CIA Director: Cheney almost wishing for terror attack
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
CIA Director Leon Panetta says it's almost as if former vice president Dick Cheney is wishing for another terror attack on the U.S. in order to make his point. Panetta tells The New Yorker that Cheney "smells some blood in the water" on the issue of national security.
Cafferty: Cheney has been a very vocal critic of Obama.
He suggests Cheney's actions are like "gallows politics" and also calls it "dangerous politics."
Dick Cheney - whom we barely saw or heard from for eight years - has been a very vocal critic of President Obama these past few months... especially when it comes to national security. He has said that the new president is making the U.S. less safe by rolling back Bush era policies.
Cheney has criticized President Obama for ordering the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison and for stopping the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. In a speech last month, Cheney called some of Obama's decisions "unwise in the extreme."
And guess what? Cheney's carping may be working. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll taken last month shows Cheney's favorable rating at 37-percent - that was up from 29-percent when he and President Bush left office in January. Go figure.
In response to Panetta's comments, Cheney says: "I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted. The important thing is whether the Obama administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the last eight years."
Here’s my question to you: CIA Director Leon Panetta says it's "almost as if" Dick Cheney is wishing for another terrorist attack on the U.S. Do you agree?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Will health care reform pass Congress this year?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The battle over health care reform looks to be an uphill one for President Obama. The president was in Chicago today, asking skeptical doctors to get behind his plan to overhaul the system - calling it a "ticking time bomb" for the budget that could force the U.S. to go the way of GM.
Mr. Obama swung out at critics - calling them naysayers and fear mongerers... and warned interest groups not to paint his efforts as socialized medicine.
For the first time, Mr. Obama said publicly this overhaul could cost $1 trillion over 10 years; he says that's "real money," but that it's less than what the U.S. is projected to spend on the Iraq War.
The president wants a new public program that would compete with private insurers; it would help cover the 46 million uninsured Americans. He doesn't want to do away with privately owned plans.
But Republicans are accusing the president of pushing a government takeover of health care.
And even members of the president's own party don't think health care reform can make it through Congress. Kent Conrad - Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee - says there aren't enough votes for the public option. Conrad says they're also going to have to attract some Republicans along with holding onto all of the Democrats.
Even though there are big questions about how to pay for all this, Conrad says the country can't afford not to change the system.
Here’s my question to you: Do you think health care reform will pass Congress this year?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Were Iran's elections honest?
Iranian supporters of defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi take part in a rally in Tehran. (PHOTO CREDIT: BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A lot of people aren't buying the outcome of Iran's elections, which had President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad winning with more than 62 percent of the vote.
Vice President Joe Biden says there's some "real doubt" about the results.
Experts point to many reasons why the elections could have been rigged: There is no independent monitoring, many voters are illiterate and officials help them fill in their paper ballots. There are also no booths, so all of the voting is done in public.
According to the official results - Ahmadinejad won in all regions of the country and among all classes and ages - which is highly unlikely. For example, Ahmadinejad won in cities where he is unpopular; and the opposition leader, Mir Hossein Moussavi, lost among his own ethnic group. Also, there were 40 million votes cast and just two hours after the polls closed, Ahmadinejad's victory was announced. In Iran there are no machines. All the votes have to be hand counted.
Moussavi's supporters have taken to the streets to protest the results - often clashing with police. Iranian media have mostly ignored the protests and international journalists were prevented from covering them. Some reporters have been arrested and others beaten by police.
All this was apparently enough for Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei to allow an investigation into allegations of ballot fraud. A group of top clerics and judges is expected to issue its findings within 10 days.
Here's my question to you: Do you believe Iran's elections were honest?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How will your life change if oil reaches $250 a barrel?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Experts predict the price of oil could soon hit $250 a barrel. Already, a barrel of crude is trading at almost $73 dollars - which is up from the lows of $30 a barrel only four months ago.
Prices are going up for lots of reasons; the big one is a new report that shows the world's proven crude reserves have fallen for the first time in 10 years. Demand for oil has gone up for the first time in 10 months; and as the global recession begins to wane, demand for energy is only expected to increase. Plus, it's the start of the summer driving season.
