced and is doing time. The matter’s been dealt with the way you would expect it to be dealt with by professionals.

Now we’ve got a political appointee coming back, and supposedly without the approval of the president, going to do a complete review, or another complete investigation, possible prosecution of CIA personnel. We could talk the whole program about the negative consequences of that, about the terrible precedent it sets, to have agents involved, CIA personnel involved, in a difficult program that’s approved by the Justice Department, approved by the National Security Council, and the Bush administration, and then when a new administration comes in, it becomes political.

They may find themselves dragged up before a grand jury, have to hire attorneys on their own because the Justice Department won’t provide them with counsel.

It’s a terrible, terrible precedent.

[. . .]

We ask those people to do some very difficult things. Sometimes, that put their own lives at risk. They do so at the direction of the president, and they do so with the — in this case, we had specific legal authority from the Justice Department. And if they are now going to be subject to being investigated and prosecuted by the next administration, nobody’s going to sign up for those kinds of missions.

Cheney did not mention that Obama gave the green light for the show-trials back in April. Nor did Cheney mention Holder’s politicization of secret memos or the fact that Obama Holder made their minds up about these issues long before they took office.

There is much more in this Cheney interview about the shameless politicization of the Obama Justice Department and. You should watch or read the whole thing.

Transcript:

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: Mr. Vice President, welcome back to “FOX News Sunday.”

RICHARD CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It’s good to be back, Chris.

WALLACE: This is your first interview since Attorney General Holder named a prosecutor to investigate possible CIA abuses of terror detainees.

What do you think of that decision?

CHENEY: I think it’s a terrible decision. President Obama made the announcement some weeks ago that this would not happen, that his administration would not go back and look at or try to prosecute CIA personnel. And the effort now is based upon the inspector general’s report that was sent to the Justice Department five years ago, was completely reviewed by the Justice Department in years past.

They made decisions about whether or not there was any prosecutable offense there. They found one. It did not involve CIA personnel, it involved contract personnel. That individual was sentenced and is doing time. The matter’s been dealt with the way you would expect it to be dealt with by professionals.

Now we’ve got a political appointee coming back, and supposedly without the approval of the president, going to do a complete review, or another complete investigation, possible prosecution of CIA personnel. We could talk the whole program about the negative consequences of that, about the terrible precedent it sets, to have agents involved, CIA personnel involved, in a difficult program that’s approved by the Justice Department, approved by the National Security Council, and the Bush administration, and then when a new administration comes in, it becomes political.

They may find themselves dragged up before a grand jury, have to hire attorneys on their own because the Justice Department won’t provide them with counsel.

It’s a terrible, terrible precedent.

WALLACE: There are a lot of aspects that you just raised. Let me review some of them.
Why are you so concerned about the idea of one administration reviewing, investigating the actions of another one?

CHENEY: Well, you think, for example, in the intelligence arena. We ask those people to do some very difficult things. Sometimes, that put their own lives at risk. They do so at the direction of the president, and they do so with the — in this case, we had specific legal authority from the Justice Department. And if they are now going to be subject to being investigated and prosecuted by the next administration, nobody’s going to sign up for those kinds of missions.

It’s a very, very devastating, I think, effect that it has on morale inside the intelligence community. If they assume that they’re going to have to be dealing with the political consequences — and it’s clearly a political move. I mean, there’s no other rationale for why they’re doing this — then they’ll be very reluctant in the future to do that.

WALLACE: Do you think this was a political move not a law enforcement move?

CHENEY: Absolutely. I think the fact is, the Justice Department has already reviewed the inspector general’s report five years ago. And now they’re dragging it back up again, and Holder is going to go back and review it again, supposedly, to try to find some evidence of wrongdoing by CIA personnel.

In other words, you know, a review is never going to be final anymore now. We can have somebody, some future administration, come along 10 years from now, 15 years from now, and go back and rehash all of these decisions by an earlier administration.

WALLACE: Let me follow up on that. The attorney general says this is a preliminary review, not a criminal investigation. It is just about CIA officers who went beyond their legal authorization.
Why don’t you think it’s going to stop there?

CHENEY: I don’t believe it. We had the president of the United States, President Obama, tell us a few months ago there wouldn’t be any investigation like this, that there would not be any look back at CIA personnel who were carrying out the policies of the prior administration. Now they get a little heat from the left wing of the Democratic Party, and they’re reversing course on that.

