Monday, March 03, 2008
Military Advisers; Hillary's vs. Barack's: On Hillary's side, we see ex-General Wesley Clark as a senior advisor for military matters. On Barack's side we see ex-General "Tony" Merrill McPeak.
Ex-General Clark: Led the NATO effort during Kosovo. Almost broke NATO. As interested in attacking the Russians as in defeating the Serbs. Had no plan for what to do after the first five days of the "air war" failed to drive the Serbs out of Kosovo. Finally had to threaten a ground invasion even though he had no plan to do it nor any troops prepared or positioned to do it. Wrote an autobiography that was strangely reminiscent of Forest Gump.
Ex-General McPeak: Broke the Air Force. Destroyed Air Force intelligence. Drove most Air Force intelligence officers out of the service. Claims to fame include mandating v-neck t-shirts for male service members, institution of "TQM", eliminated Air Force Regulations (AFR's) based on TQM and instituted "Air Force Instructions". Investigated as Commander of Pacific Air Forces for misappropriation of funds.
Yep, some quality advisin' going on in the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama camps!
(Thanks again to Sandpaper for the Soul)
Ex-General Clark: Led the NATO effort during Kosovo. Almost broke NATO. As interested in attacking the Russians as in defeating the Serbs. Had no plan for what to do after the first five days of the "air war" failed to drive the Serbs out of Kosovo. Finally had to threaten a ground invasion even though he had no plan to do it nor any troops prepared or positioned to do it. Wrote an autobiography that was strangely reminiscent of Forest Gump.
Ex-General McPeak: Broke the Air Force. Destroyed Air Force intelligence. Drove most Air Force intelligence officers out of the service. Claims to fame include mandating v-neck t-shirts for male service members, institution of "TQM", eliminated Air Force Regulations (AFR's) based on TQM and instituted "Air Force Instructions". Investigated as Commander of Pacific Air Forces for misappropriation of funds.
Yep, some quality advisin' going on in the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama camps!
(Thanks again to Sandpaper for the Soul)
Labels: advisor, Barack Obama, campaign, Clark, Clinton, election, General, Hillary, McPeak, military, Obama, War, Wes, Wes Clark
The 3:00AM Phone Call: The phone rings at the White House at 3:00AM. Who do you want answering it? Hillary has been tested and is ready to lead. Let us reflect:
Announcer: It's 3:00AM.
Phone: Ring Ring. Ring Ring.
Hillary: Bill?
Phone: Ring Ring.
Hillary: Bill?
Scene: Hillary getting out of bed and going down the hall
Phone: Ring Ring
Scene: Hillary entering the West Wing
Hillary (yelling): Bill!
Phone: Ring Ring.
Scene: Hillary entering the Oval Office
Hillary (screaming): BILL!
Monica: Shhhhhhhhh
Sound effect: bumping and thumping sounds under the desk. Chair squeaking.
Phone: Ring Ring.
Bill: Damn it, hurry up
Hillary: Damn it Bill...
Phone: Ring Ring.
Monica (whispering): Damn it, you ruined my brand new blue dress!
Phone: Ring Ring.
Bill: Damn it.
Phone: Ring Ring.
Hillary: Damn it Bill, zip up and answer the stupid phone. I am sooooo sick of this....
This has been an unpaid political statement.
(With thanks to Sandpaper for the Soul)
Announcer: It's 3:00AM.
Phone: Ring Ring. Ring Ring.
Hillary: Bill?
Phone: Ring Ring.
Hillary: Bill?
Scene: Hillary getting out of bed and going down the hall
Phone: Ring Ring
Scene: Hillary entering the West Wing
Hillary (yelling): Bill!
Phone: Ring Ring.
Scene: Hillary entering the Oval Office
Hillary (screaming): BILL!
Monica: Shhhhhhhhh
Sound effect: bumping and thumping sounds under the desk. Chair squeaking.
Phone: Ring Ring.
Bill: Damn it, hurry up
Hillary: Damn it Bill...
Phone: Ring Ring.
Monica (whispering): Damn it, you ruined my brand new blue dress!
Phone: Ring Ring.
Bill: Damn it.
Phone: Ring Ring.
Hillary: Damn it Bill, zip up and answer the stupid phone. I am sooooo sick of this....
This has been an unpaid political statement.
