You can't soar with eagles if you flock with turkeys.
Think of me as existing in the realm of thought, intangible yet visible in the wings of your mind.
Senate Republicans torpedoed legislation Wednesday to force the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, bowing to President Bush's adamant refusal to consider any change in war strategy before September.
The 52-47 vote fell far short of the 60 needed to advance the legislation and marked the final act in an all-night session that Democrats engineered to dramatize their opposition to the war.
Click on banner headline for complete details …
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid was trumpeting the democrat line to cut and run (euphemistically dubbed ‘withdrawal’) and protect our assets and interestsin Iraq. This is the height of hyprcrisy and I do not see anything taller in the horizon. Reid is in a hurry to get out now, because “time is on our side and the american people are on our side”. Perhaps Reid does not realize that he is doing a double talk.
The republicans stood their ground: “Think of the aftermath of withdrawal – murders, chaos, genocide …”When Reid was asked what are the alternatives of wiithdrawal, he bristled at the reporter, but was speechless.
Senator John Kerry was interviewed on CNN if he believes there will be genocide after withdrawal and he replied, “genocide is here now …” yet he voted for withdrawal. Cannot understand his logic.
For a while I thought democratswill be sleeping with republicans, with sheets and cots just off the senate floor. It turned out to be a slumber party of deadheads. Not even the presidential contenders were immune from the indignity.
Nervous Senate Republicans beseeched the White House without apparent success Wednesday for a quick change in course on Iraq as congressional Democrats insisted on high-profile votes calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops by spring.
Prospects for a less-sweeping, bipartisan challenge to President Bush suffered a setback when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the leading proposal has "less teeth than a toothless tiger."
Taken together, the events pointed toward a 10-day period of politically charged maneuvering in the Senate in which Democrats push for a withdrawal, the White House's allies resist and a small but growing collection of Republicans — most of them facing re-election in 2008 — is caught in the middle.
Click on banner headline for complete details ….
I happen to watch Senator Barbara Boxer on the senate floor with her characteristic antics: “ Must we wait for more casualties to pile up,more of our soldiers to die, more women and children to perish in suicide bombings …?Let us get out now! “
Of course Barbara Boxer was parroting the the line of democrats withoutpresenting any viable alternative for such course of action. It is cut and run. The democrats sincerely believe in their hearts that it will be like magic – after troop withdrawals the violence and mayhem upon the Iraqi people will STOP!It is this childlike innocence on one hand or utter intellectual stupidity on the other that drives this democrat mentality, which does not merit any reason for existence … in the senate of all places.
Draws distinction between husband's 140 pardons as he left office
KEOKUK, Iowa - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton drew a distinction between President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby - which she has harshly criticized - and her husband's 140 pardons in his closing hours in office.
"I believe that presidential pardon authority is available to any president, and almost all president's have exercised it," Clinton said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "This (the Libby decision) was clearly an effort to protect the White House. ... There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent."
…Here are a couple of pardons thatBill Clinton executed during the last day in office.
Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions, even while a federal investigation was underway regarding additional money laundering and tax evasion charges.Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency. Hugh Rodham returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public. Braswell would later invoke the Fifth Amendment at a Senate Committee hearing in 2001, when questioned about allegations of his having systematically defrauded senior citizens of millions of dollars.
Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli prime ministerEhud Barak, among many other international luminaries. Denise Rich, Marc's former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton's library and Hillary's Senate campaign. Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States.
The distinction that Hillary wants to portray is that Bill Clinton is smarter while dubya Bush is ‘dummier’because Bush did not charge six figure amounts for issuing pardons.
People are elected to Congress to solve problems, but Thursday when the Senate had a chance to solve one of the nation's worst — its intolerable, unworkable and unjust immigration system — a majority ducked and ran toward the safety of their political bases.
Fifty-three senators voted to kill an immigration compromise that was months in the making and favored by interests as diverse as Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and President Bush. The measure would have provided strong new enforcement in exchange for opening a path to citizenship for 12 million illegal immigrants in the USA.