The president is the chief law enforcement officer in the administration. He’s now saying, well, this isn’t anything that he’s got anything to do with. He’s up on vacation on Martha’s Vineyard and his attorney general is going back and doing something that the president said some months ago he wouldn’t do.

WALLACE: But when you say it’s not going to stop there, you don’t believe it’s going to stop there, do you think this will become an investigation into the Bush lawyers who authorized the activity into the top policymakers who were involved in the decision to happen, an enhanced interrogation program?

CHENEY: Well, I have no idea whether it will or not, but it shouldn’t.

The fact of the matter is the lawyers in the Justice Department who gave us those opinions had every right to give us the opinions they did. Now you get a new administration and they say, well, we didn’t like those opinions, we’re going to go investigate those lawyers and perhaps have them disbarred. I just think it’s an outrageous precedent to set, to have this kind of, I think, intensely partisan, politicized look back at the prior administration.

I guess the other thing that offends the hell out of me, frankly, Chris, is we had a track record now of eight years of defending the nation against any further mass casualty attacks from Al Qaeda. The approach of the Obama administration should be to come to those people who were involved in that policy and say, how did you do it? What were the keys to keeping this country safe over that period of time?

Instead, they’re out there now threatening to disbar the lawyers who gave us the legal opinions, threatening contrary to what the president originally said. They’re going to go out and investigate the CIA personnel who carried out those investigations. I just think it’s an outrageous political act that will do great damage long term to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say.

WALLACE: If the prosecutor asks to speak to you, will you speak to him?

CHENEY: It will depend on the circumstances and what I think their activities are really involved in. I’ve been very outspoken in my views on this matter. I’ve been very forthright publicly in talking about my involvement in these policies.

I’m very proud of what we did in terms of defending the nation for the last eight years successfully. And, you know, it won’t take a prosecutor to find out what I think. I’ve already expressed those views rather forthrightly.

WALLACE: Let me ask you — you say you’re proud of what we did. The inspector general’s report which was just released from 2004 details some specific interrogations — mock executions, one of the detainees threatened with a handgun and with an electric drill, waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times.

First of all, did you know that was going on?

CHENEY: I knew about the waterboarding. Not specifically in any one particular case, but as a general policy that we had approved.

The fact of the matter is, the Justice Department reviewed all of those allegations several years ago. They looked at this question of whether or not somebody had an electric drill in an interrogation session. It was never used on the individual, or that they had brought in a weapon, never used on the individual. The judgment was made then that there wasn’t anything there that was improper or illegal with respect to conduct in question…

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Do you think what they did, now that you’ve heard about it, do you think what they did was wrong?

CHENEY: Chris, my sort of overwhelming view is that the enhanced interrogation techniques were absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks against the United States, and giving us the intelligence we needed to go find Al Qaeda, to find their camps, to find out how they were being financed. Those interrogations were involved in the arrest of nearly all the Al Qaeda members that we were able to bring to justice. I think they were directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States.

It was good policy. It was properly carried out. It worked very, very well.

WALLACE: So even these cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you’re OK with it?

CHENEY: I am.

WALLACE: One specific question about Holder, the Obama administration — you put out the statement saying that you were upset that President Obama allowed the attorney general to bring these cases. A top Obama official says, hey, maybe in the Bush White House they told the attorney general what to do, but Eric Holder makes independent decisions.

CHENEY: Well, I think if you look at the Constitution, the president of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer in the land. The attorney general’s a statutory officer. He’s a member of the cabinet.

The president’s the one who bears this responsibility. And for him to say, gee, I didn’t have anything to do with it, especially after he sat in the Oval Office and said this wouldn’t happen, then Holder decides he’s going to do it. So now he’s backed off and is claiming he’s not responsible.

I just, I think he’s trying to duck the responsibility for what’s going on here. And I think it’s wrong.
WALLACE: President Obama has also decided to move interrogations from the CIA to the FBI that’s under the supervision of the National Security Council, and the FBI will have to act within the boundaries of the Army Field Manual.

What do you think that does for the nation’s security? And will we now have the tools if we catch another high-value target?

CHENEY: I think the move to set up this — what is it called, the HIG Group?

WALLACE: Yes.

CHENEY: It’s not even clear who’s responsible. The Justice Department is, then they claim they aren’t. The FBI is responsible and they claim they aren’t. It’s some kind of interagency process by which they’re going to be responsible for interrogating high-value detainees.

