MILWAUKEE - When it comes to statewide votes on gay marriage, the score so far is 20-0 in favor of keeping it a one-man, one-woman institution.
Yahoo News
Home of the ReBirTheRs
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Flawless Victory
Yahoo News
Hillary Takes Swipe at Howard Dean
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is taking direct aim at Howard Dean, saying the Democratic National Committee boss has his party priorities wrong.
Clinton, D-N.Y., who opposed Dean's ascendancy to the DNC post depite Sen. John Kerry's support, said Dean's long-term party-building efforts should take a back seat to fundraising for the midterm elections, Newsday reports.
"The [Republican National Committee] is pouring tens of millions of dollars into races and we're not matching that," Clinton said during a DNC fundraiser in Washington, D.C.
"We're doing investments, you know, in ground and other efforts which will be very beneficial, but the RNC has about $60 million to $70 million waiting to drop on our candidates," she said, according to Newsday.
Many Democrats, including Clinton advisers, are frustrated with Dean's "50-state strategy," which accentuates grassroots organizing at the expense of election-specific cash-grabbing.
The Democrats' Senate and House fundraising committees, led by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, D-Ill., have had banner years, while Dean's DNC has lagged with about $11 million on hand compared to the RNC's $39 million in the bank.
Clinton is so concerned about the money issue that she has Harold M. Ickes, one of former President Clinton's top advisers, spearheading the launch of an ad hoc organization called the September Fund to solicit contributions to help Democratic candidates win in November.
Ickes and his allies have formed this emergency committee in an effort to raise and spend as much as $25 million to influence crucial Congressional races and other campaigns and ballot initiatives at the federal and state level, according to the New York Times.
Barney Frank's inappropriate sexual conduct ignored
Full Story
MORE
By Christina B. Gillham
Newsweek
Updated: 2:22 a.m. ET July 25, 2004
July 21 - Democratic Rep. Barney Frank is known for his witty candor and his dedication to liberal causes, particularly gay rights. One of the few openly gay members of Congress, Frank had been in Washington six years before he came to out to his colleagues, and the nation, in 1987. Two years later he found himself embroiled in a sex scandal with a male prostitute named Stephen Gobie that thrust him into the spotlight—and before the House Ethics Committee. But Frank's constituency, Massachusetts's Fourth Congressional District, voted him back into office despite the scandal and the House of Representatives' reprimand. He has handily won every election since. In 1998, Frank fervently defended President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment trial that followed. A film chronicling Frank's role during that time, "Let's Get Frank," directed by Bart Everly, played at a number of film festivals over the past year. It was released in New York City last Wednesday. Frank remains one of the Democrats' most respected members and continues to fight for gay rights, including same-sex marriage, an issue that has recently been in the news again.
MORE
Friday, September 29, 2006
Legal age of consent in Washington DC - 16
Mark Foley recently resigned over allegations of misconduct online with a sixteen year old, according to ABC news.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/dc.htm
"Child" means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.
Source - ABC
If these things happened in DC, then it would have been apparently legal under the D.C. age of consent laws.
When he went online and talked with these "pages", he could be subjecting himself to the laws of outside states. I am not a legal expert in this area, but I will keep an eye on this case. It will be interesting to see if he is charged and what he is charged with, and what conviction - if any - he might receive.
I think it was appropriate for him to resign and I wish that President Clinton had done the same when his inappropriate sexual conduct became public.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/dc.htm
"Child" means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.
The Congressional page program was started in the 1800s. In its curt form, juniors from high school work on Capitol Hill after school or over the summer.
Source - ABC
If these things happened in DC, then it would have been apparently legal under the D.C. age of consent laws.
When he went online and talked with these "pages", he could be subjecting himself to the laws of outside states. I am not a legal expert in this area, but I will keep an eye on this case. It will be interesting to see if he is charged and what he is charged with, and what conviction - if any - he might receive.
I think it was appropriate for him to resign and I wish that President Clinton had done the same when his inappropriate sexual conduct became public.
Rogue squirrels attacking Republicans?
Something smells funny about these allegations against Mark Foley.
The "pages" that are making the claims are quoted as saying "Maybe I am paranoid, but..."
Well, stop right there. Maybe you ARE paranoid. Mark Foley was a founder of Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus and worked closely with John Walsh (of America's Most Wanted) and most recently worked to protect children against online predators.
While it is possible, I suppose, I find it difficult to believe he would be an online child predator.
The claim is being reported by ABC that the "pages" (16-17) year old boys (a HIGHLY reputable source) - oops was that sarcasm? - claim that maf54@aol.com talked with them about sexual organs and acts. But we have yet to see any transcript of such an exchange.
A search on Google of maf54 AND aol reveals that Mark Foley belonged to a Florida Listserv that discussed people in New Orleans and those recovering from Hurricane Katrina, which seems to confirm the statements made by Foley's spokespeople - that this was an innocent exchange.
I would understand Foley's interest in how people are doing in New Orleans and how the recovery is going, no matter what the age.
Unfortunately, Democrats hold a double standard. When Bill Clinton is on the job but engaged in sexual activities (a normally firable offense), it's "his personal business". But in the case of a Republican, if he even TALKS to a 16 year old boy - he is now a proven pedophile?
The politicking in this nation has gone to a considerably low level in this country. I feel like I am watching a really bad episode of the Jerry Springer show and one of the guests who is cheating on their lover is the Democratic party.
However, Foley has resigned over this without citing a cause for his resignation. (On the other hand, one could suspect that he is stressed out dealing with the shenanighans of the main stream press?). There are many possibilities, and we will all have to wait and see how this pans out before jumping to conclusions.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Tony Snow: Previous President hurt terrorism fight
WASHINGTON - The White House took a swipe at former President Clinton on Wednesday, just days after he accused President Bush of doing “nothing” to catch Osama bin Laden before Sept. 11.
White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters that Clinton spent his presidency “dramatically” slashing military and intelligence assets that are vital to fighting global terrorism.
“Even with the buildup since September 11th, we are only now beginning to achieve the same sort of levels that we had — in terms of intelligence assets — that we had at the beginning of the Clinton administration,” Snow said.
Last weekend, Clinton said Bush administration officials “did not try” to kill bin Laden before Sept. 11.
“At least I tried,” he angrily told Chris Wallace on Fox News Channel. “That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed.”
Asked on Tuesday to respond to Clinton’s criticism, Bush said he would not engage in “finger-pointing” over the failure to capture or kill bin Laden.
But on Wednesday, Snow seemed to suggest the Clinton administration did not try hard enough to counter the rising threat of global terrorism in the 1990s.
“In the previous administration, we had an attack on the World Trade Center, on Khobar Towers,” he said. “We had attacks on both embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, an attack on the USS Cole.
“Also, Osama bin Laden in February of 1998 made it clear that he not only intended to wage war on the United States, but he wanted to use Iraq as a central battleground,” he said.
“In short, there was a gathering threat. In those years, bin Laden noticed that the United States had, in fact, been cutting back dramatically on intelligence assets and on military assets.”
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who is expected by many to run for president in 2008, suggested Tuesday that Bush did not heed a warning about bin Laden that he received a month before Sept. 11.
“I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team,” she told reporters on Capitol Hill.
Source
White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters that Clinton spent his presidency “dramatically” slashing military and intelligence assets that are vital to fighting global terrorism.
“Even with the buildup since September 11th, we are only now beginning to achieve the same sort of levels that we had — in terms of intelligence assets — that we had at the beginning of the Clinton administration,” Snow said.
Last weekend, Clinton said Bush administration officials “did not try” to kill bin Laden before Sept. 11.
“At least I tried,” he angrily told Chris Wallace on Fox News Channel. “That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed.”