………… click on headline link for complete USA TODAY editorial …
Fifty three senators saw the light and voted NO to amnesty, which columnist Michelle Malkin dubbedas shamnesty. Had the legislation passed, it would have been a great travesty to the rule of law – rewarding violators and transgressors of immigration laws, as well as succumbing apparently to the whims of the president of Mexico who was visibly irked.
It is incorrect to call them as twelve million illegal immigrants. They are better known as twelve million illegal overstaying visitors – they have not attained the status of immigrants – not yet anyway. There are many statutes in the books concerning immigration and any more statutes will simply compound the issue.There are stiff penalties for employing illegal aliens and strict enforcement of the law would be enough to deter illegals to abuse their welcome mat. It is downright unfair to grant amnesty to flagrant violators of immigration laws.Enforce the law and the problem will take care of itself.
LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. - Taking a swipe at a potential GOP presidential rival, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday criticized Fred Thompson for suggesting illegal Cuban immigrants pose a terrorist threat.
"I was appalled when one of the people running for or about to run for the Republican nomination talked about Cuban refugees as potential terrorists," Clinton told Hispanic elected officials. "Apparently he doesn't have a lot of experience in Florida or anywhere else, and doesn't know a lot of Cuban-Americans."
Thompson posted Thursday on his campaign blog saying he had been referring to Cuban spies, not immigrants. "Our national security is too important an issue to let folks twist words around for a one-day headline," Thompson said in his post. "Cuban-Americans are among the staunchest opponents of illegal immigration, and especially so when it's sponsored by the Castro regime."
………………
This is a typical Hillary demagoguery.She went to a city where Cubans abound and spoke in the true fashion of a charlatan. I did not hear or see the video but I am pretty sure she spoke withthe affectation of a tin can orator atop a soapbox. Notice that Hillary is issuing blanket statements, like she is speaking of gospel truths.This is characteristic of demagogues and rabble rousers talking specifically to a selected audience, telling them what is pleasing to their ears, with utter disregard of truth and nuances of truth.
I find this attitude and mindset of a person running for the White House very disturbing. It is too self-serving, and translated on global scope on which the White House is anchored,Hillary will be looking at the world thru the eyes of a frog in a well looking at the sky. Fred Thomson summed it up succinctly:folks twisting words around for a one day headline.
The Senate majority hasn’t shaken off its euphoria from the last elections. First they act like generals and try to micromanage the war in Iraq and now they try to micromanage the functions of the White House by disrupting the Justice Department.
The minority Republicans are wise to dig in their heels against the whims and fancies of the wannabe generals and Commander-in-Chiefs. The democrats are unwittingly chipping away at the bastion of the executive branch and trying to usurp its functions. White House spokesman is right in asserting the fact that the Justice Secretary works at the pleasure of the president, not the senate. The Justice Secretary has done no wrong, regardless of how much the Senate try to unearth any anomalies in the department.
The sponsor of the resolution for a vote of no confidence, Charles Schumer, is acting like a snake oil salesman trying to grab the limelight, and the Senate did the wise thing when the GOP blocks Gonzales no-confidence vote.
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats blistered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Monday with debate on a "no-confidence" resolution, butPresident Bush and fellow Republicans shrugged it all off as a waste of time.
No one predicted that the resolution would survive its test vote late in the day. But neither did Republicans or Democrats rush to defend Bush's longtime friend after he alienated even the White House's staunchest allies on a host of controversies — from the bungled firings of eight federal prosecutors to the handling of wiretapping authority under the USA Patriot Act.
Many Republican votes against the symbolic resolution apparently sprang from a fear of political retribution, not support of Gonzales.
"There is no confidence in the attorney general on this side of the aisle," said Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, announcing he would vote for the no-confidence resolution.
The debate itself shook loose another Republican call for new attorney general.
"I have lost confidence in the ability of Attorney General Gonzales to lead the
Department of Justice effectively," Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, said in a statement. "I think his continued tenure does not benefit the department or our country."
Other Republicans complained that the Democratic resolution was an effort to pressure Bush into firing Gonzales — an unlikely prospect in light of Bush's strong continued support.
"They can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government," Bush said in Sofia, Bulgaria, the last stop on a weeklong visit to Europe.