And, since oil is traded in dollars - a further decline in the value of the U.S. currency could also push oil prices higher. If oil prices keep going up, it's possible that could erase the glimmers of economic recovery we're starting to see.
Some analysts say they wouldn't be surprised if oil hits $80 or $90 a barrel soon; while the chairman of the Russian energy group Gazprom is repeating last year's estimates of $250 dollars barrel.
Meanwhile, rising oil prices mean rising gasoline prices. The national average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline is now $2.63, according to AAA. Gas prices have increased for 44 days in a row now, with the average price jumping almost 30 percent a gallon since the end of April.
Here’s my question to you: How will your life change if oil reaches $250 a barrel?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
OK to add to national debt to pay for health care reform?
The National Debt Clock in midtown Manhattan shows the total U.S. government debt as well as the calculated amount per U.S. family. (PHOTO CREDIT: STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Obama wants to have it both ways. He wants the government to stick to pay-as-you-go rules in order to keep federal budgets under control.
The nation's deficit is expected to top $1.8 trillion this year - more than four-times last year's all-time high.
The president wants Congress to pass a law that requires lawmakers to pay for new spending and tax cuts without adding to skyrocketing deficits. He says the rule, which was in effect in the 1990s when the U.S. had budget surpluses, is simple: "Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere."
But the president apparently wants pay-as-you-go to apply to everybody but him. This plan would make about $2.5 trillion of exemptions for some of the president's priorities over the next 10 years. And Mr. Obama's health care reform plan would also be able to run huge deficits in its early years. Hardly the stuff of fiscal restraint.
Republicans are warning that health care reform will add to budget deficits for years to come. House Minority Leader John Boehner says the Democrats have ignored calls for fiscal responsibility, and he's right: "We don't need more rhetoric and gimmicks. We need action to tackle the tremendous fiscal challenges facing this nation."
Of course, the Republicans ran up record deficits under President Bush, so Boehner's cries ring a little hollow.
Here’s my question to you: Is it okay to add to the record national debt in order to pay for health care reform?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Can Obama's Cairo speech help defeat Ahmadinejad?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Some are calling it the "Cairo effect"... they're referring to indications that President Obama's speech last week has already resonated with the Muslim world. In it, the president made clear that countries that don't back extremists are more likely to win the favor of the West - and avoid isolation.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is running for a second term against three challengers in a June 12 election.
The first test came last weekend during Lebanon's elections, where an American-backed coalition defeated the Hezbollah-backed group. Most analysts had predicted that the Hezbollah-led coalition would win...
But The New York Times reports that while there are many domestic reasons why the pro-west coalition won, many also point to Mr. Obama's campaign of outreach to the Muslim world: "For the first time in a long time, being aligned with the United States did not lead to defeat in the Middle East."
Analysts highlight steps the new administration has already taken to ease tensions with Muslims. For example, they are proposing talks with Iran and Syria - rather than confrontation - which makes it harder for Hezbollah and other extremists to demonize the U.S.
The next test comes on Friday, when Iran's hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is up for re-election against a moderate challenger. Although Ahmadinejad is unpopular at home for many reasons, including the economy, some believe that President Obama's speech could help lead to his defeat.
The last time moderates had a real chance of winning in Iran was in 2002, right after former President Bush included Iran in the so-called axis of evil - and we all know how that turned out.
Here’s my question to you: Can Pres. Obama's speech to the Muslim world help defeat Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in tomorrow's election?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should states reduce or eliminate welfare benefits?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Facing a staggering $24 billion dollar budget deficit, California is considering making cuts just about everywhere - including social programs for the poor, elderly and frail. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposals could:
Demonstrators call on Schwarzenegger to reverse $170 million in proposed budget cuts in HIV/AIDS services as he seeks to close a $23 billion deficit in California's budget.
– End the welfare-to-work program for mothers and their children - affecting more than 500,000 families.
– Eliminate health insurance for 1 million children from low-income families
– Greatly reduce services for Alzheimer's patients and others receiving in-home care.
Schwarzenegger acknowledges these proposals would be painful, saying: "It's an awful feeling, but we have no choice." The governor has said he won't raise taxes again, which leaves lawmakers with few other alternatives.