If we had tried to do that back in the aftermath of 9/11, when we captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, we’d have gotten no place. I think it moves very much in the direction of going back to the old way of looking at these terrorist attacks — that these are law enforcement problems, that this isn’t a strategic threat to the United States.

I think it’s a direct slap at the CIA. I don’t think it will work.

I think that if they were faced with the kind of situation we were faced with in the aftermath of 9/11, suddenly capturing people that may have knowledge about imminent attacks, and they’re going to have to have meetings and decide who gets to ask what question and who’s going to Mirandize the witness, I think it’s silly. It makes no sense. It doesn’t appear to be a serious move in terms of being able to deal with the nation’s security.

WALLACE: Well, on another issue, the CIA has stopped a program to kill or capture top al Qaeda leaders, top al Qaeda terrorists. And CIA Director Panetta told lawmakers that you told the CIA not to inform Congress.

Is that true?

CHENEY: As I recall — and frankly, this is many years ago — but my recollection of it is, in the reporting I’ve seen, is that the direction was for them not to tell Congress until certain lines were passed, until the program became operational, and that it was handled appropriately.

And other directors of the CIA, including people like Mike Hayden, who was Leon Panetta’s immediate predecessor, has talked about it and said that it’s all you know a very shaky proposition. That it was well handled, that he was not directed not to deal with the Congress on this issue, that it’s just not true.

WALLACE: The CIA released two other documents this week — “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Preeminent Source on Al Qaeda”…

CHENEY: Right.

WALLACE: “Detainee Reporting Pivotal for the War Against Al Qaeda.”

While they say that the overall program got absolutely crucial information, they do not conclude whether the enhanced interrogation programs worked. They just are kind of agnostic on the issue. And then there’s what President Obama calls the core issue -

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn’t answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: Well, these two reports are versions of the ones I asked for previously. There’s actually one, “Detainee Reporting Pivotal for the War Against Al Qaeda,” there’s another version of this that’s more detailed that’s not been released.

But the interesting thing about these is it shows that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah provided the overwhelming majority of reports on Al Qaeda. That they were, as it says, pivotal in the war against Al Qaeda. That both of them were uncooperative at first, that the application of enhanced interrogation techniques, specifically waterboarding, especially in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, is what really persuaded him. He needed to cooperate.
I think the evidence is overwhelming that the EITs were crucial in getting them to cooperate, and that the information they provided did in fact save thousands of lives and let us defeat all further attacks against the United States.

The thing I keep coming back to time and time again, Chris, is the fact that we’ve gone for eight years without another attack. Now, how do you explain that?

The critics don’t have any solution for that. They can criticize our policies, our way of doing business, but the results speak for themselves. And, as well as the efforts that we went to with the Justice Department and so forth to make certain what we were doing was legal, was consistent with our international treaty obligations.

WALLACE: At one point the Vice President showed us the view of majestic mountains from his back yard. I asked about the Democrats running battle with the CIA including Nancy Pelosi’s charge the agency once lied to her.

Republicans have made the charge before, do you think Democrats are soft on National Security?

CHENEY: I do, I’ve always had the view that in recent years anyway that they didn’t have as strong of advocates on National Defense or National Security as they used to have, and I worry about that, I think that things have gotten so partisan that the sort of the pro defense hawkish wing of the Democratic party has faded and isn’t as strong as it once was.

WALLACE: Now that he has been in office for seven months, what do you think of Barack Obama?

CHENEY: Well, I was not a fan of his when he got elected, and my views have not changed any. I have serious doubts about his policies, serious doubts especially about the extent to which he understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation.

WALLACE: Now, he has stepped up the use of the Predator drones against Al Qaeda. He has continued rendition. Aren’t there some things you support that he has done?

CHENEY: Sure, some of those things have been — the use of the Predator drone, something we started very aggressively in the Bush Administration, marrying up the intelligence platform with weapons is something we started in August of 2001. It has been enormously successful. And they were successful the other day in killing Batula Masood, which I think all of those are pluses.

But my concern is that the damage that will be done by the President of the United States going back on his word, his promise about investigations of CIA personnel who have carried those policies, is seriously going to undermine the moral, if you will, of our folks out at the agency. Just today, for example, the courts in Pakistan have ruled that A. Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistan nuclear weapon man who provided assistance to the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Libyans, has now been released from custody.