"This process has been drug out a long time," Bush added. "It's political."
The attorney general said he was paying no attention to the rhetoric on Capitol Hill.
"I am not focusing on what the Senate is doing," Gonzales said at a nuclear terrorism conference in Miami. "I am going to be focusing on what the American people expect of the attorney general of the United States and this great Department of Justice."
Democrats said it was only fair that senators give Gonzales an official up-or-down vote, especially after five GOP senators had called for the attorney general's resignation and many more had publicly criticized him.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., one of the resolution's sponsors, said any attorney general should uphold the law rather than the president's political priorities.
"The attorney general has not lived up to this standard, and he has lost our confidence," Feinstein said on the Senate floor.
So-called "no-confidence" votes on members of the executive branch are rare, in part because the Constitution mandates the separation of powers. The only way Congress can remove a presidential appointee is through impeachment.
Majority Democrats toned down the language in the one-sentence resolution to attract more support from Republicans.
"It is the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people," read the measure, sponsored by Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Feinstein.
Sixty votes were required Monday to bring the resolution to a formal debate.
Republicans protested the measure on constitutional grounds. There was scarcely any defense of Gonzales himself.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) called the debate a waste of time.
"It will have no impact on the tenure of the attorney general," McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters on a conference call.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, did not defend Gonzales. He said the resolution failed constitutional and procedural tests and he took issue even with the notion that it accurately represented both houses of Congress or public sentiment.
"This joint resolution amounts to sound and fury, it signifies nothing," Hatch said on the Senate floor.
A broad immigration bill to legalize millions of people in the U.S. unlawfully suffered a stunning setback in the Senate Thursday, costing President Bush perhaps his best opportunity to win a top domestic priority. The bipartisan compromise championed by the president failed a crucial test when it could not attract even a simple majority for an effort to speed its passage.
Supporters could muster only 45 votes to limit debate and speed the bill to final passage, 15 short of what was needed on the procedural maneuver. Fifty senators voted against cutting off debate.
Most Republicans voted to block Democrats' efforts to advance the measure.
Click on link for more details…
Congress is spinning its wheels on this legislation. By all accounts, this bill is bipartisan and to top is all, is Dubya’s pet project. Despite Sen. Kennedy spearheading the passage of the bill, it did not make the grade. One would think that the Democrats are in the minority.
Proponents of the bill assert that we are a nation of immigrants. It is true, but the logic does not apply to the legislation in question. The more than 12 million undocumented residents are not immigrants, period
I have a surefire way to make congress stop spinning their wheels. ENFORCE the current laws of the land, and everything will fall into their right places.
A new biography’s unflattering portrayal of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton as someone who “camouflages” her real self for political gain is starting to attract attention — and not for the salacious stories most books recount about the Clintons.
“A Woman in Charge,” by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Carl Bernstein, gives scant attention to the tense days the former First Lady spent in the White House when Bill Clinton was sneaking around with his intern, Monica Lewinsky. Instead, the former Washington Post reporter, who helped blow the lid off Watergate, attempts to portray Hillary Clinton as someone who is willing to rewrite her own history to advance the political career she put on hold when she moved to Arkansas with her college sweetheart who would later become president.
“This is a woman who led a camouflaged life and continues to,” Bernstein told TODAY host Matt Lauer on Friday in an exclusive interview. “This book takes away that camouflage.” The book, which he called the first “real biography” of Hillary Clinton, will be available on June 5.
To tell the story of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s journey from a humble childhood marked by abuse at home to the White House, and later the U.S. Senate, Bernstein talked to about 200 close friends and advisers to the Clintons. Bernstein said he learned a lot about Hillary Clinton, including steps she took to try to silence the various women linked to her husband throughout his political career.
Click on link for more details …
+++++++++++
I have long harbored this gut feeling that there is something phony about Hillary R. Clinton in the way she talks to her audience. It appears that she takes on the stance of an actor, tailoring her rhetoric to what is pleasing to the specific audience, making her sound like a tin can orator – irritatingly loud and without substance. I could not quite articulate an adequate description of this Hillary character, until now that Carl Bernstein said so in his book, i.e. - inauthentic. She is patently artificial in her ideas and corresponding words, so much so that she appears flip-flopping on important issues. Naturally when there is no solid foundation for ideas, the substance expressed in words keep changing like the colors of a chameleon. I would not entrust the onus of the White House to this unstable character.
The main reason why this nation is great is because it is built on the selfless sacrifices of heroes unmindful of the cost of preserving freedom. This nation is great because it went through the crucible of war and the discipline that emanated therefrom was forgedfrom the blood and spirit of heroes who did not plunge blindly into the valleys of death but rather with dogged resolve to keep the conflict away from succeeding generations of their children.. I honestly believethat this remembrance of today should be in spirit of nationhoodtotally untarnished by mundane pursuit of personal ambition, otherwise called politics. I am in total agreement with Paul Morin …
Here is a surprise: I am not going to defend the Iraq war. I won't even explain the importance of the war on terrorism. Veterans Affairs budget? Not today. That's because this column is about Memorial Day, a hallowed day that should be about honoring the more than 1 million men and women who died in the service of this nation in wars and conflicts dating back to 1775. It should be above politics. Period.
Yet Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is calling on Americans to use Memorial Day weekend as a time to "bring an end to this war." Mr. Edwards is hardly the first politician from either political party to exploit this day, a holiday that was consecrated with the blood of American heroes. As national commander of the American Legion, I implore all candidates to refrain from politicking on Memorial Day.
The families of those killed in war should not be led to believe that their loved ones died for a less-than-worthy cause. They died because they took an oath to defend this nation and its Constitution. The sacrifice is the same whether it's for a "popular war" or an unpopular one. Memorial Day should be an occasion to bring Americans together to honor these heroes.
It brings to mind the words of Army Sergeant 1st Class Jack Robison, who recently wrote from Iraq, "Sometimes I think God must be creating an elite unit in heaven, because He only seems to select the very best soldiers to bring home early."
If you want to honor these heroes, visit a veterans' cemetery on Memorial Day. Attend a parade without the divisive political signs. Make cards for the comrades of the fallen who are recuperating in military and VA hospitals. Lay a wreath at the headstone of a departed hero.
Americans need to remember why Memorial Day is special. It's not about picnics or trips to the beach. It's not about making pro- or anti-war statements. It's not about supporting political candidates. It's about honor, duty, and the ultimate sacrifice. It's about people who have decided that the United States is worth dying for.
• Paul Morin is national commander of the American Legion, the nation's largest wartime veterans organization.
The Iraq war is a polarizing event such that even ex-presidents do not run short of acrimoniouspontifications. It was not like we marched to Iraq like a knight in shining armor to deliver the Iraqis from Saddam. The images of Iraqis dancing in the streets while the Twin Towers were burning will never be blurred from memory but that is beside the point.911 was not an accident in history – it was a well planned adventure in terrorism that served as a wakeup call for Americans, hitherto smug in the thought that the oceans are buffer zones for safety. 240 dead american servicemen in Lebanon and 17 dead sailors aboard USS Cole failed to shake us from stupor.The burning World Towers were jolting shocks in succession and only a zombie will not react to such pain.
Liberals and Conservatives were unanimous in declaring that retribution is imperative.The terrorist were confronted in their own game and terrirories. But soon the Liberals wavered in their resolve – after body bags started bringing casualties back to the homeland. The Liberals think that fighting terrorist is a game, and according to Harry Reid, one more casualty is one too many. The euphoria of winning the last elections made the Democrats think thatthey have the mandate to act like wannabe Napoleons and thus attempt to micromanage the Iraq war like it were the little house on the prairie.
Of course there is price to pay for defending the country from terrorism. The soldiers never wavered in their resolveby enlisting in a volunteer service and some even refused lucrative sports contracts .There is no honor more edifying and reward more gratifying than giving one’s life in service to the country. So while wimps and detractors are calumniating George dubya Bush to mask the shaking in their boots, a California family grieves dead soldier.
By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ, Associated Press WriterThu May 24, 12:20 PM ET
The front steps of Pfc. Joseph Anzack Jr.'s old high school became a makeshift shrine of flowers, flags and balloons, marked with a sign reading: "You're our HERO."
The 20-year-old soldier's Web page was also flooded with condolences on Thursday, a day after word came that his body had been found in the Euphrates River following an ambush in Iraq.
At South High School, Arnack was self-assured, knowing early that he wanted to join the military.
"I just remember, as a sophomore or a junior in high school, he was set on it," said Kyle Flynn, the soldier's friend and football teammate. "'I'm ready to go,'" Flynn recalled Anzack saying.
Students went to the school to leave flowers and light candles. The sign on the school steps read, "We love & miss you Joe Anzack. You're our HERO."
Anzack was one of three soldiers who vanished after their combat team was ambushed May 12 about 20 miles outside Baghdad. Five others, including an Iraqi, were killed in the ambush, subsequently claimed by al-Qaida.
This image provided by the US Navy shows the USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), USS Nimitz (CVN 68), and USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) strike groups steaming through the Gulf of Oman Tuesday May 22, 2007. The U.S. Navy staged its latest show of military force off the Iranian coastline sending the three strike groups through the narrow Strait of Hormus on Wednesday. Aircraft aboard the three carriers and the Bonhomme Richard were to conduct air training while the ships ran submarine, mine and other exercises. (AP Photo/US Navy - Denny Cantrell)
George W. Bush has been called lots of names but nevera name for lack of courage. The US can not afford to become appeaser to international rogues and terrorists who are banking on America’s ‘weakness’ of giving values to each and every human life. Iran rants mayjust be bluff and bluster, but threats to wipe Israel off the map is no joke, not even for dubya. The Democrats would rather consult the UN and other countries before they make a move in the Persian gulf, simply because they do not have the courage of dubya … without realizing that it might be too late for consultations.
In the face of Iran’s intransigence and defiance of UN sanctions, I think the US opted to send diplomats - Nine U.S. warships enter Gulf for training– to convey the message that time is up.
By Mohammed Abbas
Nine U.S. military ships entered the Gulf on Wednesday for a rare daylight assembly off Iran's coast in what naval officials said was the largest such move since the 2003 Iraq war.
U.S. Navy officials said Iran had not been notified of plans to sail the vessels, which include two aircraft carriers, through the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow channel in international waters off Iran's coast and a major artery for global oil shipments.
Most U.S. ships pass through the straits at night so as not to attract attention, and rarely move in such large numbers.
Navy officials said the decision to send a second aircraft carrier was made at the last minute, without giving a reason.
Hillary Clinton won't commit on Iraq deadline. She thinks she is at a party at Central Park when she cast her votedefunding the Iraq war. There is a noticiable absence of strength of character when she skirts the issue of a final vote. The most powerful office in the planet calls for more fortitude and backbone and determination without being hemmed in by feminine coyness and pussyfoot tendencies ………..
By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton voted Wednesday to advance legislation cutting off money for the Iraq war, but she declined to say whether she would support the measure if it comes to a final vote.
"I'm not going to speculate on what I'm going to be voting on in the future," the New York senator and Democratic presidential candidate said when asked by reporters whether she favored the troop withdrawal legislation.
Clinton sided with 28 other senators who lost a procedural vote on the measure offered by Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis. The amendment would have cut off money for combat operations after March 2008.
Clinton long has resisted calls from those within her own party to impose a specific deadline on troop withdrawal in Iraq — a position that has at times resulted in her being booed by anti-war activists.
"This is consistent with what I've been saying for several years," she said.
Even as she denied there were any mixed signals in her votes and statements on a troop withdrawal, she criticized what she called growing confusion caused by President Bush's Iraq policy, including the appointment this week of a "war czar."
Clinton said she wants her vote to send a message to Iraqi leaders that they have to do more to stabilize their country before the United States will commit to a longer troop presence there.
A charlatan calling herself president, makes a call toMOVE ON.Nothing could be more callous and insulting to the Filipino people.Having imposed herself TWICE as president of a gentle and forgiving people, she now cajoles the people again, inpreparation for massive alteration of the will of the electorate in the just concluded elections. There is no need to make this CALL. Verifiable results are not even known yet and this call preempts any fair results of the elections, and certainly a giveaway of the insidiousplans to thwart the will of the electorate one more time.
The elections of 2004 are testimonies tounprecedented cheating perpetrated by the COMELEC, the POLICE, and the MILITARY- the very same agencies supposedly safeguarding the santicty of the ballot, at the instance of a pretender president using the national treasury as carrots to entice the rabbits agencies aforementioned. The people had been insulted frontally and brutally by massive cheating, and now are being asked once more to MOVE ON, as if nothing happened. What gall!!
PRESIDENT Arroyo yesterday called on all candidates, winners and losers alike, to forget their rivalries for the sake of the country.
"Campaigns are marked by fierce competition but we should be gracious, win or lose. For the good of the country, the chapters on bickering and competition should be closed once the people’s verdict is out, and instead open the door to national unity and cooperation," she said in a statement.
She said the Filipino people united behind democracy in exercising their right to vote.
She said the country should continue on the path of growth while counting the blessings of economic growth and political stability.
Arroyo praised the Commission on Elections, PNP and Armed Forces for safeguarding the elections, along with the efforts of religious, civic, and professional sectors and foreign observers.
"I am especially proud of the famed heroism and dedication of our teachers, and our policemen and soldiers for their impartial defense of peace and order," she said. – Regina Bengco
I just woke up from watching the Democrats' debate last Thursday, and I am rested and ready to report!
Someone needs to tell the Democrats to stop talking about their families. I know they're trying to demonstrate their "family values," but using actual, live human beings to illustrate the freakish ideas of the Democratic base just makes normal people uncomfortable.
When Chris Dodd was asked about gay marriage, he said he always thinks of his little daughters -- aged 2 and 5 -- and imagines them turning out to be lesbians, saying he would want them treated equally.
To prove his bona fides to the environmentalist nuts, Obama said: "We've also been working to install lightbulbs that last longer and save energy. And that's something that I'm trying to teach my daughters, 8-year-old Malia and 5-year-old Sasha."
So we finally have an answer to the question: What do Democrats teach their daughters? Is it:
(a) integrity
(b) character
(c) the importance of always telling the truth
No! The answer is: (d) They teach their daughters to use low-energy lightbulbs. This is so important that it apparently bears mentioning during a debate under high-intensity TV studio lights.
(How many kids does it take to screw in a lightbulb? In the Barack household, evidently, it takes two.)
"Best in Show" for cringe-inducing mentions of family members went to John Edwards. In the single most appalling moment of the debate, John Edwards reminisced about the time his father, who was sitting in the audience, totally humiliated him as a child.
"I can remember vividly my dad after church once Sunday, when I was about 10 years old, taking us -- it's our whole family -- into a restaurant. I was dressed up. I was very proud to be there, and we sat, got our menus, looked at the menus, and the waitress came over and my father said, 'I'm sorry. We have to leave.' I didn't understand. 'Why? Why do we have to leave?' And I was embarrassed. I found out when we got outside the reason we had to leave is he couldn't pay the prices that were on the menu."
Thanks for the memories, Pop!
The not-visibly-insane Democrats all claim they'll get rough with the terrorists, but they can't even face Brit Hume.
In case you missed this profile in Democrat machismo, the Democratic presidential candidates are refusing to participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because the hosts are "biased." But they'll face down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!
At this, even Hillary Clinton was thinking, "Come on, guys -- let's grow a pair."
Obama was asked to name "America's three most important allies around the world" -- a question rejected as "too easy" on Fox's new game show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" Any politically savvy 11-year-old could have named Britain, Australia and Israel.
B. Hussein Obama answered: "the European Union." Which is (a) not a country, and (b) not an ally.
What was his next guess? Epcot Center?
In addition to not being a country, the "European Union" happens to be composed of people who hate our guts. It is the continent where Moveon.org-style lunatics are the friendly, pro-American types and the rest are crazy Muslims.
Obama did eventually mention Japan as an ally -- along with China and Afghanistan -- which would have been a better answer to the question: "Who are America's four or five most important allies?" But at least he named a country that could conceivably be called "an ally."
Of course, it took Obama less time to remember an American ally than it took John Edwards to remember Jesus. Edwards was asked who his "moral leader" was -- and he was stuck for an answer.