Asked on Tuesday to respond to Clinton’s criticism, Bush said he would not engage in “finger-pointing” over the failure to capture or kill bin Laden.
But on Wednesday, Snow seemed to suggest the Clinton administration did not try hard enough to counter the rising threat of global terrorism in the 1990s.
“In the previous administration, we had an attack on the World Trade Center, on Khobar Towers,” he said. “We had attacks on both embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, an attack on the USS Cole.
“Also, Osama bin Laden in February of 1998 made it clear that he not only intended to wage war on the United States, but he wanted to use Iraq as a central battleground,” he said.
“In short, there was a gathering threat. In those years, bin Laden noticed that the United States had, in fact, been cutting back dramatically on intelligence assets and on military assets.”
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who is expected by many to run for president in 2008, suggested Tuesday that Bush did not heed a warning about bin Laden that he received a month before Sept. 11.
“I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team,” she told reporters on Capitol Hill.
Source
The sweet sounds of liberal heads imploding
What was that noise? The sound of a liberal (and criminal) head imploding?
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
As War Over Leak Grips Washington, Al Qaeda Quails
Full Story
WASHINGTON — On a day when much of the capital's attention was focused on leaked excerpts of an intelligence estimate report that suggested the Iraq war was creating more jihadists, the military quietly released an intercepted letter from Al Qaeda complaining that the terrorist organization was losing ground in Iraq.
The letter, found in the headquarters of Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, after he was killed on June 7, was sent to Zarqawi by a senior Al Qaeda leader who signs his name simply "Atiyah." He complains that Al Qaeda is weak both in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and in Iraq.
A former jihadist who fought in Algeria in the 1990s, Atiyah appears from the text to be speaking for Al Qaeda's Shura Council — the group's decision-making panel chaired by Osama bin Laden. In the letter, he sharply criticizes Zarqawi's leadership, saying he alienated key allies necessary for the implementation of jihad in Iraq.
"Know that we, like all the Mujahidin, are still weak," he wrote in the letter dated December 11, 2005. "We are in the stage of weakness and a state of paucity. We have not yet reached a level of stability. We have no alternative but to not squander any element of the foundations of strength, or any helper or supporter."
That assessment from Al Qaeda is in stark contrast to the key findings of a declassified national intelligence assessment released to the public by President Bush yesterday. While the National Intelligence Estimate says America has disrupted Al Qaeda's global leadership, it cautions, "Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion."
MORE
Palmer Brown is the Narc?
Palmer Brown of Lancaster Newspapers sent an email to me dated September 25th, 2006 repeating the assertions claimed by the Narc on ReporterTalk.com in July on the thread titled "Columnists & Resources for Columnists - Gil Smart Leaves Out Key Part of Quote". He also forbids me from accessing any Lancaster Newspaper "website property".
This claim was also repeated apparently on a website registered to Palmer Brown titled "www.717thepulse.com", where Ron Harper directed several people to on Palmer's site (known also as the LOL Czar according to Lipnews1.com) to a "parody". Actually, it was a personal attack directed at the author of Lipnews1.com, Becky Holzinger.
Palmer was so technically savvy that he may have left his messageboard wide open to javascripting, which would allow anyone to post a comment that performed a function available to Javascript browsers (not Opera, or browser with Javascript disabled). So, of course, to protect Becky from whomever posted the offending personal attack, a comment was added containing a URL redirection javascript - which was fully allowed due to apparent incompetency on the part of the website owner - whoever that may be.
The redirection was up for no more than an hour, which merely redirected Javascript-enabled browsers to other "non-malicious" sites and averted attention away from the precious "pardoy". When the offending post was removed, the URL redirection javascript was also removed, which was essentially harmless.
LOL Czar went on a tirade on his site that he is supposedly the "Electronics Project Manager" for about being "hacked". As reported previously, Skillz - a Talkback webprogrammer and administrator - confirmed that "nothing was hacked. LOL Czar posted that before I looked at what happened".
He claimed that the incident was a "childish prank".
No more childish, I suppose, as "the Narc" going off-topic on more than one occasion and making personal attacks, whether it's on Talkback, 717thePulse.com, or any other site. (Note: the Rat story linked below also allegedly involves Palmer and he has some not-so-nice things to say about women).
If it is Harper and Palmer, they have made absolute fools out of themselves. That was too easy, boys. Try harder next time?
Welcome to the Smart Retorts.
This claim was also repeated apparently on a website registered to Palmer Brown titled "www.717thepulse.com", where Ron Harper directed several people to on Palmer's site (known also as the LOL Czar according to Lipnews1.com) to a "parody". Actually, it was a personal attack directed at the author of Lipnews1.com, Becky Holzinger.
Palmer was so technically savvy that he may have left his messageboard wide open to javascripting, which would allow anyone to post a comment that performed a function available to Javascript browsers (not Opera, or browser with Javascript disabled). So, of course, to protect Becky from whomever posted the offending personal attack, a comment was added containing a URL redirection javascript - which was fully allowed due to apparent incompetency on the part of the website owner - whoever that may be.
The redirection was up for no more than an hour, which merely redirected Javascript-enabled browsers to other "non-malicious" sites and averted attention away from the precious "pardoy". When the offending post was removed, the URL redirection javascript was also removed, which was essentially harmless.
LOL Czar went on a tirade on his site that he is supposedly the "Electronics Project Manager" for about being "hacked". As reported previously, Skillz - a Talkback webprogrammer and administrator - confirmed that "nothing was hacked. LOL Czar posted that before I looked at what happened".
He claimed that the incident was a "childish prank".
No more childish, I suppose, as "the Narc" going off-topic on more than one occasion and making personal attacks, whether it's on Talkback, 717thePulse.com, or any other site. (Note: the Rat story linked below also allegedly involves Palmer and he has some not-so-nice things to say about women).
If it is Harper and Palmer, they have made absolute fools out of themselves. That was too easy, boys. Try harder next time?
Welcome to the Smart Retorts.
Tour De France Chief Clerc Says Landis Cheated
PARIS (AP) -Tour de France chief Patrice Clerc said he considers Floyd Landis a cheater who has discredited cycling's showcase race.
"For me, the sermon has been read. Landis did not win the Tour because he cheated," Clerc said in an interview with sports daily L'Equipe published Wednesday.
Landis tested positive for elevated testosterone after winning this year's Tour de France and was fired by his Phonak team in August. The tour director, Christian Prudhomme, previously said he no longer considered Landis the champion.
Landis could become the first winner in the 103-year history of the Tour de France to lose his title over doping allegations. Landis' legal team claims major mistakes were made in the tests that came up positive for synthetic testosterone.
A review board has recommended the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency move forward in the disciplinary process against Landis.
Clerc, the head of Amaury Sports Organization which owns the Tour, said that Landis "gravely affected the credibility of his sport."
Urine tests were taken July 20 following Landis' Stage 17 victory during a grueling Alpine leg, when he regained nearly eight minutes on leader Oscar Pereiro. Landis' "A" and "B" samples turned up a ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone of 11:1 - far in excess of the 4:1 limit.
Clerc says the fight against doping must be stepped up.
"Anything that goes in the direction of the fight against doping is fine by me," Clerc said. "There are often facades of discussions, but no action follows. I want to believe that the will exists today."
On Saturday, Landis' attorney Howard Jacobs said his client would appeal the positive test and ask for an open hearing by the American Arbitration Association. USADA has said it would agree to an open hearing, which would probably not take place until early next year.
"For me, the sermon has been read. Landis did not win the Tour because he cheated," Clerc said in an interview with sports daily L'Equipe published Wednesday.