It is very, very important we find out and know long term what he is up to. He is, so far, the worst proliferator of nuclear technology in recent history. Now we have got agents and people out at the agency who ought to be on that case and worried about it, but they are going to have to spend time hiring lawyers at their own expense in order to defend themselves against the possibility of charges.

WALLACE: Actually, the CIA has now said that they are going to pay for the lawyers.

CHENEY: Well, that will be a new proposition. Always before, when we have had these criminal investigations, the fact is that the employees themselves had to pay for it.

WALLACE: What do you think of the debate over healthcare reform and these raucous town halls?

CHENEY: I think it is basically healthy.

WALLACE: And what do you think of the healthcare reform issue?

CHENEY: I don’t — well, it is an important issue, but I think the proposals the Administration has made are — do not deserve to be passed. I think the fact that there is a lot of unrest out there in the country that gets expressed in these town hall meetings with folks coming and speaking out very loudly about their concerns indicates that there are major, major problems of what the administration is proposing.

WALLACE: There was a story in the Washington Post a couple of weeks ago that in the process of writing your memoir, you have told colleagues about your frustration with President Bush, especially in his, your second term. Is that true?

CHENEY: No.

WALLACE: That story was wrong.

CHENEY: Right.

WALLACE: The report says that you disagreed with the President’s decision to halt water boarding, you agreed with his decision to close the secret prisons, you disagreed with his decision to reach out to Iran and North Korea. Is that true?

CHENEY: Well, we had policy differences, no question about that, but to say that I was disappointed with the President is not the way it ought to be phrased. The fact of the matter is, he encouraged me to give him my view on a whole range of issues. I did.

Sometimes he agreed. Sometimes he did not. That was true from the very beginning of the Administration.

WALLACE: Did you feel that he went soft in the second term?

CHENEY: I wouldn’t say that. I think you are going to have wait and read my book, Chris, for the definitive view.

WALLACE: It sounds like you are going to say something close to that?

CHENEY: I am not going to speculate on it. I am going to write a book that lays out my view of what we did. It will also cover a lot of years before I ever went to work for George Bush.

WALLACE: Will you open up in the book about areas where you disagreed –

CHENEY: Sure.

WALLACE: — with the president?

CHENEY: Sure.

WALLACE: There is a question I have wanted to ask you for some period of time. Why didn’t your Administration take out the Iranian nuclear program, given what a threat I know you believe it was, given the fact that you knew that Barack Obama favored, not only diplomatic engagement, but actually sitting down with the Iranians, why would you leave it to him to make this decision?

CHENEY: It was not my decision to make.

WALLACE: Would you have favored military action?

CHENEY: I was probably a bigger advocate of military action than any of my colleagues.

WALLACE: Do you think that it was a mistake, while you were in power, while your administration was in power, not to go after the nuclear infrastructure of Iran?

CHENEY: I can’t say that yet. We do not know how it is ultimately going to come out.

WALLACE: But you don’t get the choice to make it 20/20 hindsight.

CHENEY: Well, I –

WALLACE: In 2007, 2008, was it a mistake not to take out their program?

CHENEY: I think it was very important that the military option be on the table. I thought that negotiations could not possibly succeed unless the Iranians really believed we were prepared to use military force. And to date, of course, they are still proceeding with their nuclear program and the matter has not yet been resolved.

We can speculate about what might have happened if we had followed a different course of action. As I say I was an advocate of a more robust policy than any of my colleagues, but I didn’t make the decision.

WALLACE: Including the president?

CHENEY: The president made the decision and, obviously, we pursued the diplomatic avenues.

WALLACE: Do you think it was a mistake to let the opportunity when you guys were in power, go, knowing that here was Barack Obama and he was going to take a much different –

CHENEY: I am going to — if I address that, I will address it in my book, Chris.

WALLACE: It is going to be a hell of a book.

CHENEY: It is going to be a great book.

WALLACE: Was it a mistake for Bill Clinton, with the blessing of the Administration, to go to North Korea to bring back those two reporters?

CHENEY: Well, obviously, you are concerned for the reporters and their circumstances, but I think if we look at it from a policy standpoint, it is a big reward for bad behavior on the part of the North Korean leadership. They are testing nuclear weapons.

They have been major proliferators of nuclear weapons technology. They built a reactor in the Syrian Desert very much like their own reactor for producing plutonium for nuclear weapons.They probably are the worst proliferators of nuclear technology any place in the world today.
And there ought to be a price for that. Instead, I think when the former President of the United States goes, meets with the leader and so forth, that we are rewarding their bad behavior. And I think it is a mistake.