I had time to shout "Jesus" at the TV 20 times, exhaust myself, and have a sandwich before Edwards finally coughed up "mah lowrd." Even then it appeared that Edwards was not actually naming the Savior but exclaiming, "Mah lowrd, that's a tough question!"
Edwards then put "mah lowrd" (assuming that was his answer) on a par with other moral leaders such as his father -- who had embarrassed him so as a child -- and his wife. (When he mentioned his spouse as a "moral leader," Hillary visibly tensed for fear that she might be asked the same question.)
In fairness to Edwards, asking a trial lawyer to name his favorite moral leader is like asking the president of Iran to name his favorite Jew. (Answer: George Soros.)
If you're keeping score, that's two major religions the Democrats lack a working knowledge of -- Christianity and Islam.
A massive exploding faraway star — the brightest supernova astronomers have ever seen — has scientists wondering if a similar celestial fireworks show may light up the sky much closer to Earth sometime soon.
The discovery, announced Monday by NASA, drew oohs and aahs for months from the handful of astronomers who peered through telescopes to see the fuzzy remnants of the spectacular explosion after it was first spotted last fall.
Using a variety of Earth and space telescopes, astronomers found a giant exploding star that they figure has shined about five times brighter than any of the hundreds of supernovae ever seen before, said discovery team leader Nathan Smith of the University of California at Berkeley. The discovery was first made last September by a graduate student in Texas.
"This one is way above anything else," Smith told The Associated Press. "It's really astonishing."
Smith said the star, SN2006gy, "is a special kind of supernova that has never been seen before."
Observations from the Chandra X-ray telescope helped show that it didn't become a black hole like other supernovae and skipped a stage of star death.
Unlike other exploding stars, which peak at brightness for a couple of weeks at most, this supernova, peaked for 70 days, according to NASA. And it has been shining at levels brighter than other supernovae for several months, Smith said.
And even at 240 million light years away, this star in a distant galaxy does suggest that a similar and relatively nearby star — one 44 trillion miles away — might blow in similar fashion any day now or 50,000 years from now, Smith said. It wouldn't threaten Earth, but it would be visible to people in the Southern Hemisphere, he said.
+++++++++++++++
This star show was seen only last fall. Of course --- it has been travelling for the last 240 million years and it just arrived here on earth. This supernova might remain visible for another million years, which means that it no longer exist. What is visible are light remnants of the last million years.In the same breadth the stars we see now could be extinct already and what we see are the dying embers of a star that was.It is also possible that more stars are on their way to be seen, their starlight still travelling on their millions of light years journey to our planet.
It is not for man to worry. Man may not be around to witness any starsafter a thousand years.
The United States has lost its global standing during George W. Bush's presidency and needs a Democratic commander in chief to restore America's place in the world, Democrats running for the White House said Saturday.
My comment:These observations are obviously candidate’s rhetoric. US role is always at the top and the White House wannabes fully realized that. Belittling that fact would of course make their rhetoric shine, albeit with mediocrity
. "We are today internationally and domestically a nation that is no longer a leader," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, one of three candidates to address a convention of the South Carolina Democratic Party.
My comment:This perception of Richardson is indicative retrograde mentality.He creates a make-believe vacuum and puts himself inposition to fill it. Crustacean outlook, to say the least.
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee, said the world needs to see that "America can be a force for good."
"What their perception is that America is a bully and we only care about our short-term interests," Edwards said. "The starting place is to end the bleeding sore that is the war in Iraq."
My comment:Edwards is on delusion trip of the gentle giant. Fact is America always operates on a position of strength, mistaken for a bully.A nation can not be great by allowing itself as other nations ‘ doormat.
Richardson, Edwards and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said they would make ending the war a priority.
"The American people are looking for us as Democrats," said Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "They're looking for someone literally, not figuratively, to restore America's place in the world."
Biden said the country's other problems cannot be solved until the U.S. successfully deals with Iraq.
My comment:Operations in Iraq with a timetable for withdrawal is SURRENDER, pure and simple, far from SUCCESSFULly dealing with the problem. Biden betrays his rhetoric here – ‘literally, not figuratively’
President Bush warned Congress Friday that he will continue vetoing war spending bills as long as they contain a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
Speaking a day after the Democratic-controlled Congress approved legislation that requires that a troop drawdown begin by Oct. 1, Bush said — as he has before — he will veto it because of that demand. He invited congressional leaders to come to the White House to discuss a new piece of legislation that would not include a timetable, and expressed hope a deal could be reached.
Bush has set benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but has steadfastly opposed attaching any timeframe to them or requiring any actions if they are not met.
"I invited the leaders of the House and the Senate to come down soon after my veto so we can discuss a way forward," the president said. "I'm optimistic we can get a bill, a good bill and a bill that satisfies all our objectives."
Later, White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel said invitations were extended Friday afternoon to nine top congressional leaders, from both parties, to come to the White House on Wednesday.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., urged Bush on Friday to "carefully read this bill."
"He will see it fully provides for our troops and gives them a strategy worthy of their sacrifices," Reid said. "Failing to sign this bill would deny our troops the resources and strategy they need."
For full details click on banner headline …
………………
Harry Reid thinks Bush has lost his reading ability, or perhaps Reid is on the threshold of dementia. Earlier Reid said that “Iraq is lost” although other senate stalwarts do not agree.The recently crafted war spending bills setting forth withdrawal timetables is a way of flexing the newfound muscles of the democratic majority without regard to consequences. In other words, it is meant to make the democrats look good – in the words of Harry Reid: “I have fulfilled my constitutional duty”, even if doing so amounts to a unilateral surrender to the forces of insurgents and terrorists. What is lamentable is the shortsightedness of Reid who can’t see beyond his nose: he can’t see or he does not care about the consequences of surrender. I hope he sobers up from his intoxication of occupying the majority leader’s chair.
April 24, 2007 -- Fresh from his declaration that "this war [in Iraq] is lost," Senate Demo cratic leader Harry Reid is moving quickly to hasten America's unilateral surrender. And to cast the Middle East into murderous chaos. Reid yesterday promised that the Democratic-controlled Congress will within days pass legislation requiring U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq over the six months starting Oct. 1. Never mind that such legislation: * Likely wouldn't pass either house of Congress . . . * . . . and, even if it did pass, certainly wouldn't survive a veto. So the point must be not to make policy, but to send a message: That Harry Reid's Democratic Party is against war in the Middle East, maybe? Or that war in the Middle East is OK - so long as no Americans are fighting? Or, maybe it's all about politics? To be sure, Reid won't risk calling for an immediate pullout. He cautioned his party's bug-out-now wing to be patient, despite "the restlessness" of those who "voted for change in November [and] anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January." The problem, said Reid, is that "George W. Bush is still the commander-in-chief - and this is his war." And there's the real problem: From the start, Reid and the Democrats have seen the war in Iraq as a partisan opportunity. They refuse to present a unified front to the rest of the world - especially to America's enemies - because, in their pinched view, to do so would be to weaken their own prospects for retaking the White House in 2008. No, Reid didn't repeat his declaration of defeat during yesterday's speech from the Senate floor. It probably has dawned on him just how big a political blunder he committed - witness Sen. Chuck Schumer's gentle contradiction of the majority leader over the weekend, insisting that "the war is not lost." Then again, Reid didn't have to repeat his original remarks - because the imposed timetable he announced, if enacted, would bring about precisely the same result. That is, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from the region - if Reid thinks the bug-out would stop at Iraq, he's dumber than he sounds - followed by: * A rapid, al Qaeda/Iranian-driven descent into regional chaos. * Most likely, a general war. * And, almost certainly, a Mideast nuclear-arms race as Saudi Arabia, Eygpt and (probably) Turkey rush to arm themselves in anticipation of an Iranian bomb. At the very least, Reid has to understand that his rhetoric can only encourage short-run insurgent attacks on Americans in Iraq. Their blood stands to be on his hands. And that's a terrible price to pay for a political payday that's so tentative that even an instinctive gut-fighter like Chuck Schumer recoils from the risk. Harry Reid needs to put a cork in it. Today.