(With thanks to Sandpaper for the Soul)
Labels: 3:00, 3:00AM, Barack Obama, Clinton, crisis, Hillary, Obama, phone, phone call, phone rings, ready to lead, tested
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Democrats and the War in Iraq- The Big Lie: It's becoming more and more apparent that even if elected, Democrats won't bring the troops home from Iraq any faster than President Bush. In a sudden "awakening", the Editor of the New York Times shares an epiphany in a column titled: "Wrong Way Out of Iraq". I've included the column here and then some of my own comments after:
August 13, 2007
The New York Times
Editorial
Wrong Way Out of Iraq
As Americans argue about how to bring the troops home from Iraq, British forces are already partway out the door. Four years ago, there were some 30,000 British ground troops in southern Iraq. By the end of this summer, there will be 5,000. None will be based in urban areas. Those who remain will instead be quartered at an airbase outside Basra. Rather than trying to calm Iraq’s civil war, their main mission will be training Iraqis to take over security responsibilities, while doing limited counterinsurgency operations.
That closely follows the script some Americans now advocate for American forces in Iraq: reduce the numbers — and urban exposure — but still maintain a significant presence for the next several years. It’s a tempting formula, reaping domestic political credit for withdrawal without acknowledging that the mission has failed.
If anyone outside the White House truly believes this can work — that the United States can simply stay in Iraq in reduced numbers, while ignoring the civil war and expecting Iraqi forces to impose order— the British experience demonstrates otherwise.
There simply aren’t reliable, effective and impartial Iraqi forces ready to keep the cities safe, nor are they likely to exist any time soon. And insurgents are not going to stop attacking Americans just because the Americans announce that they’re out of the fight.
In Basra — after four years of British tutelage — police forces are infiltrated by sectarian militias. The British departure will cede huge areas to criminal gangs and rival Shiite militias. Without Iraqis capable of taking over, the phased drawdown of British troops has turned ugly. The remaining British troops hunkered down in the city at Basra Palace are under fire from all directions. Those at the airbase are regularly bombarded.
And Basra should be easier than Baghdad. Most of the population is Shiite, and neither Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia nor other Sunni insurgent groups have a significant presence. Elsewhere in Iraq, where internal rivalries are overshadowed by the Sunni insurgency, sectarian civil war and rampant ethnic cleansing, a reduced American force might find itself in an even worse predicament. The clear lesson of the British experience is that going partway is not a realistic option.
The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq.
But there should be no illusions about trying to continue the war on a reduced scale. It is folly to expect a smaller American force to do in a short time what a much larger force could not do over a very long time. That’s exactly what the British are now trying to do. And the results are painfully plain to see.
Source Link:Wrong Way Out of Iraq
August 13, 2007
The New York Times
Editorial
Wrong Way Out of Iraq
As Americans argue about how to bring the troops home from Iraq, British forces are already partway out the door. Four years ago, there were some 30,000 British ground troops in southern Iraq. By the end of this summer, there will be 5,000. None will be based in urban areas. Those who remain will instead be quartered at an airbase outside Basra. Rather than trying to calm Iraq’s civil war, their main mission will be training Iraqis to take over security responsibilities, while doing limited counterinsurgency operations.
That closely follows the script some Americans now advocate for American forces in Iraq: reduce the numbers — and urban exposure — but still maintain a significant presence for the next several years. It’s a tempting formula, reaping domestic political credit for withdrawal without acknowledging that the mission has failed.
If anyone outside the White House truly believes this can work — that the United States can simply stay in Iraq in reduced numbers, while ignoring the civil war and expecting Iraqi forces to impose order— the British experience demonstrates otherwise.
There simply aren’t reliable, effective and impartial Iraqi forces ready to keep the cities safe, nor are they likely to exist any time soon. And insurgents are not going to stop attacking Americans just because the Americans announce that they’re out of the fight.
In Basra — after four years of British tutelage — police forces are infiltrated by sectarian militias. The British departure will cede huge areas to criminal gangs and rival Shiite militias. Without Iraqis capable of taking over, the phased drawdown of British troops has turned ugly. The remaining British troops hunkered down in the city at Basra Palace are under fire from all directions. Those at the airbase are regularly bombarded.
And Basra should be easier than Baghdad. Most of the population is Shiite, and neither Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia nor other Sunni insurgent groups have a significant presence. Elsewhere in Iraq, where internal rivalries are overshadowed by the Sunni insurgency, sectarian civil war and rampant ethnic cleansing, a reduced American force might find itself in an even worse predicament. The clear lesson of the British experience is that going partway is not a realistic option.
The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq.
But there should be no illusions about trying to continue the war on a reduced scale. It is folly to expect a smaller American force to do in a short time what a much larger force could not do over a very long time. That’s exactly what the British are now trying to do. And the results are painfully plain to see.