WALLACE: You would not have done it.

CHENEY: No.

WALLACE: How concerned are you about the increase in violence in Iraq since we pulled out of the major population areas and also what do you make of the fact that the top Shiite parties have formed an alliance tilting towards Iran and leaving out Prime Minister Maliki?

CHENEY: Well, I am concerned about Iraq, obviously. I have been a strong supporter of our policies there from the very beginning. I think we made major, major efforts to take down Saddam Hussein’s regime, establish a viable democracy in the heart of the Middle East. I think especially going through the surge strategy in ‘07 and ‘08, we achieved very significant results.

It is important that we not let that slip away. And we need to be concerned, I think, in these days now in the beginning of the new Administration, I would like to see them focus just as much on victory as they are focused on getting out. And I hope that they don’t rush to the exit so fast, that we end up in a situation where all of those gains that were so hard won are lost.

WALLACE: Given the increase in violence, given some of these new issues, in terms of the political lay of the land, given President Obama’s plan to pull all combat troops out by a year from now, the summer of 2010, how confidant are you that — that Iraq, as a stable, moderate country, is going to make it?

CHENEY: I don’t know. I don’t know that anybody knows. I think it is very important that they have success from a political stand point. I think the Maliki government is doing better than it was at some points in the past. I hope that we see continued improvement in the Iraqi armed forces, security services.

But I think to have an absolute deadline by which you’re going to withdraw, that’s totally unconditioned to developments on the ground — I think there’s a danger there that you’re going to let the drive to get out overwhelm the good sense of staying long enough to make certain the outcome is what we want.

WALLACE: Obviously, this weekend, the country is focused on the death of Ted Kennedy. What did you think of him?

CHENEY: Well, I — personally, I liked him. In terms of policy, there’s very little we agreed on. He was a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts. I was a conservative Republican from Wyoming. So there wasn’t much that we had to work together on.

On the other hand, I admired the fact that he got into the arena as much as he did for most of his professional life, and was obviously a very active participant.

WALLACE: How are you adjusting to life out of power?

CHENEY: Well, this is the fourth time I’ve done it, Chris. So it’s not my first rodeo, as we say. I’m enjoying private life. I just — excuse me — took my family on an Alaskan cruise for a week, all the kids and the grandkids. We’ve gotten to spend a great deal of time in Wyoming, which, as you can tell her in Jackson Hole, is one of the world’s finer garden spots.

So I have, I think, adjusted with a minimal amount of conflict and difficulty. It’s been pretty smooth.

WALLACE: What do you miss?

CHENEY: Oh, I’m a junky, I guess, all those years. I spent more than 40 years in Washington, and enjoyed, obviously, the people I worked with, wrestling with some of the problems we had to wrestle with. I enjoyed having the CIA show up on my doorstep every morning, six days a week, with the latest intelligence.

WALLACE: You miss that?

CHENEY: Sure.

WALLACE: Why?

CHENEY: Because it was fascinating. It was important stuff. It kept me plugged in with what was going on around the world. And as I say, I’m a junky from a public policy stand point. I went to Washington to stay 12 months and stayed 41 years.

I liked it. I thought it was important. And I will always be pleased that I had the opportunity to serve.

WALLACE: Do you miss having your hands on the levers of power?

CHENEY: No, I don’t think of it in those terms.

WALLACE: But I mean being able to affect things. You obviously feel strongly about these issues.

CHENEY: Right.

WALLACE: Do you miss the fact that now you’re just another man watching cable news?

CHENEY: No, and as I say, I’ve been there before. I left government after the first Nixon term and went to the private sector. I left after the Ford administration and ran for Congress. Then left after the secretary of defense and went to the private sector. So these are normal kinds of transitions that you’ve got to make in this business.

What I’ve always found is that there are compensating factors to living a private life, to having more freedom and time to do what I want, and to spend more time with the family, which is very important. Over the years, you know, I’ve sacrificed a lot in order to be able to do those things I’ve done in the public sector.

WALLACE: Well, we want to thank you for talking with us and including in your private life putting up with an interview from the likes of me.

CHENEY: It’s all right. I enjoy your show, Chris.

WALLACE: Thank you very much, and all the best sir.

CHENEY: Good luck.

A “scripted” online discussion about Obamacare conducted with a “friendly audience” of religious voters and pastors Wednesday, ended with Obama “bemoaning those who bear ‘false witness’ against his plans — and then making a claim of his own that’s been widely shown to be false”:

“There’s been a lot of misinformation,” Obama said, complaining about people who are “bearing false witness.”

He said the first thing he wanted to correct was the idea that the proposed overhaul would force some people into different health care plans. “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan,” he said, repeating one of his stock lines.

Unfortunately, that Obama “stock line” is not true.

We reported Fox News legal analyst, Peter J. Johnson, Jr., debunked Obama’s you can “keep your healthcare plan” promise earlier this week. Yesterday, McClatchy also reported Obama’s you can keep your healthcare plan promise is not true. McClatchy relied on the “nonpartisan” FactCheck.org:

That’s not true, however, according to FactCheck.org, an independent truth squad run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

These facts don’t bother Obama. He continues to make his now debunked promise.

We have seen such misrepresentation from Obama before. Presidential candidate Obama’s distortion of McCain’s “one hundred years” statement about the Iraq war is the most egregious example. Even as fact checker after fact checker found that Obama misrepresented what McCain said, Obama continued the distortions for weeks.

How long will Obama continue to bear false witness about Obamacare?

Obama is shameless, simply shameless.

According to George Will, the draft report on the so-called stimulus bill states the CER will identify medical “items, procedures, and interventions” that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They “will no longer be prescribed” by federal health programs.

Tom Daschle, advocated a “Federal Health Board” similar to the CER, whose recommendations “would have teeth”: Congress could restrict the tax exclusion for private health insurance to “insurance that complies with the Board’s recommendation.”

Will tried to warn us in January:

The CER, which would dramatically advance government control — and rationing — of health care, should be thoroughly debated, not stealthily created in the name of “stimulus.”

This is Obamacare — government-controlled healthcare stealthily enacted. Is it even worse? Is the CER a stalking horse for the so-called “death panels.” With more than a quarter of Medicare expenses spent on the last year of life, one has to wonder. One has to wonder even more when the controversial Ezekiel J. Emanuel, one of those “deadly doctors,” is included as a member.

Cap-and-trade legislation will require 60 votes to pass the Senate. According to Bloomberg, at least 15 of the Senate’s 60 Democrats have said the House-passed version — the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade tax climate change legislation — would hurt the economy and must be changed before they can support it. Most Republican Senators oppose the cap-and-trade measure.

The resistance by Senate Democrats Lincoln undercuts President Obama’s plan to cap carbon dioxide emissions and establish a market for trading pollution allowances. A plan that presidential candidate Obama said will cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket“ and will bankrupt anyone who builds a coal-powered plant.

Does Obama’s cap-and-trade tax, face the same fate as President Clinton’s BTU energy tax, which died in the Senate?

In his opening remarks Obama said, “We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors.” In response to a question from a women concerned about losing her Medicare supplement if something happens to her husband, Obama said, “AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?”:

You can watch the video here.

Well, first of all, another myth that we’ve been hearing about is this notion that somehow we’re going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not. AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay? So I just want seniors to be clear about this, because if you look at the polling, it turns out seniors are the ones who are most worried about health care reform. And that’s understandable, because they use a lot of care, they’ve got Medicare, and it’s already hard for a lot of people even on Medicare because of the supplements and all the other costs out of pocket that they’re still paying.

The AARP has not endorsed any health care plan that is currently being considered by Congress.

Obama’s false claim of an AARP endorsement caused the AARP issue a denial:

“While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.”

Counting his whopper that he has not said he was a “single payer supporter,” that’s two lies in one town hall meeting. What else is Obama lying about? Obama cannot expect the American people to believe anything he says about Obamacare when the record shows he is not telling the truth.

• He said it at Google –November 14, 2007

• He said it at the CNN Democrat Presidential Debate — January 31, 2008

• He said it during an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle — January 17, 2008 [the same interview during which Obama said his cap and trade plan would bankrupt anyone who builds a coal-powered plant and electricity rates will skyrocket.]

• He said it at an Ohio Town Hall — March 2008

• He said it during an interview with the St. Petersburg Times — May 2008

Watch the following video to see Obama’s now broken promises for transparent healthcare negotiations:

It is truly unfortunate that President Obama did not keep those promises, but instead, chose to meet privately with healthcare executives, cut a deal with drug firms in secret, and outsourced the drafting of the Obamacare legislation to the highly partisan, Democrat-controlled Congress, thereby ensuring a very partisan Obamacare bill unacceptable to many, if not most of the American people.

Obama was correct about the involvement of the American people:

“Part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process.” — Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Debate, January 31, 2008.

Look at those town hall meetings. The American people have enlisted. I hope Obama is also right about Congress can be shamed into doing the right thing:

“I would not underestimate the degree to which shame is a healthy emotion and that you can shame Congress into doing the right thing if people know what is going on.” — Barack Obama, San Francisco Chronicle — January 17, 2008

Can you hear them now? You work for us. Hear our voice. Don’t close the door.

President Obama is so concerned that he implemented an opposition surveillance program — Obama’s version of the President Bush era terrorist surveillance program — that is of questionable legality. The DNC is even out with a way over-the-top ad bashing those trying to exercise their right to petition their government.

Compare the Obama/Democrat reaction to opposition to that of the Bush Administration, which used such dissent as an opportunity to highlight our rights and freedoms, rather than to try and diminish American liberty as are the Democrats.

Haven’t the Democrats seen the multitude of public opinion polls showing that a majority of Americans believe Obamacare is a bad idea? Are the Democrats so out of touch that they are surprised that Americans are concerned about a $1 trillion-plus so-called healthcare reform? Do they care?

Unfortunately, the available video clip does not convey the electricity that Cheney brought to the Gathering. It is a great clip from a fabulous speech, but the clip covers only four paragraphs, there was much, more to the speech, and many other quotable sound bites which resonated with the audience:

• It has become somewhat fashionable today to talk about conservatives and conservatism as a movement in peril. In some quarters, we’re said to be near death. I am here today to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth.

• We have learned that President Obama will not govern from the center, that he does not believe in American exceptionalism, that he thinks there is a moral equivalence between America and our adversaries, that he wants to expand the federal government until it permeates every corner of this land, and every aspect of your life, that he will raise everyone’s taxes, and that he thinks bureaucrats should choose our doctors, prescribe our medical care, and ration it if need be.

• Mr. President, in a ticking time bomb scenario, with American lives at stake, are you really unwilling to subject a terrorist to enhanced interrogation to get information to prevent the attack? Is it really your position that you would sacrifice American lives rather than use legal methods that we know work to get information that could save those lives?

• Wise men do not capitulate to terrorists simply because the terrorists file suit. Wise men do not welcome terrorists who have vowed to slaughter Americans onto the American homeland. Wise men don’t fret over whether a terrorist was read his Miranda rights. And wise men don’t deliver valuable information about how we gather intelligence into the hands of our enemies.

• Avoiding causing offense to our enemies has become a central tenet of President Obama’s foreign policy. It was this attempt to placate, to appease, not to cause offense that prevented President Obama from defending the rights of the Iranian people to free and fair elections.

• The purpose of diplomacy is not to be liked. The purpose of foreign policy is not to get applause in foreign capitals. The purpose of having a Commander-in-Chief and pursuing a national security strategy is to defend America’s interests, aggressively, effectively and unapologetically.

• Iran will not be disarmed because we talk them out of their weapons, or because we offer “apologies” for America, or because we look the other way as they continue to support terrorism around the world, or because we pretend we have mutual interests. Iran will be disarmed diplomatically only if they know we are serious about using military force if the diplomacy fails.

• America is fundamentally a conservative nation. We know that our greatness has been founded on a strong national defense, limited government, low taxes, the genius and ingenuity of the private sector, and a strong belief in individual freedoms. We know that government is more often the problem than the solution. We know that freedom isn’t free, that America’s armed forces are the best fighting force the world has ever known. And finally, we know that America is the best nation on earth, the best that has ever existed. We believe in her goodness, her strength, her hope and her example – for all who seek freedom in every corner of the world. Those are conservative values. Those are American values.

You can, and should, read the entire speech. The full transcript of her remarks to the RedState Gathering, as prepared for delivery, is available here.

When we are able to watch a video of the entire speech, hopefully, you will see the rock star moment the Gathering experienced listening to Liz Cheney speak. What you will not experience is the inspiring feeling of chatting with a confident Conservative leader. Cheney not only gave a terrific speech, she also had lunch with RedState Contributing Editors, was available to chat and pose for pictures with attendees, and even sat in the audience and listened to other speakers.