Landis tested positive for elevated testosterone after winning this year's Tour de France and was fired by his Phonak team in August. The tour director, Christian Prudhomme, previously said he no longer considered Landis the champion.
Landis could become the first winner in the 103-year history of the Tour de France to lose his title over doping allegations. Landis' legal team claims major mistakes were made in the tests that came up positive for synthetic testosterone.
A review board has recommended the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency move forward in the disciplinary process against Landis.
Clerc, the head of Amaury Sports Organization which owns the Tour, said that Landis "gravely affected the credibility of his sport."
Urine tests were taken July 20 following Landis' Stage 17 victory during a grueling Alpine leg, when he regained nearly eight minutes on leader Oscar Pereiro. Landis' "A" and "B" samples turned up a ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone of 11:1 - far in excess of the 4:1 limit.
Clerc says the fight against doping must be stepped up.
"Anything that goes in the direction of the fight against doping is fine by me," Clerc said. "There are often facades of discussions, but no action follows. I want to believe that the will exists today."
On Saturday, Landis' attorney Howard Jacobs said his client would appeal the positive test and ask for an open hearing by the American Arbitration Association. USADA has said it would agree to an open hearing, which would probably not take place until early next year.
Spencer: Hillary victim act "getting old"
Full Story
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's underdog Republican challenger accused the former first lady and her husband on Wednesday of engaging in timeworn theatrics with their criticism of President Bush's handling of the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
"Once again, President Clinton is wagging his finger with righteous indignation and once again, Hillary Clinton is rushing to his defense," said former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer. "This act is getting old and the American people realize it."
The broadside from Spencer, with its reference to the Clintons' behavior during the early stages of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, came as the political world buzzed about the former president's testy interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace that aired Sunday.
In the exchange with Wallace, the former president contended that, unlike him, the newly installed Bush administration ignored bin Laden until the Sept. 11 attacks.
"They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try; they did not try," he said. He also attacked Wallace for a "conservative hit job" by asking about his administration's failure to get bin Laden.
His wife said Tuesday that "my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take these attacks."
But in his statement, Spencer said, "the time has come to stop the theatrics and come clean with the American people." He called Clintons' attacks part of "a cynical attempt to return the Clinton name to the White House. If the Clintons truly want to defeat terror, they should back our president, not attack him."
Polls show the senator far ahead in her bid for re-election, a race many think is a prelude to her running for president in 2008. Her campaign has been seeking to portray Spencer as an extreme conservative out of step with the average New York voter.
Spencer beat Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland, a Reagan-era Pentagon official, in the Sept. 12 GOP primary. The senator easily beat an anti-Iraq war challenger, Jonathan Tasini.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Rice: I call bullshit! (embellished slightly)
Alright. Maybe I embellished that I little. But..
Read this and it's quite clear that Clinton is telling more fibs than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...".
Read this and it's quite clear that Clinton is telling more fibs than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...".
Talkback Webprogrammer, Administrator: Just an FYI, nothing was "hacked"
Just an FYI, nothing was "hacked", LOL Czar posted that before I had a chance to look at anything.
Post #131 on the thread "Banned Users" on Talkback by Skillz
Monday, September 25, 2006
Wanted: For threats against birds
Mick 717 My Space
Oh look, it's Mick 717 of 717thePulse.com, complete with pic.
Is this LOL Czar? The Narc?
Terrific website you got, there. Nicely done.
Oh look. He knows "Skillz". Is this the same as Skillz the administrator on Lancaster Online, I wonder? What does that ID mean at the top? BRAVID?
Oh look. Here is a sister site called LancasterEdge.com with Palmer Brown. What a STRANGE coincidence? And look on www.netsol.com (the WHOIS feature for websites). A "Brown" is publicly listed as the administrator for both sites. Hmmmm...
Can anyone tell me why Palmer Brown sent me an email today threatening me?
Oh look, it's Mick 717 of 717thePulse.com, complete with pic.
Is this LOL Czar? The Narc?
Terrific website you got, there. Nicely done.
Oh look. He knows "Skillz". Is this the same as Skillz the administrator on Lancaster Online, I wonder? What does that ID mean at the top? BRAVID?
Oh look. Here is a sister site called LancasterEdge.com with Palmer Brown. What a STRANGE coincidence? And look on www.netsol.com (the WHOIS feature for websites). A "Brown" is publicly listed as the administrator for both sites. Hmmmm...
Can anyone tell me why Palmer Brown sent me an email today threatening me?
Oil below $60, biggest price drop in 15 years
Story
LONDON (Reuters) - Oil dropped under $60 to a six-month low on Monday as abundant supplies in top consumer the United States and fears that slower U.S. economic growth would stunt demand for fuel extended a price retreat.
U.S. crude has fallen nearly $19 from its mid-July peak of $78.40, its biggest slide in more than 15 years. The 24 percent decline was set off as investors' concern faded over Iran and the Atlantic hurricane season proved unexpectedly mild.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Medeival waterboarding vs. modern waterboarding
Medieval waterboarding (The medieval form of waterboarding was represented as having been used by the Waffen SS of the Third Reich in the Robin Williams movie Jakob the Liar.) is when a victim was strapped to a board and tipped back or lowered into a body of water until he or she believed that drowning was imminent. The subject was then removed from the water and revived.
Modern waterboarding involves tying the victim to a board with the head lower than the feet so that he or she is unable to move. A piece of cloth is held tightly over the face, and water is poured onto the cloth. Breathing is extremely difficult and the victim will be in fear of imminent death by asphyxiation.
Source
Even though a film depicted it, the Nuremburg trials apparently never listed waterboarding as one of the charges against the Germans as part of their war crimes trial.
Modern waterboarding involves tying the victim to a board with the head lower than the feet so that he or she is unable to move. A piece of cloth is held tightly over the face, and water is poured onto the cloth. Breathing is extremely difficult and the victim will be in fear of imminent death by asphyxiation.
Source
Even though a film depicted it, the Nuremburg trials apparently never listed waterboarding as one of the charges against the Germans as part of their war crimes trial.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
AP running misleading story saying "deaths in conflicts" match 9-11
War Price on US lives equal to 9/11
In fact, the Department of Defense lists the "KIA" in Iraq as 2,150 as of September 22, 2006 at 10 am. It lists KIA in Afghanistan as 179. The sum is 2,329 - far short of the 2,974 figure by about 645.
The figures run by the AP include "non-hostile" fatalities - fatalities normally not associated with dying in a "conflict" at the hands of a hostile enemy.
The latest milestone for a country at war came Friday without commemoration. It came without the precision of knowing who was the 2,974th to die in conflict.
In fact, the Department of Defense lists the "KIA" in Iraq as 2,150 as of September 22, 2006 at 10 am. It lists KIA in Afghanistan as 179. The sum is 2,329 - far short of the 2,974 figure by about 645.
The figures run by the AP include "non-hostile" fatalities - fatalities normally not associated with dying in a "conflict" at the hands of a hostile enemy.
Friday, September 22, 2006
What did Armitage really say?
“Help us and breathe in the 21st century along with the international community or be prepared to live in the Stone Age.” [Deutsche Presse-Agentur (Hamburg), 9/12/2001
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2627
I could not find the "bomb you into the stone age" quote, since Armitage quite clearly said they would "live" in the stone age. However, I was able to find this quote:
"What are we going to do?," asks a Democratic Congressional staffer, "Turn Kabul from rubble into smaller rubble?"