Source Link:Wrong Way Out of Iraq
Alternate Source Link:Wrong Way Out of Iraq
Yes, call it "the big lie". This idea that we can walk off the battlefield while Jihadists still want engage and fight is ludicrous. The idea that we can "bring the war in Iraq to a close".
Americans and the North Koreans "brought the Korean War to a close" and both sides walked off the battlefield. 54 Years later we are still at a stand off with them, exchanging gunfire over the DMZ, reading occasional items in their press about the U.S.S Pueblo, and desperately searching for a way to stop their nuclear weapons program.
Americans "brought the war in Vietnam to a close" in 1975 and the North Vietnamese swept into Saigon, murdering the elected South Vietnamese leaders and imprisoning their military leaders. Oh, and don't forget that little Pol Pot thing where up to 2 million were slaughtered with no one there to prevent it.
The Soviets "brought their war in Afghanistan to a close" and walked off the battlefield and the Taliban was born. Millions were subjugated under a twisted, blasphemer's version of Sharia Law and al-Qaeda eventually found a home and 3,000 Americans eventually paid for this "closure" on 9/11.
Americans "brought the first Gulf War to a close" in 1991 when the U.S. stopped it's advance on Baghdad and walked off the battlefield. After that Saddam Hussein went on a murder spree, slaughtering Shia in Southeast Iraq and Kurds in nothern Iraq. Eventually he began defiantly shooting at U.S. fighters and spy planes patrolling over the No-Fly Zones- zones created by the U.N. to stop the murder of Shia and Kurds.
No, walking off the battlefield and "bringing a war to a close" only works for those who intend to keep fighting after the other side quits. It does not work for those who quit and walk away. When a nation opts to walk off the field in the middle of battle when the opponent intends to continue the fight, or jihad, or the subjugation, or whatever, there is always a bill to pay later..... a word to the wise!
Labels: Barak Obama, Bush, Bush Administration, Clinton, Dem-no-crats, Democrats, Edwards, Fred Thompson, Iraq, McCain, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Rice, Romney, Rudy, Rumsfeld, War in Iraq, War on Terror
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Washington Post Opts for Name Calling Over Substance: Okay, the Washington Post has achieved a new, all-time low in political coverage. They are literally making fun of the name "Fred" as a way of taking a shot at Fred Thompson.
Here, for your viewing, is the article I call the "hateful little gem of bigotry". I have reserved room in my blog here at the end for my own little comment about names.
Fred, Fred, Fred: Thompson's Challenge Has a Name
By Monica Hesse
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 12, 2007; D01
In the swampy soup of hopefuls for the 2008 presidential election, there is a man with a funny name. (No, not that one.)
We're thinking of the one named Fred (Thompson).
Say it out loud. Do it. Fred. Fred. In the South, Fray-ud.
Fur-red-duh.
It has the tonal quality of something being dropped on the floor, something heavy and damp-ish.
Waterlogged paper towel.
Fred.
The phonetics of the name seem integral to its image problem: On Urbandictionary.com, a "Fred" is defined as "a person who does stupid, annoying, or idiotic things" (Fred Flintstone, Fred Mertz). The best-case descriptors a Fred can hope for are terms like well-intentioned, predictable, benign Fred Rogers.
There has never before been a major presidential candidate named Fred. There were two Alfreds, in 1928 and 1936. But Alfred, being all British and Batman-y, is not the same.
Then, out of almost nowhere, came Thompson, who is transcending the notion of Fred.
Recent media accounts of the guy (who has not yet officially announced his candidacy) would have us believe that being a Fred means Law and Orderly sex-in-a-suit, a name exuding such flypaper pheromones that people find themselves helplessly drawn in. Chris Matthews dedicated three minutes of a recent "Hardball" to exploring Thompson's sex appeal. London's Sunday Times last month interviewed a bevy of his ex-girlfriends, all of whom have drunk the Fred-Aid: "He's majestic," said country singer/Fredophile Lorrie Morgan. "Women love a soft place to lay and a strong pair of hands to hold us."
Fred?
Why? Is there something about the craggy actor we're not getting? Maybe he's ugly-sexy, like Mick Jagger?
Or maybe the name Fred is etymologically close to obviously sexy names like Dirk, Clint, James?
Grant Smith is an onomastician at Eastern Washington University in Cheney, who studies the branch of linguistics dedicated to proper names. He specializes in dissecting the monikers of political candidates and says he has a 65 percent success rate of predicting elections, based solely on name analysis. Not entirely convincing, but those odds would play in Vegas. "The name Fred is basic and homey," says Smith. "It should give people a reassuring image."
But is it, Dr. Smith, a sexy name?
Silence.