Critics say they are in shock at the idea of getting rid of the state's welfare program and the results could be devastating - forcing thousands of families into homelessness.
But supporters say that states still have many other assistance programs and few people would be left without any help... For example, federally mandated programs like food stamps, low-income housing and Medicaid would continue.
California isn't the only state cutting back in these difficult economic times. Arizona reportedly cut funding for a rehab program for almost 5,000 children with chronic or disabling conditions. Georgia has cut back services for the elderly; and Nevada will make it harder for low income families to apply for cash assistance and health insurance.
Here’s my question to you: Should states reduce or eliminate welfare benefits as a way of balancing their budgets?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should Supreme Court decide fate of 'Don't ask, Don't tell'?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
When it comes to gays in the military, the Supreme Court has refused to hear a legal challenge to the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy.
The law - enacted under President Clinton in 1993 - forbids those serving in the military from openly saying they are gay or lesbian... it also prevents the government from asking people about their sexual orientation. It's estimated that more than 12,000 members of the military have been discharged under this policy - including more than 200 since President Obama took office.
While campaigning, then-Senator Obama indicated that he supports eventually repealing the law; but he hasn't yet taken any steps to do so. A group of more than 1,000 retired military officers - including 47 four-star generals - recently warned the president that overturning the policy could cause problems recruiting and retaining troops.
But Liberal activists who believe gays should be able to serve openly are frustrated by the Supreme Court's decision... and the Obama administration's lack of action.Yet it seems like Democrats and the White House don't want to take on an issue that could divide the public when they need support for other issues - like health care.
Meanwhile a new Gallup poll suggests there might be more support out there on this issue than the president realizes. 69 percent of Americans now favor allowing openly gay members to serve in the military - that's up six-points from five years ago. Also –and this is interesting - the biggest increase in support has come from conservatives and weekly churchgoers.
Here’s my question to you: Should the Supreme Court decide the fate of 'Don't ask, Don't tell'?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Would you rather listen to Palin or Gingrich make a speech?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Sarah Palin didn't make a speech - but that didn't stop her from stealing the show at a big Republican fundraising dinner in Washington last night. The Alaska governor's appearance was a question mark up until the last minute... and followed weeks of an on-again, off-again saga.
Palin had originally been announced as the keynote speaker, but her office said she never confirmed the attendance. Later they wanted to know if she would speak at the dinner; party leaders said she could but then took back the invitation... worried that Palin would upstage Newt Gingrich, the new keynote speaker. Lots of drama.
But Palin, along with her husband Todd, got big cheers from the audience when they were introduced onstage last night; and their table was the only one in the ballroom with a crowd around it.
Several Republicans thanked Palin for showing up. Senator John McCain said it was great to see her, Senator Jon Cornyn praised Palin's leadership, and Gingrich said the U.S. "would be amazingly better off" had McCain and Palin been elected.
There's been speculation that both Gingrich and Palin might be interested in running for the White House in 2012. A recent poll among Republicans showed 21 percent backing Palin and 13 percent backing Gingrich.
Here’s my question to you: Would you rather listen to Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich make a speech?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should cities like Chicago be allowed to ban handguns?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A Chicago law banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits has been upheld. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge by the National Rifle Association. This will probably set the stage for a Supreme Court battle over whether the Second Amendment's protections for gun owners extend to state and city laws.
Last year, the Supreme Court said the right to keep and bear arms protects an individual's right to have a gun for self-defense. Before then, many judges had said the amendment only protected the right of states to have a militia. At the time, the high court's ruling struck down a handgun ban in D.C. But the justices didn't say whether the same rules applied to the rest of the country.
Chicago's law, which has been in effect since 1982, allows ownership of rifles, but they must be registered every year with the police. Concealed weapons, semi-automatic and automatic weapons aren't allowed. There are some exceptions for members of the military and law enforcement agencies.
Gun rights advocates say the next step is an appeal to the Supreme Court, while the city of Chicago says it's prepared to defend its ordinance.
Meanwhile, the high court won't consider an appeal until the fall. By then, Sonia Sotomayor might be one of the justices considering the case. In January, she joined a three-judge panel in New York that came to the same conclusion as the Chicago case.
Here’s my question to you: Should cities like Chicago be allowed to ban handguns?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments