Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Obama on the War and Bush


Today Senator Barack Obama spoke to the International Association of Firefighters. The group was a big supporter of Senator John Kerry during the 2004 campaign and recently blasted Rudy Giuliani for not doing enough to uncover the remains of fallen comrades at the World Trade Center. In his address, Obama tied the Iraq war to issues at home. Let's listen in:

As many of you know, I opposed this war from the beginning - in part because I believed that if we gave this President the open-ended authority to invade Iraq, we would end up with the open-ended occupation we find ourselves in today.

Now nearly 3,200 of our soldiers have given the last full measure of devotion to their country. Tens of thousands more will return home with wounds that last a lifetime. And yet still, every day, we send our sons and daughters, our friends and neighbors to go fight in the crossfire of someone else's civil war.

We learned that 14,000 Guard members across the country are leaving for a second tour before they're supposed to, before they're ready, and before they have the proper equipment to do the job they‚ are being sent for. That means one more suit hangs on the hook every time the alarm bell sounds. That means one more set of boots sit still for months. That means one less Brother or Sister to watch your back in a burning building. This is wrong.

We shouldn't be sending more troops to Iraq, we should be bringing them home. It's time to find an end to this war. That's why I have a plan that will begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq on May 1st of this year, with the goal of removing all of our combat forces from the country by March of 2008.

I've also said that we have to make sure we're not as careless getting out of this war as we were getting in, and that's why this withdrawal would be gradual, and would keep some U.S. troops in the region to prevent a wider war and go after Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

But above all, it's a plan that recognizes a fact that just about everyone in the world understands except the White House - there is no military solution to this war. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace. It's time to find an end to this war. It's time to refocus on the wider struggle against terror and restore our standing in the world.


That's a decent summation of the case for withdrawal. But notice this rhetorical device: Obama said, "It's time to find an end to this war," not time to end the war. He and other Democrats would like to push George W. Bush to wrap up his war before Bush leaves office. But Bush is not likely to oblige.

Obama continued:

And you can help. Thanks to your emails and your letters and your support, we now have more than 60 members of Congress - Democrat and Republican - supporting our plan. And if you keep it up, we can get more. We can pass this plan and send a message even George Bush can't ignore.


Sixty members of Congresss--as opposed to 60 senators--is not that much. So Obama is still far from delivering Bush a telegram. Leading Senate Democrats are (as of now) planning on attaching to the new round of war funding ($100 billion or so) the "goal" of beginning a withdrawal within several months. At this point, the Dems do not appear to have the 60 votes in the Senate needed to overcome procedural obstacles to such a measure. But even if they did, Bush would, in all likelihood, reject the "goal." Obama should not underestimate Bush's ability to ignore any message.

Posted by David Corn at March 14, 2007 12:46 PM

36 comments:

capt said...

If GOP Sen. Domenici Is Forced Out, Dem Gov. Richardson Would Appoint His Replacement



The scandal swirling around Pres. Bush’s firing of eight U.S. Attorneys last December could lead to the resignation of Sen. Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico — which could change the dynamics in the Senate by adding another Democrat to the majority.

David Iglesias, the fired prosecutor from New Mexico, testified to Congress last week that he believes that two New Mexico Republican members of Congress had him fired because he wouldn’t pursue their political opponent. One of the pols was Rep. Heather Wilson. The other was Sen. Domenici:

On the day of the Dec. 7 firings, Miers’s deputy, William Kelley, wrote that Domenici’s chief of staff "is happy as a clam" about Iglesias.

A week later, Sampson wrote: "Domenici is going to send over names tomorrow (not even waiting for Iglesias’s body to cool)."


If Domenici were to step down, his replacement would be named by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, who is running for president in 2008. Assuming the governor would replace Domenici with a Democrat, the balance of power in the Senate would undergo a subtle shift toward the Dems.

The parties are evenly divided now, with 48 Democrats and 48 Republicans, with two independents who both vote with Democrats. But one of those independents, Joe Lieberman, has been leaning Republican lately, especially on the war. The implicit threat that he might switch sides at any moment gives him power over the Democrats that he did not earn.

Upping the ranks of the Dems even by one vote would tend to neutralize Lieberman on issues related to the war, and it would put the Democrats one vote closer to a supermajority of 60 votes on appointments and cloture's.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

Okay, I need everybody on this one - PLEASE clap your hands - the louder the better!!



capt

capt said...