-a Democratic Congressional staffer quoted in Time Magazine on September 14, 2001
Thursday, September 21, 2006
GOP Site: Nancy Pelosi is Dems Choice
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6583
Thursday, September 21, 2006
AMERICA WEAKLY: The Dems' Choice: Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi (D-SF)
Thursday, September 21, 2006
AMERICA WEAKLY: The Dems' Choice: Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi (D-SF)
Latest Zogby Poll: Most favor Bush's job
The Zogby America Poll was conducted Sept. 12-14, 2006 with 1,034 likely voters nationwide with a margin of error ± 3.1.
"Is your overall opinion of George W. Bush very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable, or you are not familiar enough to form an opinion?"
51% favorable
47% unfavorable
2% not familiar/unsure
The latest Harris Interactive poll puts Bush at 61% who think he is doing "fair, good, or excellent". A mere 38%, a minority of Americans, feel that he is doing "poor".
The same Harris Interactive poll reports that 1% think Harry Reid (and a full 3% think Democrats in Congress) are doing "excellent" jobs.
"Is your overall opinion of George W. Bush very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable, or you are not familiar enough to form an opinion?"
51% favorable
47% unfavorable
2% not familiar/unsure
The latest Harris Interactive poll puts Bush at 61% who think he is doing "fair, good, or excellent". A mere 38%, a minority of Americans, feel that he is doing "poor".
The same Harris Interactive poll reports that 1% think Harry Reid (and a full 3% think Democrats in Congress) are doing "excellent" jobs.
All in a day's work
First, the meaning of "eating crow".
So, BJ Clinton (Bill Jefferson) being behind all this military action in Afghanistan and Iraq in 1998 explains why Dems were all over the 9-11 Commission Report like flies on sh*t.
If anyone would like an explanation for 9-11 "under Bush's watch", perhaps they should take a look back at the 1998 Clinton administration "foreign relations" policies only a few years before. Oh, and the Fatwah issued by Osama witin a week of Clinton's Iraq statement.
So, BJ Clinton (Bill Jefferson) being behind all this military action in Afghanistan and Iraq in 1998 explains why Dems were all over the 9-11 Commission Report like flies on sh*t.
If anyone would like an explanation for 9-11 "under Bush's watch", perhaps they should take a look back at the 1998 Clinton administration "foreign relations" policies only a few years before. Oh, and the Fatwah issued by Osama witin a week of Clinton's Iraq statement.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Who started this war?
Text of Clinton Statement on Iraq - published February 17, 1998
Text of Bin Laden Fatwah - published February 23, 1998
Things cooled until Operation Desert Fox - December 16-19, 1998
Reference to this article in the 9-11 Commission Report. (pg 488)
US Strikes Afghanistan and Sudan - Clinton: U.S. strikes against terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a facility in Sudan are part of "a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism." August 20, 1998
Text of Bin Laden Fatwah - published February 23, 1998
Things cooled until Operation Desert Fox - December 16-19, 1998
December 24, 1998
In an interview with Time Magazine, Bin Laden asserted that acquiring weapons of any type was a Muslim “religious duty.” When asked whether he was seeking to obtain chemical or nuclear weapons, Bin Laden replied, “Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so.” He responded similarly to the same question in an ABC News interview two days later, stating, “If I seek to acquire such weapons, this is a religious duty. How we use them is up to us.”
The Al-Watan al-Arabi source stated that Bin Laden’s team of scientists was composed of “five nuclear scientists from Turkmenistan,” and that the leader of the team “used to work on the atomic reactor of Iraq before it was destroyed by Israel in the 1980’s.” The same source also stated that the scientists were working to develop a nuclear reactor that could be used “to transform the fissionable material into a more active source, one which can produce a fission reaction from a very small amount of material and be placed in a package smaller than a backpack.” In addition, the source stated that Bin Laden had hired “hundreds of atomic scientists” from the former Soviet Union. Reportedly, Bin Laden paid the scientists $2,000 per month, an amount much greater than their wages in the former Soviet republics. Source
Reference to this article in the 9-11 Commission Report. (pg 488)
Footnote 93 ABC News interview,"Terror Suspect: An Interview with Osama Bin Laden," December 22, 1998 conducted in Afghanistan by ABC News producer Rahimullah Yousafsai).
US Strikes Afghanistan and Sudan - Clinton: U.S. strikes against terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a facility in Sudan are part of "a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism." August 20, 1998
Novak: Armitage knows more than he's saying
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9.htm
NOVAK: ARMITAGE DID NOT TELL ALL
Wed Sep 13 2006 08:37:07 ET
"When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did," Bob Novak claims in a column set for Thursday release.
Novak, attempting to set the record straight, writes: "First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he 'thought' might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column."
Novak slams Armitage for holding back all this time.
Armitage's silence for "two and one-half years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source," Novak explains.
"When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive."
Developing...
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Pluto no longer a planet, but few people know about former planet Orpheus.
If We Had No Moon is narrated by Patrick Stewart. It was on TV not too long ago, but you can find an archived version at this link (requires BitTorrent and the xvidmovies Codec).
In it, it explains the theory that there used to be a planet between Earth and Mars named Orpheus. Orpheus appears to have collided with the Earth millions of years ago because its orbit was too close to Earth, which resulted in the formation of Earth's moon. There is alot of scientific evidence to support the theory, including the composition of the moon rocks brought back.
In it, it explains the theory that there used to be a planet between Earth and Mars named Orpheus. Orpheus appears to have collided with the Earth millions of years ago because its orbit was too close to Earth, which resulted in the formation of Earth's moon. There is alot of scientific evidence to support the theory, including the composition of the moon rocks brought back.
Gil only off by about 900
Today, Gil exclaims in his notorious column:
When Gil says "killed" there, that implies to me that he is talking about KIA (killed in action). Otherwise, wouldn't he use a term such as "died" there? I don't consider someone dying of natural health problems in Iraq a "kill".
According to Icasualties.org, the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq by a hostile enemy is 2,130.
The Department of Defense puts the number of KIA at 2,119 as of September 8, 2006 at 10 am.
I confess that the number is "approaching" 3,000 (short about 900). Will it get there? Possibly - in time. But I would rather see that number spanning over 3+ years than have it happen in a single day like it did on September 11. To suggest that the numbers are nearly matching up at this point is highly misleading.
And indeed, the number of Americans killed there [Iraq] now approaches the number killed Sept. 11 — and the dying is nowhere near done.
When Gil says "killed" there, that implies to me that he is talking about KIA (killed in action). Otherwise, wouldn't he use a term such as "died" there? I don't consider someone dying of natural health problems in Iraq a "kill".
According to Icasualties.org, the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq by a hostile enemy is 2,130.
The Department of Defense puts the number of KIA at 2,119 as of September 8, 2006 at 10 am.
I confess that the number is "approaching" 3,000 (short about 900). Will it get there? Possibly - in time. But I would rather see that number spanning over 3+ years than have it happen in a single day like it did on September 11. To suggest that the numbers are nearly matching up at this point is highly misleading.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
IED deaths in 2006 significantly lower than 2005
IED fatalities, the leading cause of death for American soldiers in Iraq, have generally and significantly dropped since last year during the same months.
According to Icasualties.org, hostile IED attacks account for 34.4%. In second is simply "hostile fire" which accounts for 15%. Non-hostile vehicle accidents come in third at 7.3%.
To see a complete breakdown of the stats, check:
http://icasualties.org/oif/stats.aspx
Set the "View Totals By" field to "Cause of Death Detail". Set Coalition Country to "US" and then click the button called "Apply Filter".
According to Icasualties.org, hostile IED attacks account for 34.4%. In second is simply "hostile fire" which accounts for 15%. Non-hostile vehicle accidents come in third at 7.3%.
To see a complete breakdown of the stats, check:
http://icasualties.org/oif/stats.aspx
Set the "View Totals By" field to "Cause of Death Detail". Set Coalition Country to "US" and then click the button called "Apply Filter".