Today is the first Obama Approval Index based entirely upon polling conducted
after the press conference, during which Obama made his infamous “stupidly” remark. Likely voters obviously do not approve of the president’s ObamaGates controversy - the number of likely voters who strongly disapprove of Obama’s performance has gone up 5% since the press conference (from 35% on Wednesday morning to 40% today).

The tracking Poll shows that 29% of the nation’s voters still strongly approve of Obama’s performance, but 40% strongly disapprove. Rasmussen’s Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve.

The more likely voters find out President Obama, the less they care for him and his extremely liberal policies. According to Rasmussen, Obama is now seen as politically liberal by 76% - up six points from a month ago and 11 points since he was elected. Forty-eight percent  now see Obama as very liberal - up 20 points since he was elected.

In today’s weekly Republican address, Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl contrasts the Democrats rush and tax change with the Republicans common sense ideas that do not require a government takeover of the health care system, or massive new spending, job-killing taxes, or rationing of care:

The full transcript of Senator Kyl’s remarks is below the fold.

Hello. I’m Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl, of Arizona.

Republicans believe all Americans should have access to quality health care and that we must find ways to reduce health care costs.

The debate in Washington is about how we can achieve these goals.

Republicans have put forward common-sense ideas, including rooting out Medicare and Medicaid fraud, reforming medical liability laws to discourage frivolous lawsuits, strengthening wellness and prevention programs that encourage healthy living, and allowing small businesses to band together and purchase health insurance like large corporations do.

These changes do not require government takeover of the healthcare system, or massive new spending, job-killing taxes, or rationing of care.

Democrats in Congress have a different approach. Their plan would increase spending by more than two trillion dollars when fully implemented, and would, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, ‘add additional costs onto an already unsustainable system.’

It would empower Washington, not doctors and patients, to make health care decisions and would impose a new tax on working families during a recession. A study by the respected Lewin Group shows it would also move millions of people who are happy with their current insurance to a new government plan.

They propose to pay for this new Washington-run health care system by dramatically raising taxes on small business owners. Small businesses create jobs — approximately two-thirds of new jobs in the last decade.

With a shaky economy and the need for new jobs, the last thing the President and the Congress should do is impose new taxes on America’s small businesses. New taxes on small business would cripple job creation, especially jobs for low-wage earners.

This week, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office told the Senate Budget Committee that the health care-reform measures drafted by Democrats would worsen our economic outlook by increasing deficits and driving our nation more deeply into debt. So, there’s good reason to be skeptical when the President tells us we need to pass the Democrats’ bill to help the economy.

The President and Congressional Democrats have even proposed cutting Medicare to pay for their plan.

How can we justify dipping into funds for seniors’ care to pay for a new government plan, especially since Medicare is already in financial trouble? This would ultimately lead to shortages, rationing, and the elimination of private-plan choices—something our seniors rightly fear.

These are not the right steps to achieving the reform Americans want.

But the President and some Democrats insist we must rush this plan through. Why? Because the more Americans know about it, the more they oppose it. Something this important needs to be done right, rather than done quickly.

We know Americans would prefer us to work together to ensure access to affordable quality health care for all. But Americans do not want a government takeover of health care that will jeopardize their current coverage, ration care, and create mountains of new debt and higher taxes.

“We urge Democrats to support a plan that would lead to real reform and include the innovative ideas Republicans have put forward that would cut costs, improve access, and preserve the kind of care that millions of Americans already have and like. That’s the kind of reform Americans would be sure to support.”

The huge tax increase will only pay for about half the cost of the Democrats’ health spending plans, so according to the New York Times, the Democrats will also cut Medicare spending, the government health plan for the elderly, and other health care savings to pay for the rest of the $trillion-plus health care spending spree.

The top federal tax rate is now 35 percent, but Democrats have vowed to raise it to 39.6 percent next year. The Washington Post quotes Robert Carroll, a senior fellow at the nonprofit Tax Foundation, as saying that combined with other federal tax adjustments, the Democrats’ new health care spending tax increase could leave some taxpayers facing top federal rates of at least 45 percent.

The Democrats’ new health care spending tax increase agreement enables House Democrat leaders to unveil health legislation Monday and bring it to a vote before the Congress takes an August vacation.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee marked the event with the release of a new video “60″

No Checks. No Balances. No debate. No excuses. The Democrats own everything and have no one to blame now.