Senate breaks deadlock, debates Iraq pullout



White House issues veto threat over measure proposing withdrawal date


WASHINGTON - Breaking a parliamentary roadblock, the Senate on Wednesday began its first formal debate on the Iraq war since Democrats took control of Congress, taking up a Democratic resolution calling for President Bush to withdraw U.S. combat troops by the end of next March. The White House swiftly issued a veto threat.

The 89-9 vote paved the way for consideration of the Democratic legislation, which would start troop withdrawals within four months and calls for — but does not require — the complete removal of combat troops by the end of March 2008. The vote came after many Republicans abandoned the tactic they had used twice earlier this year to prevent the Senate from considering legislation aimed at forcing an end to the war.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

I know Busheney couldn't care any less about their popularity but watch the august senators reaction to the "surge" in their poll numbers when they call for an end to the Iraqi debacle. A few might even grow a set.



capt

circular_illogic said...

Hello all. I've been silently reading along with you guys gaining brain wrinkles but felt compelled to break my blogging silence to write a responce to Peter Pace's comments.
Top Ten Reasons Why Gays Should Be in Charge of the Military

capt said...

And a Comment on Gutlessness and Betrayal



President Bush likes to pose as a tough, straigh-shooting guy, but faced with the outcry over the political firings of a bunch of federal prosecutors, his true character--weasel, fair-weather friend, buck-passer, liar--has come to the fore.

Although it is clear that the president and his "brain," Karl Rove, were the prime movers behind the firings, and that they were the recipients of complaints about the fired prosecutors from Republican office-holders, Bush is trying to blame the whole thing on two of his most obsequious and loyal servants, Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales.

As Bush tells it, he is "not happy" with what these two long-term aides did. But of course the reality is that both Mier and Gonzales are the most unself-activating of aides. Both have been servants to Bush's political career for its entire arc, from governor of Texas to President, and neither would do anything without direction from Bush.

It speaks volumes that this guy would turn on these two loyal aides as soon as he runs into trouble.

More HERE

capt said...

Eye's!

Tee Hee!

Those are ten good reasons no doubt!



capt

David B. Benson said...

clap.

clap!

Clap!

Clap!

Clap!

capt said...

The Truth Dawns on Gen. Peter Pace. But Too Late



General Pete Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, now says he should have kept his views about homosexuals in the military to himself.

Ya think?

Having said that he believes homosexual acts are immoral, and comparing them to adultery among men and women in the service, Pace has now gone into a slow, ineffective backpedal. He completely supports the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' policy, Pace is now saying and he should have focused less "on my personal moral views.''

Not to worry, general, you'll have plenty of time to focus during your retirement, which is likely to be coming up very soon. Like a host of others who have failed to notice when the winds of change have shifted direction, Pace is probably shocked to see the uproar he's kicked up. He likely had no idea he was taking a controversial stand and probably thought he was speaking for the vast majority.

Now he's not only walked into a media firestorm, it isn't going away. His tepid explanation didn't satisfy his critics, and supporters have been noticeably reluctant to step up to defend him.

Senator John Warner, the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, isn't exactly Pee Wee Herman. He's a former Marine who served in Korea and a former undersecretary of the Navy. Warner tactfully said he would not comment on the "Don't Ask'' policy, but when offered the chance to halt Pace's free fall, he stepped aside and let Pace drop.

"I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral,'' Warner said.

So let's mark that down as "not supportive'' shall we?


More HERE

*****end of clip*****

When will the knuckleheads realize they "out" themselves when they express their HATRED and blather about personal morals. No straight person I know has ever had to HATE anything (or anybody) to prove they are straight.



capt

capt said...

Richardson outlines plan to end oil dependence



NEW YORK (AP) - Governor Richardson told oil and gas investors Wednesday in New York how he’d wean the United States off foreign sources of their product if elected president in 2008.

The New Mexico Democrat says dependence on foreign oil is America’s Achilles heel.

Richardson says he’d promote tax breaks for the construction of energy efficient buildings and offer tax credits for hybrid cars and public transportation.

And Richardson says he’d create a system of tradable energy credits to encourage private investment in alternative energy technologies.

Richardson has set a goal of reducing oil imports by 40 percent and replacing liquid fuels with biofuels by 2025. He’s also called for a 75 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

I'm here to tell you, Bill is a smart guy. Is he the first 2008 candidate to touch the oil dependence subject?



capt

capt said...

Lawmakers give final approval to medical marijuana



SANTA FE (AP) - Lawmakers have sent Gov. Bill Richardson a bill legalizing the medical use of marijuana.

Richardson is expected to sign the measure.

The Senate gave final approval to the bill on Wednesday, agreeing with a minor change the House had made in the legislation.

The bill creates a program in the state Department of Health.

Patients with debilitating illnesses or in hospice whose doctors recommended them could be certified to use marijuana.

They could not grow their own. The health agency would be in charge of obtaining and distributing it.

The bill’s supporters say New Mexico will be the 12th state to authorize some sort of medical marijuana program.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

A little more from NM. I haven't posted a bunch on this issue but this is a HUGE win.



capt

kathleen said...

Capt that Pastor Hagee tape was disturbing.

O'Reilly from last post. I know all we have been hearing about is elections elections. Chirst almighty these folks both Republican and Democrats better get down to business. There are solid as Iraq reasons for the crisis in confidence that permeates the American public.

I just can not get the congressional hearings of Condi Rice and John Bolton. Kerry, Biden, Kennedy and Barbara Boxer all asked hard driving questions of both Bolton and Rice. Kerry's were the most focused and straight to the point. During these hearings Obama was a light weight. And he rolled over for Rice and I believe for Bolton. He just was not impressive.

capt said...

Thank you for taking action to help prevent unauthorized war
with Iran. Congress needs to hear from as many people as
possible today. So, if you haven't yet, please tell your friends
about this so they can take action, too. Click HERE

Thank You,

TrueMajority

kathleen said...

This is a must watch video at Raw Story. For those who are left in Iraq Life better under Hussein.

Video: Special report on Iraq's growing refugee crisis
David Edwards
Tuesday March 13, 2007


In a Channel 4 News special, Jonathan Miller reports on the millions of Iraqi refugees fleeing their homeland in the wake of an ongoing war.

"They've escaped from hell in Iraq, but now they're stuck here in limbo," reports Miller on the roughly one million Iraqi refugees who have fled to Syria. "Many are destitute, most are illegal. They can't get health care, there's no schooling, and no jobs. And there's always that looming threat of summary deportation."

In Jordan, as in Syria, Iraqis who flee the war are not officially recognized as political refugees, but instead are considered temporary visitors, thus denying them any permanent residence or work permits. Jordan has currently stopped accepting refugees.

Resentment toward the United States and Britain for not taking in refugees is expressed by many. "The Brits and Americans brought this disaster on us, they're the occupiers, the solution is also in their hands. They brought their armies across the continents, so surely they can solve this," said an unidentified refugee interviewed by Miller. "Let them get us out of this mess."

An accompanying article for the video below is available at Channel 4 News.

Saladin said...

Israel, U.S. storm out of UN nuclear forum
By Haaretz Staff and Agencies

The Israel and U.S. delegations walked out of the United Nations' disarmament forum in Geneva, Switzerland yesterday after Iran said Israel was the "real source of nuclear danger in the Middle East" and had a "dark record of crimes."

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the Conference on Disarmament that Israel's nuclear weapons posed a "uniquely grave threat to regional and international peace and security" requiring action by the international community.


In a statement, Israel's ambassador Itzhak Levanon to the UN in Geneva, said that he and his aides, and the entire U.S. delegation had "abruptly left the room as the Foreign Minister of Iran ... was in the middle of a vitriolic speech".

A U.S. spokeswoman in Geneva confirmed the walk-out and called Mottaki's remarks "outrageous and divisive" at a time the forum was trying to find common ground on global arms issues.

Vice Premier Shimon Peres said yesterday that a peaceful solution must be found to the Iranian nuclear problem, despite its president's vow to wipe Israel off the map.

"I wouldn't like to darken the future with belligerent declarations," Peres said at a news conference when asked about the possibility of a preemptive strike.

"I do hope that the problem can be solved economically, politically and psychologically."

Peres is in Tokyo for a four-nation meeting today about Middle East peace that includes officials from the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and host Japan, as well as a two-day confidence-building conference that starts today.
============
Psychos run amok.

Saladin said...

Dying Woman Loses Marijuana Appeal
By DAVID KRAVETS (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
March 14, 2007 7:59 PM EDT

SAN FRANCISCO - A woman whose doctor says marijuana is the only medicine keeping her alive can face federal prosecution on drug charges, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The ruling was the latest legal defeat for Angel Raich, a mother of two from Oakland suffering from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments who sued the federal government pre-emptively to avoid being arrested for using the drug. On her doctor's advice, Raich eats or smokes marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster her appetite.