Friday, September 08, 2006
Oil drops, drops, drops...$66 a barrell!! On average, $2.53 a gallon in Lancaster
Sources:
gasbuddy.com
marketcenter.com
gasbuddy.com
marketcenter.com
NY Times Praises Film "Path to 9/11"
Source
Bill Clinton may not be happy about the upcoming ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11," claiming that it distorts his handling of the terrorist threat, but it won critical support from an unexpected source – the New York Times.
The paper’s TV critic Alessandra Stanley acknowledged that the two-part miniseries is "fictionalized," but she nevertheless found it evenhanded.
"Dramatic license was certainly taken, but blame is spread pretty evenly across the board," Stanley writes in her review.
"It's not the inaccuracies of 'The Path to 9/11' that make ABC's miniseries so upsetting. It's the situation on the ground in Afghanistan now."
Former Clinton aide Dick Morris told NewsMax on Thursday that the attack by Clinton and his allies on the miniseries is "outrageous," insisting that Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, "were both responsible for failing to catch or kill Osama bin Laden on several different occasions."
Stanley apparently would agree.
"The first bombing of the World Trade Center happened on Bill Clinton's watch," she writes in her review, portions of which were quoted by Editor & Publisher.
"So did the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen. ...
"There is no dispute that in 2000, the destroyer Cole was attacked, Washington dithered and Mr. bin Laden's men kept burrowing deeper and deeper into their plot to attack America on its own soil."
Not all reviewers gave the September 10-11 miniseries high marks. Chicago Sun-Times critic Doug Elfman called the film "amateurish" and a "bore." New York Post critic John Podhoretz called it "stiff."
But the trade publication Hollywood Reporter praised the miniseries.
In a review carried by Reuters under the headline "Controversial 'Path to 9/11' a riveting thriller," Ray Richmond writes, "That [the miniseries] also happens to be powerfully acted, artfully produced and shot like a truly riveting page-turner is sure to be overshadowed by the controversy it is generating. ...
"ABC's 'Path to 9/11' lays much of the blame at the feet of a priority-challenged President Clinton and CIA director George Tenet for not taking out Osama bin Laden when given the chance. ...
"Politics aside, what 'Path to 9/11' does well is supply a chilling distillation of opportunities lost and warnings ignored. The essence of its dramatic instincts is sound and delivered powerfully, building at its conclusion to a horrific crescendo with footage of the planes slamming into the towers and the subsequent devastating carnage."
Bill Clinton may not be happy about the upcoming ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11," claiming that it distorts his handling of the terrorist threat, but it won critical support from an unexpected source – the New York Times.
The paper’s TV critic Alessandra Stanley acknowledged that the two-part miniseries is "fictionalized," but she nevertheless found it evenhanded.
"Dramatic license was certainly taken, but blame is spread pretty evenly across the board," Stanley writes in her review.
"It's not the inaccuracies of 'The Path to 9/11' that make ABC's miniseries so upsetting. It's the situation on the ground in Afghanistan now."
Former Clinton aide Dick Morris told NewsMax on Thursday that the attack by Clinton and his allies on the miniseries is "outrageous," insisting that Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, "were both responsible for failing to catch or kill Osama bin Laden on several different occasions."
Stanley apparently would agree.
"The first bombing of the World Trade Center happened on Bill Clinton's watch," she writes in her review, portions of which were quoted by Editor & Publisher.
"So did the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen. ...
"There is no dispute that in 2000, the destroyer Cole was attacked, Washington dithered and Mr. bin Laden's men kept burrowing deeper and deeper into their plot to attack America on its own soil."
Not all reviewers gave the September 10-11 miniseries high marks. Chicago Sun-Times critic Doug Elfman called the film "amateurish" and a "bore." New York Post critic John Podhoretz called it "stiff."
But the trade publication Hollywood Reporter praised the miniseries.
In a review carried by Reuters under the headline "Controversial 'Path to 9/11' a riveting thriller," Ray Richmond writes, "That [the miniseries] also happens to be powerfully acted, artfully produced and shot like a truly riveting page-turner is sure to be overshadowed by the controversy it is generating. ...
"ABC's 'Path to 9/11' lays much of the blame at the feet of a priority-challenged President Clinton and CIA director George Tenet for not taking out Osama bin Laden when given the chance. ...
"Politics aside, what 'Path to 9/11' does well is supply a chilling distillation of opportunities lost and warnings ignored. The essence of its dramatic instincts is sound and delivered powerfully, building at its conclusion to a horrific crescendo with footage of the planes slamming into the towers and the subsequent devastating carnage."
What they said then vs. what they say now
Then:
Now:
Link
Bowen: “CBS network declined interview requests, but in a statement, said the show 'does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience.’ It will now air on the cable channel Showtime which, like CBS, is owned by Viacom. Media analysts say CBS didn’t just blink, it buckled.”
Robert Thompson, Syracuse University media analyst: “I think CBS may have realized if this really goes to the mat and we start having to be perceived as the big bad network going up against the frail former President, that’s not a position we want to be in.”
Bowen: “Still not good enough, say conservative critics.”
Jim Dyke, Republican National Committee: “I don’t know that misinforming fewer viewers on Showtime solves the problem.”
Bowen: “Special interest politics at work, said Senate Minority Leader Daschle.”
Tom Daschle, Senate Minority Leader: “We have to call into question whether that level of intimidation is appropriate. Link”
Now:
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan
Link
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Iraq takes over command of armed forces
Story
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S.-led forces turned over control of Iraq's military command to the Shiite-led government Thursday, a key step toward the eventual withdrawal of foreign troops...
...The top U.S. general in Iraq, George Casey, promised to "continue to fight with you to protect the Iraqi people wherever they are threatened."
"Today is an important milestone, but we still have a way to go," Casey said during the ceremony.
Handing over control of the country's security to Iraqi forces is vital to any eventual drawdown of U.S. forces here. After disbanding the remaining Iraqi army following the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, coalition forces have been training the new Iraqi military.
The nine other Iraqi divisions remain under U.S. control, with authority gradually being transferred. U.S. military officials said there was no specific timetable for the transition but U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said Wednesday the Iraqis have "talked about perhaps two divisions a month."...
Oil closed at $67.50 a barrel on the futures market Wednesday
The numbers remain even lower. Marketcenter.com reports crude oil finished on Thursday at $67.19. Wow, gas in Lancaster is on average $2.56 according to www.gasbuddy.com on the "gas temperature" map.
So much for that doom-and-gloom $3.00 a gallon predicted by you-know-who.
So much for that doom-and-gloom $3.00 a gallon predicted by you-know-who.
Clinton administration "downloading" in their pants over film 'The Path to 9/11'
Link
Clinton allies have complained that advance copies were sent to a number of conservative commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, but not to liberals. Limbaugh, saying that the screenwriter, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a friend of his, told his radio audience that the film "indicts the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger. It is just devastating to the Clinton administration. It talks about how we had chances to capture bin Laden in specific detail."
ABC said copies of the film were sent to media organizations and commentators without regard to ideology, and that Democrats and Republicans were invited to a screening in Washington. At the screening, Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the Sept. 11 commission, assailed the film as inaccurate.
Nowrasteh, who has described himself as a conservative, told Frontpage magazine that the movie illustrates "the frequent opportunities the administration had in the '90s to stop bin Laden in his tracks -- but lacked the will to do so."
Clinton allies have complained that advance copies were sent to a number of conservative commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, but not to liberals. Limbaugh, saying that the screenwriter, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a friend of his, told his radio audience that the film "indicts the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger. It is just devastating to the Clinton administration. It talks about how we had chances to capture bin Laden in specific detail."