The latest legal twist once again highlighted the conflict between the federal government, which declares marijuana an illegal controlled substance with no medical value, and the 11 states allowing medical marijuana for patients with a doctor's recommendation.

The Supreme Court ruled against Raich two years ago, saying medical marijuana users and their suppliers could be prosecuted for breaching federal drug laws even if they lived in a state such as California where medical pot is legal.

Because of that ruling, the issue before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was narrowed to the so-called right to life theory: that the gravely ill have a right to marijuana to keep them alive when legal drugs fail.

Raich, 41, began sobbing when she was told of the decision that she was not immune to prosecution and said she would continue using the drug.

"I'm sure not going to let them kill me," she said. "Oh, my God."

The three-judge appeals panel said that the United States has not yet reached the point where "the right to use medical marijuana is 'fundamental' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'"

However, the court left open the possibility that Raich, if she was arrested and prosecuted, might be able to argue that she possessed marijuana as a last resort to stay alive, in what is known as a "medical necessity defense."

"I have to get myself busted in order to try to save my life," Raich said.

One of her physicians, Frank Lucido, said in an interview last year that Raich would "probably be dead without marijuana." Lucido, of Berkeley, was not immediately available for comment Wednesday.

Leaders in the medical marijuana movement said they would continue fighting.

"This is literally a matter of life and death for Angel and thousands of other patients, and we will keep fighting on both the legal and political fronts until every patient is safe," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project.

New Mexico is poised to become the 12th state to allow medical marijuana under a bill lawmakers approved Wednesday. Gov. Bill Richardson, a strong supporter of the measure, is expected to sign it.
=============
States rights? Fuck the states, the feds are in charge, get used to it.

V: "There is something very wrong with this country."

O'Reilly said...

Corn, thanks for writing about one man's efforts to end the war in Iraq. There seams to be more politcal safety in tacitly supporting the war than agressively opposing it. I never understood the argument about fighting them over there rather than over here. That was the Iraqi that attacked us on 9/11, right?

Pat said...

A bit off-topic but let's deal a bit more with yesterday's news. Greg Palast has an item of interest regarding who's who in the administration, who owes whom a favor and stuff like that. Oooh the lengths they go to - to get things done!

Capt. provides a link to Greg Palast so you can just click and it'll probably be the top entry. ... A big Thank You to Capt. for all you do.

Pat

O'Reilly said...

The supreme court upheld federal law over state law on the matter of medicinal marijuana.

The federal government's policy is that marijuana has no medicinal value. The court's decision did not rest on evidence supporting the policy but the legal question of whether the interstate commerce clause defines the federal goverment's intererst as controlling.

The court decides the bounds of the law and the other two branches decide policy and make law within the bounds.

In a compassionate country, one would expect an accomodating change in policy by the executive branch following such as decision.

It may take a few election cycles. Regretably, this woman and others will suffer, and almost certainly risk prosecution to get relief.

The fact the FDA essentaially works for large profitable pharm companies may also have an effect on the president's and congress' lack of willingness to act.

Despite the fact federal tax dollars are appropriated and spent to grow marijuana for research (and apparently it's pretty good shit man) the federal government has decided marijuana has no medicinal value. Huh? Throw these chronically ill people a bone for chripes sake. He he.

O'Reilly said...

Bush Hit-Woman Behind
Prosecutor Firings Has Long History
of Purges to Protect Bush

by Greg Palast

Harriet Miers fired investigator in 1997 to cover Bush draft-dodge

LINK

O'Reilly said...

Schumer's Five Questions

This is a good article that gets at the meat of the question: To what extent were the US Attorney terminations obstruction of justice?

link

O'Reilly said...

A Smoking Gun

5. When and why did U. S. Attorney David Iglesias become a target for removal? Was President Bush involved in that decision?

a. On March 2, 2005, D. Kyle Sampson provided identified David Iglesias in bold type as an individual that Sampson “recommend[ed] retaining” based on Iglesias’s strong job performance and “loyalty” to the Administration.

b. On October 17, 2006, Mr. Sampson drew up a list of Attorneys they “should consider pushing out”; Mr. Iglesias was not among those names.

c. On November 15, 2006, Mr. Sampson prepared a detailed “Plan for Replacing Certain United States Attorneys” that lists Mr. Iglesias among the prosecutors to be dismissed by the Department. As you know, in accordance with that plan, the Department contacted Mr. Iglesias on December 7, 2006, to request his resignation.

- - - - - - -

Gonzalez Chief of Staff did not plan to have Iglesius replaced. Something happened outside of Justice. If it was a phone call from Sen. Pete Dominici to Rove to Sampson then Rove is done and so is the Senator.

O'Reilly said...

Is Gonzales a Diversion?
By Dan Froomkin

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is taking fire -- but he may also be creating a diversion.

Whether by accident or by design, his public statements are distracting journalists from elements of the prosecutor-purge scandal that lead directly to the heart of the White House.

Gonzales's inattentive management of the Justice Department and the repeated deception of Congress by senior Justice officials are certainly important issues.

But the central question before us is whether the unprecedented mid-term purge of eight U.S. attorneys was the result of their having failed to use their offices to pillory Democrats as much as the White House wanted them to.

Negligence and deceit are one thing; a policy of requiring law-enforcement officials to abuse the justice system for partisan ends is quite another. (See yesterday's column.)

In a news conference yesterday and on a tour of the television morning shows today, Gonzales repeatedly acknowledged that "mistakes were made" and accepted responsibility for the fact that "incomplete" information "may have been communicated" to Congress.

But his collection of talking points were ultimately meaningless, passive and nonresponsive.

Meanwhile, the White House is sticking to its position that the prosecutors were removed for cause -- while hoping no one remembers that its official position also used to include the now-jettisoned insistence that Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, wasn't involved.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett told reporters yesterday that Gonzales still has the confidence of the president, because "He's a stand up guy."

Asked about all the cumulative credibility crises suddenly facing the White House, Bartlett accused reporters of trying to "connect a lot of dots that aren't connectable" -- then attributed all the controversy to the administration's diligence against terror: "I think if you look back at any presidency, issues like this come up all the time, particularly when we are such an active government that is engaged in the war and . . . where we're trying to prevent terrorists from attacking our homeland.

O'Reilly said...

Dana Milbank of The Washington Post examines some of the contradictions:

"'Mistakes were made,' he said in fluent scandalese, but 'I think it was the right decision.'

"'I am responsible for what happens at the Department of Justice,' he posited, but 'I . . . was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.'

"'Kyle Sampson' -- Gonzales's chief of staff -- 'has resigned,' he said, but 'he is still at the department.'

"And, finally, 'I believe in the independence of our U.S. attorneys,' Gonzales maintained, but 'all political appointees can be removed . . . for any reason.'

"He had the look of a hunted man in his appearance at the Justice Department. He wiggled his toes inside his shoes and shifted his feet. He spoke too loudly into the microphone. He arrived 18 minutes late, gave well-rehearsed answers and appeared intent on getting out as fast as he could, ignoring reporters' shouts of 'Sir! Sir!' The child of Mexican immigrants even mentioned his rise from poverty in dismissing calls for his ouster: 'I've overcome a lot of obstacles in my life to become attorney general. I am here not because I give up.'"

Ruth Marcus writes in her Washington Post opinion column that Gonzales's news conference "was a self-serving masterpiece of passive voice and unpersuasive platitudes. . . .

"Translation: 'I'm going to tell you I'm responsible, because that's what they tell me I have to say. But of course I'm not. It's all Kyle Sampson's fault. I'm hoping that if I say I'm accountable often enough, no one will actually hold me accountable.'...

O'Reilly said...

Why this, why now?

Part of it is timing no doubt, as well as the cumulative weight of many of the scandals that seemingly telescoped into this one — the abuse of power, the politicization of the justice system, voter disenfranchisement, election rigging, bold faced lying to Congress and then the bit about getting caught red handed — but I still find myself shaking my head. Wasn't torture enough? What about ginning up phoney intelligence to drag us into a bloody war and bankrupting the country in the process?

Jane Hamsher thinks the tipping point has arrived... and she has a great record as a trendsetter. Read More HERE

O'Reilly said...

Haul His Ass In, Too

"I've heard those allegations about, you know, political decision-making," Bush said. "It's not true."

Look who just made himself a "fact witness." Let's ask Geedubya: how do you know it's not true, sport? Raise your right hand, there, Sparky.

LINK

capt said...

Thanks Pat!


and O'Reilly:

"Why this, why now?"

I hate to be a cynic but maybe the AG noise is covering the not-so-anti-war non-effort by the non-opposition party?