ABC said copies of the film were sent to media organizations and commentators without regard to ideology, and that Democrats and Republicans were invited to a screening in Washington. At the screening, Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the Sept. 11 commission, assailed the film as inaccurate.
Nowrasteh, who has described himself as a conservative, told Frontpage magazine that the movie illustrates "the frequent opportunities the administration had in the '90s to stop bin Laden in his tracks -- but lacked the will to do so."
14. According to a sensitive reporting [from] a "regular and reliable source," [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz.
That visit came as the Iraqis intensified their defiance of the U.N. inspection regime, known as UNSCOM, created by the cease-fire agreement following the Gulf War. UNSCOM demanded access to Saddam's presidential palaces that he refused to provide. As the tensions mounted, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on February 18, 1998, and prepared the nation for war. He warned of "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals" and said "there is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."
The day after this speech, according to documents unearthed in April 2003 in the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein's intelligence service wrote a memo detailing coming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered by liquid paper that, when revealed, exposed a plan to increase cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to that memo, the IIS agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might provide "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden."
Four days later, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden issued his now-famous fatwa on the plight of Iraq, published in the Arabic-language daily, al Quds al-Arabi: "For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples." Bin Laden urged his followers to act: "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."
Although war was temporarily averted by a last-minute deal brokered by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, tensions soon rose again. The standoff with Iraq came to a head in December 1998, when President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a 70-hour bombing campaign that began on December 16 and ended three days later, on December 19, 1998. Source
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Missile fired at McCain escort helicopter
Story
Missile fired at McCain escort helicopter during European visit
Kevin Curran
12 News
Sept. 3, 2006 07:03 PM
A missile was fired at a helicopter escorting Sen. John McCain during a visit to the Republic of Georgia last week.
A statement from that nation's interior ministry says the surface-to-air missile was aimed at a chopper involved in a visit of a U.S. Senate delegation to the former Soviet republic. McCain was mentioned as the leader of the group.
The ministry statement claims American officials were notified of the incident. State Dept. spokeswoman Joanne Moore told the Associated Press she had no information about the reported attack.
Largest domestic source of oil discovered in Gulf of Mexico
Story
Chevron says Gulf drilling a success
Chevron says Gulf drilling a success
Well could become the nation's biggest new domestic source of oil, according to newspaper report.
September 5 2006: 10:37 AM EDT
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Chevron Corp. said Tuesday it had successfully drilled for oil in the Gulf of Mexico's deep waters, in what could be one of the most significant finds for the domestic oil industry in a generation.
The successful well, known as Jack 2, reached a record total depth of 28,175 feet, coming in 7,000 feet of water, and more than 20,000 feet under the sea floor. Analysts said the find suggested the success of that drilling may mean more oil than previously believed is available under the Gulf of Mexico, a region that already provides a quarter of U.S. output.
One published report suggested the breakthrough could increase U.S. oil reserves by as much as 50 percent.
Santorum Crushes Casey in Debate
Closing in on his front-runner opponent in the polls, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., came out swinging in the first and probably the only public debate with Pennsylvania State Treasurer Bob Casey.
He may have delivered a knockout blow to Casey, who appeared confused and inarticulate during his encounter with the fast-talking Santorum during their weekend debate on NBC's "Meet the Press" with host Tim Russert.
Writing at SantorumBlog, contributor Rich Talbert observed: "Casey was a dead stick when discussing Iraq ... was absolutely clueless about Social Security ... bombed with Catholics with the abortion pill ... dropped the ball on the pay raise ... but did a good job coming across as sophomoric and being awfully smug and sarcastic.”
Meanwhile, Santorum lived up to what the Washington Post called "his reputation as a feisty, unapologetic conservative,” energetically voicing his support of President Bush despite suggestions that he has sought to distance himself from the president.
"I think he's been a terrific president, absolutely," Santorum said during the debate. He added that "there is no question that the Iraq war should have commenced."
During the debate, which lasted for just short of a full hour, Casey bobbed and weaved when questioned about such issues as how he would balance the budget, and whether he would have voted to support the invasion of Iraq.
Asked whether he still believes he would have voted to support the Iraq invasion in light of Saddam Hussein's lack of unconventional weapons, Casey said his vote would have been no. "If we knew then what we know now, I think there wouldn't have been a vote.
"If a lot of Americans knew now — if they knew then what they know now, they would, they would have thought that this war was the war that shouldn’t have been fought based upon the misleading of this administration.”
Asked how he would balance the federal budget, Casey replied that he would repeal the recent tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 a year, the very tax cut that gave the U.S. the world’s fastest growing and strongest economy, and retain a tax on very large estates. He refused however, to cite any federal programs he would be willing to cut.
His responses provoked Santorum to observe: "What you heard from Mr. Casey is what you hear all the time. No specifics, no answer."
When pressed as to the specific actions he would take in Iraq, Casey mentioned increasing the number of Special Forces, leading Santorum to say: My opponent has no plan. The idea — all he’s suggested is his plan is special--”
Interrupted Casey: "I just gave a plan. Where’s yours?
Santorum repeated his allegation and then went for the jugular, asking Casey: "Do you support more intelligence gathering because your party has been out there trying to undermine our surveillance programs? You’re the one who’s gone out and said that you have serious questions about our intelligence surveillance programs. What do you think has kept our people safe? What do you think stopped the British, the British attack? You folks have been the party, as you have been the party, of making sure that we don’t have the intelligence gathering capabilities that we need, and, and, and have, have joined in making sure...”
Casey interjected: "Rick, you’re not debating the party, you’re debating me right here.”
Said Santorum: "I’m debating you. And I’ve looked at your comments saying that you have serious concerns about our surveillance programs.”
Said Casey: "No, we should, we should, we should keep the programs and keep the wiretaps...”
Santorum countered: "Well, my point is that we need to have strong surveillance programs. You mentioned Special Forces. We have lots of Special Forces out there, but they need intelligence if they’re going to be able to do their jobs. And as far as that being a plan to solve this problem, I think you just fundamentally misunderstand the problem. You’re saying that somehow or another the language and terminology doesn’t matter. You believe that we’re going to win or lose this war on the battlefield in Iraq and the battlefield in Afghanistan. I don’t. I think we’ll win or lose this war right here in America.”
Responding to Casey’s recipe for handling Social Security’s looming crisis -- merely growing the economy -- Santorum said: "He wants to grow the economy by increasing taxes. That’s what he says. So here he’s saying we have to grow the economy so we’re going to take more out of it. That’s a great way to grow the economy. In fact, what we’ve seen is that, in fact, when we give people their money, let them keep the money that they’ve worked hard to earn, they reinvest it, they create jobs, and they grow the economy just like you suggested. He provided absolutely no answer, again. And he’s not only has not provided an answer for how he’s going to reduce the deficit, in fact his proposals are well over a trillion dollars ... just go through his Web site and see all the things he wants to fully fund ...
"We passed a Medicaid bill earlier this year, cut $40 billion out of the growth of Medicare. He was against it. In another entitlement, welfare reform. 1996, the most successful social policy legislation in history, took illegal immigrants off welfare, took, took prisoners off of welfare, took fugitive felons off of welfare. He was against it. It would have saved billions of dollars over the last 10 years.
He was against it. He’s against anything that cuts government or the budget. That’s just a joke.
"And he won’t give you an answer on Social Security. He won’t give you an answer on anything to make any changes. It’s all talking points from the Democratic Senatorial Committee. There’s no specifics.”
It was after Casey said as treasurer he has "been fiscally responsible in my work. You ought to try it,” that Santorum pounced. Noting that Casey as state treasurer had continued to sign paychecks containing a pay a raise he know violated the state Constitution.
The pay raise in which members of the General Assembly on July 7, 2005, awarded themselves a huge pay increase resulted in a massive voter protest tossing state legislators out of office.
Said Santorum: "Bob Casey as treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania refused — absolutely refused - to fight that pay raise. He said nothing for three months, signed the checks that was an unconstitutional pay raise, and then five months afterwards, after the November election, after the people of Pennsylvania said, "We don’t like this pay raise,” Bob Casey comes out and files a legal brief saying that what he did was unconstitutional. That’s not courage, that’s political pandering. That’s not someone who’s going to come to Washington and fight for Pennsylvania. That’s someone who plays games with his old buddies, and when the going got tough, he was nowhere to be seen.”
Responded Casey: "I came out very clearly, long before Election Day in November ‘05 against it.”
Said Santorum: "You didn’t do anything when you could’ve stopped it Why didn’t you try to stop it? Why didn’t you try to stop it? You could’ve stopped it ... You said to your newspaper that you didn’t even ask about it. You didn’t even ask your lawyers what you could do ... That was in the paper. You answered the reporter and the reporter asked you why didn’t you do anything? You said, 'I didn’t think about it. I didn’t even ask about it.'”
Said Casey: "You’re wrong about this. You didn’t take a position on the state pay raise.”
Santorum said: I’m not a state official, you are. You were in a position — you signed the pay raise checks. You had an opportunity to stop this pay raise.”
Casey responded "It’s called following the law. Following the law.”
Said Santorum: "And you said that you were following the law that you say now is unconstitutional ... You filed a brief, you filed a brief saying it was unconstitutional ... You filed a brief saying it was unconstitutional.”
Replied Casey: "Following the law, Rick. It’s a new concept here.
Said Santorum: How can you say it’s following the law if you say it’s unconstitutional?”
Source
He may have delivered a knockout blow to Casey, who appeared confused and inarticulate during his encounter with the fast-talking Santorum during their weekend debate on NBC's "Meet the Press" with host Tim Russert.
Writing at SantorumBlog, contributor Rich Talbert observed: "Casey was a dead stick when discussing Iraq ... was absolutely clueless about Social Security ... bombed with Catholics with the abortion pill ... dropped the ball on the pay raise ... but did a good job coming across as sophomoric and being awfully smug and sarcastic.”
Meanwhile, Santorum lived up to what the Washington Post called "his reputation as a feisty, unapologetic conservative,” energetically voicing his support of President Bush despite suggestions that he has sought to distance himself from the president.
"I think he's been a terrific president, absolutely," Santorum said during the debate. He added that "there is no question that the Iraq war should have commenced."
During the debate, which lasted for just short of a full hour, Casey bobbed and weaved when questioned about such issues as how he would balance the budget, and whether he would have voted to support the invasion of Iraq.
Asked whether he still believes he would have voted to support the Iraq invasion in light of Saddam Hussein's lack of unconventional weapons, Casey said his vote would have been no. "If we knew then what we know now, I think there wouldn't have been a vote.
"If a lot of Americans knew now — if they knew then what they know now, they would, they would have thought that this war was the war that shouldn’t have been fought based upon the misleading of this administration.”
Asked how he would balance the federal budget, Casey replied that he would repeal the recent tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 a year, the very tax cut that gave the U.S. the world’s fastest growing and strongest economy, and retain a tax on very large estates. He refused however, to cite any federal programs he would be willing to cut.
His responses provoked Santorum to observe: "What you heard from Mr. Casey is what you hear all the time. No specifics, no answer."
When pressed as to the specific actions he would take in Iraq, Casey mentioned increasing the number of Special Forces, leading Santorum to say: My opponent has no plan. The idea — all he’s suggested is his plan is special--”
Interrupted Casey: "I just gave a plan. Where’s yours?
Santorum repeated his allegation and then went for the jugular, asking Casey: "Do you support more intelligence gathering because your party has been out there trying to undermine our surveillance programs? You’re the one who’s gone out and said that you have serious questions about our intelligence surveillance programs. What do you think has kept our people safe? What do you think stopped the British, the British attack? You folks have been the party, as you have been the party, of making sure that we don’t have the intelligence gathering capabilities that we need, and, and, and have, have joined in making sure...”
Casey interjected: "Rick, you’re not debating the party, you’re debating me right here.”
Said Santorum: "I’m debating you. And I’ve looked at your comments saying that you have serious concerns about our surveillance programs.”
Said Casey: "No, we should, we should, we should keep the programs and keep the wiretaps...”
Santorum countered: "Well, my point is that we need to have strong surveillance programs. You mentioned Special Forces. We have lots of Special Forces out there, but they need intelligence if they’re going to be able to do their jobs. And as far as that being a plan to solve this problem, I think you just fundamentally misunderstand the problem. You’re saying that somehow or another the language and terminology doesn’t matter. You believe that we’re going to win or lose this war on the battlefield in Iraq and the battlefield in Afghanistan. I don’t. I think we’ll win or lose this war right here in America.”
Responding to Casey’s recipe for handling Social Security’s looming crisis -- merely growing the economy -- Santorum said: "He wants to grow the economy by increasing taxes. That’s what he says. So here he’s saying we have to grow the economy so we’re going to take more out of it. That’s a great way to grow the economy. In fact, what we’ve seen is that, in fact, when we give people their money, let them keep the money that they’ve worked hard to earn, they reinvest it, they create jobs, and they grow the economy just like you suggested. He provided absolutely no answer, again. And he’s not only has not provided an answer for how he’s going to reduce the deficit, in fact his proposals are well over a trillion dollars ... just go through his Web site and see all the things he wants to fully fund ...
"We passed a Medicaid bill earlier this year, cut $40 billion out of the growth of Medicare. He was against it. In another entitlement, welfare reform. 1996, the most successful social policy legislation in history, took illegal immigrants off welfare, took, took prisoners off of welfare, took fugitive felons off of welfare. He was against it. It would have saved billions of dollars over the last 10 years.
He was against it. He’s against anything that cuts government or the budget. That’s just a joke.
"And he won’t give you an answer on Social Security. He won’t give you an answer on anything to make any changes. It’s all talking points from the Democratic Senatorial Committee. There’s no specifics.”
It was after Casey said as treasurer he has "been fiscally responsible in my work. You ought to try it,” that Santorum pounced. Noting that Casey as state treasurer had continued to sign paychecks containing a pay a raise he know violated the state Constitution.
The pay raise in which members of the General Assembly on July 7, 2005, awarded themselves a huge pay increase resulted in a massive voter protest tossing state legislators out of office.
Said Santorum: "Bob Casey as treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania refused — absolutely refused - to fight that pay raise. He said nothing for three months, signed the checks that was an unconstitutional pay raise, and then five months afterwards, after the November election, after the people of Pennsylvania said, "We don’t like this pay raise,” Bob Casey comes out and files a legal brief saying that what he did was unconstitutional. That’s not courage, that’s political pandering. That’s not someone who’s going to come to Washington and fight for Pennsylvania. That’s someone who plays games with his old buddies, and when the going got tough, he was nowhere to be seen.”
Responded Casey: "I came out very clearly, long before Election Day in November ‘05 against it.”
Said Santorum: "You didn’t do anything when you could’ve stopped it Why didn’t you try to stop it? Why didn’t you try to stop it? You could’ve stopped it ... You said to your newspaper that you didn’t even ask about it. You didn’t even ask your lawyers what you could do ... That was in the paper. You answered the reporter and the reporter asked you why didn’t you do anything? You said, 'I didn’t think about it. I didn’t even ask about it.'”