$100 Billion is a mountain of money, we have fought whole wars for less.

UGH!

PS - there is no tipping point when your hell-bound handbasket is rolling at break-neck speed.


capt

Saladin said...

9/11 PLANNER CONFESSES
Thursday, March 15, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the Kuwaiti national who is thought to be the highest-ranking Al Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, told a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, last weekend that he was responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to a transcript of the hearing. In a written statement read to a three-officer panel, Mohammed claimed he was Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's "operational leader" for the "9/11 operation," responsible for the "organizing, planning, follow-up and execution" of the plot. -LA Times
=============
From Gitmo? I'll BET he confessed, Ghandi would have confessed.

"We have vays to make you talk!"

Saladin said...

"Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity."

- Lord Acton

Saladin said...

Hillary Says No Troop Pullout If Elected

MICHAEL R. GORDON and PATRICK HEALY
NY Times
Thursday, March 15, 2007

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

“So it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser,” Mrs. Clinton added. She declined to estimate the number of American troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she would draw on the advice of military officers.

Mrs. Clinton’s plans carry some political risk. Although she has been extremely critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the war, some liberal Democrats are deeply suspicious of her intentions on Iraq, given that she voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force there and, unlike some of her rivals for the Democratic nomination, has not apologized for having done so.
============
Proving, once again, that the dems are the other side of the same coin. Oil and Israel, that's all that matters, not our troops or our country.

capt said...

New leopard species found in Borneo



Clouded leopard and mainland cousin diverged 1.4 million years ago


GENEVA - A type of leopard found on the Southeast Asian island of Borneo and believed to be related to its mainland cousin is in fact a completely new cat species, WWF said Thursday.

The conservation group said American scientists compared the DNA of the clouded leopard with that of its mainland cousin and determined the two populations diverged some 1.4 million years ago.

"Genetic research results clearly indicate that the clouded leopard of Borneo should be considered a separate species," WWF quoted Dr. Stephen O'Brien of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, which carried out the tests, as saying.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

How beautiful - check out the picture at the link.

h/t my better half!



capt

capt said...

Saladin,

"I'll BET he confessed, Ghandi would have confessed."

THAT is the biggest problem with torture, the information gleamed is always subject to question.

I think we should torture all of the torturers/interrogators to see if any of them confess?


capt

Saladin said...

WOW! He looks like he's wearing snake skin, very cool.

capt said...

"Gay fairytales" anger British religious groups



LONDON (Reuters) - British children as young as four are being taught about same-sex relationships through fairytales and storybooks with gay and lesbian characters.

A pilot scheme to introduce children to gay issues is running in several schools across England with stories such as "King and King", about a gay prince, or "And Tango Makes Three", about gay penguins who fall in love and raise an adopted child.

The 600,000-pound ($1.16 million) scheme, called the "No Outsiders" project, has the backing of the Department for Education and is designed to help schools adjust to new rules on promoting homosexuality as a lifestyle.

But it has sparked anger among some religious groups who say it is homosexual propaganda.

"This is tantamount to child abuse," said Stephen Green, director of the religious campaign group Christian Voice. "The whole project is nothing more than propaganda aimed at primary school children to make them sympathetic to homosexuality."

More HERE

Ivory Bill Woodpecker said...

Who, outside of Bu$hco's base, will believe any alleged terrorist's "confessions" now? Do the minions of Bu$hco still think enough of us believe them for these transparent tactics to work any more?

In issue 1022 of ROLLING STONE, the magazine convened a panel of experts to discuss the future of the Iraq War. The last word belonged to retired general Tony McPeak [member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War of 1991]:

"This is a dark chapter in our history. Whatever else happens, our country's international standing has been frittered away by people who don't have the foggiest understanding of how the hell the world works. America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn't make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment [laughs]. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference."

From the swamps of Arkansas, IBW

David B. Benson said...

Worldwide Winter Warmest on Record.

micki said...

ABC News
EXCLUSIVE: E-Mails Show Rove's Role in U.S. Attorney Firings
Unreleased E-Mails Contradict White House Assertions That the Firings Originated With Harriet Miers
By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG

March 15, 2007 — - New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged.

The e-mails also show that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel, weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.

The e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers, and was her idea alone.

Two independent sources in a position to know have described the contents of the e-mail exchange, which could be released as early as Friday. They put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales' explanations of the matter.

...MORE AT ABC NEWS ONLINE

capt said...

New Thread!