Said Casey: "You’re wrong about this. You didn’t take a position on the state pay raise.”
Santorum said: I’m not a state official, you are. You were in a position — you signed the pay raise checks. You had an opportunity to stop this pay raise.”
Casey responded "It’s called following the law. Following the law.”
Said Santorum: "And you said that you were following the law that you say now is unconstitutional ... You filed a brief, you filed a brief saying it was unconstitutional ... You filed a brief saying it was unconstitutional.”
Replied Casey: "Following the law, Rick. It’s a new concept here.
Said Santorum: How can you say it’s following the law if you say it’s unconstitutional?”
Source
Monday, September 04, 2006
Steve Irwin dies in rare stingray attack
Story
SYDNEY (Reuters) - Steve Irwin, the quirky Australian naturalist who won worldwide acclaim as TV's khaki-clad "Crocodile Hunter," was killed by a stingray barb through the heart while filming a new documentary on Monday.
Irwin, 44, tangled with some of the world's most dangerous animals but he died in an extremely rare attack by a normally placid sea creature while he was diving on a reef off Port Douglas in northern Queensland.
"He came over the top of a stingray and the stingray's barb went up and went into his chest and put a hole into his heart," Irwin's shocked manager John Stainton told reporters in Cairns, south of Port Douglas.
A helicopter rushed paramedics to nearby Low Isles where Irwin was taken for treatment, but he was dead before they arrived, emergency officials said.
"It became clear fairly soon that he had non-survivable injuries," Dr. Ed O'Loughlin, who treated Irwin, told Nine Network television.
"He had a penetrating injury to the left front of his chest. He had lost his pulse and wasn't breathing," he said.
Irwin's death was likely only the third recorded fatal stingray attack in Australia, experts said. They said stingray venom was agonizingly painful but not lethal, although the barb was capable of causing horrific injuries like a knife or bayonet.
"It's not the going in, it's the coming out," Australian Venom Research Unit deputy director Dr Bryan Fry told Reuters.
"They have these deep serrations which tear and render the flesh as it comes out," he said.
More...
SYDNEY (Reuters) - Steve Irwin, the quirky Australian naturalist who won worldwide acclaim as TV's khaki-clad "Crocodile Hunter," was killed by a stingray barb through the heart while filming a new documentary on Monday.
Irwin, 44, tangled with some of the world's most dangerous animals but he died in an extremely rare attack by a normally placid sea creature while he was diving on a reef off Port Douglas in northern Queensland.
"He came over the top of a stingray and the stingray's barb went up and went into his chest and put a hole into his heart," Irwin's shocked manager John Stainton told reporters in Cairns, south of Port Douglas.
A helicopter rushed paramedics to nearby Low Isles where Irwin was taken for treatment, but he was dead before they arrived, emergency officials said.
"It became clear fairly soon that he had non-survivable injuries," Dr. Ed O'Loughlin, who treated Irwin, told Nine Network television.
"He had a penetrating injury to the left front of his chest. He had lost his pulse and wasn't breathing," he said.
Irwin's death was likely only the third recorded fatal stingray attack in Australia, experts said. They said stingray venom was agonizingly painful but not lethal, although the barb was capable of causing horrific injuries like a knife or bayonet.
"It's not the going in, it's the coming out," Australian Venom Research Unit deputy director Dr Bryan Fry told Reuters.
"They have these deep serrations which tear and render the flesh as it comes out," he said.
More...
Sunday, September 03, 2006
A title none too fitting?
This week's column is called "Grappling with ‘fascism,’ reality" by Gil Smart. (Isn't this what I've been saying all along?) Ba dum, clash.
But seriously, I have to say this is the closest I think that Gil has come to reality yet - other than the fact that he is still stuck in Santorum-bashing mode and thinks the Iraq War is about oil.
What it comes down to is this: "Ah, but here’s where Santorum and I once again part ways. Santorum grasps the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but doesn’t seem to think this dependence has anything to do with terrorism."
Well, I find myself in a similar situation as the Gil-Santorum concept presented in this editorial. While some find it shocking he agrees with Santorum, he disagrees on one aspect. Similarly, some may find it shocking that I agree with Gil on some points of this article, but where I "part ways" with Gil is in thinking that this is all about oil.
True, in some respects, this might be about protecting American interests in the region. But is it only oil?
Reflecting on some of the past research I've done regarding the significance of Iraqi oil to the American economy, I would have to say that this is an overly-inflated and simplistic point of view on the topic. The BBC had this to say about Iraq's oil in 2003:
So is America all that concerned about 3% of the world's oil production? Or is this about a "War on Terrorism"? I think that some people need to get a grip on reality. George Bush does not change "what this war was about". As I recall, it started as a war on terrorism and it remains just that.
It is merely in the minds of those who are struggling to grasp reality.
For more info on world oil production, visit this link.
Update: For the most recent data in 2004, Iraq produced 2.4% of the world's oil. Also, Iraq was not in the top ten oil producing countries in the world or in the top ten net exporters.
In 2002, the United States bought half of Iraq's oil exports to satisfy 9 percent of US import demand.
Iraq's suspension of oil exports (by Saddam Hussein in 2002) was unlikely to have lasting impact and, even if other producers followed suit, the consequences would've hit poor and emerging economies long before reaching the West, analysts said. Source
Still think it's about oil?
But seriously, I have to say this is the closest I think that Gil has come to reality yet - other than the fact that he is still stuck in Santorum-bashing mode and thinks the Iraq War is about oil.
What it comes down to is this: "Ah, but here’s where Santorum and I once again part ways. Santorum grasps the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but doesn’t seem to think this dependence has anything to do with terrorism."
Well, I find myself in a similar situation as the Gil-Santorum concept presented in this editorial. While some find it shocking he agrees with Santorum, he disagrees on one aspect. Similarly, some may find it shocking that I agree with Gil on some points of this article, but where I "part ways" with Gil is in thinking that this is all about oil.
True, in some respects, this might be about protecting American interests in the region. But is it only oil?
Reflecting on some of the past research I've done regarding the significance of Iraqi oil to the American economy, I would have to say that this is an overly-inflated and simplistic point of view on the topic. The BBC had this to say about Iraq's oil in 2003:
Despite the huge reserves, Iraqi exports now represent only 3% of total global production.
Daily production fell from a peak of 3.5 million barrels in 1980 to about 2.8 million barrels as the war began. Analysts say the industry's infrastructure is in poor shape and it could take years and millions of dollars to return to the 1980 level of output.
But Iran's Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh said production could be increased far more rapidly and might lead to a need to restrict sales to protect oil prices. He said Iraq's production could reach 3.5 million barrels per day within a year.
While coalition commanders said many oil facilities were wired for destruction, most were seized intact as the US-led forces moved through Iraq.
So is America all that concerned about 3% of the world's oil production? Or is this about a "War on Terrorism"? I think that some people need to get a grip on reality. George Bush does not change "what this war was about". As I recall, it started as a war on terrorism and it remains just that.
It is merely in the minds of those who are struggling to grasp reality.
For more info on world oil production, visit this link.
Update: For the most recent data in 2004, Iraq produced 2.4% of the world's oil. Also, Iraq was not in the top ten oil producing countries in the world or in the top ten net exporters.
In 2002, the United States bought half of Iraq's oil exports to satisfy 9 percent of US import demand.
Iraq's suspension of oil exports (by Saddam Hussein in 2002) was unlikely to have lasting impact and, even if other producers followed suit, the consequences would've hit poor and emerging economies long before reaching the West, analysts said. Source
Still think it's about oil?
Friday, September 01, 2006
End of an Affair
Source
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.
Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey
Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.
That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.
Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey
Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.
That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)