"I would not say that. The name Fred does not suggest blatant sexuality at all."
Thompson is a strong name, he says. Thompson is a name with natural trochaic rhythm, which replicates a heartbeat and thus starts building appeal in the womb. "Does he ever go by Frederick?" Smith asks hopefully. FRED-erick THOMP-son would be a winning combination.
But he doesn't. He goes by Fred. Going by Fred, he still has amassed a clan of pitter-patter, all-a flutter followers.
* * *
At the Fredquarters of the Fred Society in Palm Springs, Calif, "Head Fred" Fred Daniel has been defending his good name against charges of boringness and dolt-itude for 23 years. Daniel, 52, founded the society in 1984 by combing the Los Angeles phone book for Freds and sending out a 500-person mailing. There are 5,000 Freds in the organization now, but Daniel must fight for every member. "Unfortunately, Fred has fast fallen out of favor," he laments. From 1885 to 1896, it was the 15th-most-popular boy's baby name. But the last time Fred appeared in the top 1,000 was 2002.
It's a natural cycle. Onomasticians know that names reach points of saturation, points where every Tom, Dick and Harry is named Fred. Parents want baby names that feel unique yet familiar. So once 20- and 30-somethings forget that monikers like Emily and Jacob (the top boy and girl names for 2006) have actually been around for centuries, they start to use them again.
The Fred Society is attempting to speed up the rebirth of Fred with aggressive campaigning: bumper stickers reading "Name your next baby Fred," coffee mugs that are "Built Fred Tough," postcards from Fredhenge and Freddywood.
Fred Thompson is good for the cause. "We at the Fred Society are overjoyed that he might be running for president, because he'll skyrocket the name," says Daniel. He quickly adds, "That's not an endorsement, though. We can't afford to alienate one single Fred -- Democrat or Republican."
And as a fellow Fred, can Daniel understand Thompson's overwhelming appeal?
"I can see how he would make some women's and men's hearts go boom-boom, just like the opening of 'Law and Order.' "
* * *
Fred.
We are trying to understand.
We are willing to admit that that some people find Fred Thompson, yes, sexy.
But we still cannot understand what that means.
What does it signify that we, as a country, are choosing to deem yummy a guy named Fred?
Motivational speaker Mark Sanborn has a theory about that. Sanborn is the author of 2004's "The Fred Factor" (not to be confused with the same-titled Fred Thompson bio released this May). Sanborn's Fred is a mailman from Denver who delights in performing his unheralded job well. Sanborn wrote "The Fred Factor" to extol the pleasures of hard work, which he says the name represents.
"It's the quintessential American name," he says. "It might be dated, but the time we date it back to, the 1950s, was a very bucolic one. Middle-class success, a rising standard of living. Working hard was all you needed to succeed."
Maybe that's it.
The love of Fred Thompson is like the comfort food renaissance -- a longing for green bean casserole. If the name Fred were popular now, we wouldn't be able to long for it. Because it would be here already. But it's not, so we do, and ordinary "Fred" seems as exotic as Mick Jagger.
Fred Thompson is not ugly-sexy. He's stodgy-sexy. He is that onomastic combo of unique yet familiar. We once had Freds. We want them back.
Will that be enough to win him the nomination? We can't say. Daniel, that hopeful proponent of all things Fred, only knows this: "We haven't seen anything like him since Fred Astaire. "
Source Washington Post Article- Click Here
It would be difficult to count how many people have been insulted in this article- people from the south and people who like green bean salad just to name two. This is what anti-Republicanism and anti-conservatism has been reduced to. Playground name calling. Name calling without any apparent concern about the bigoted overtones and hate filled assertions about people based solely on a name.
This gem from a woman named "Monica". Monica. "Mon-ick-uh." Just imagine the tables being turned and a Republican or conservative took a close look at the name "Monica". Let your own mind run rampant on that one, I don't need to be the one to start that discussion.
Amazing. This is what modern punditry and politics have come to. "Insult and defame as many people as you need to, just do as much personal damage to the candidate as you can....."
Here, for your viewing, is the article I call the "hateful little gem of bigotry". I have reserved room in my blog here at the end for my own little comment about names.
Fred, Fred, Fred: Thompson's Challenge Has a Name
By Monica Hesse
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 12, 2007; D01
In the swampy soup of hopefuls for the 2008 presidential election, there is a man with a funny name. (No, not that one.)
We're thinking of the one named Fred (Thompson).
Say it out loud. Do it. Fred. Fred. In the South, Fray-ud.
Fur-red-duh.
It has the tonal quality of something being dropped on the floor, something heavy and damp-ish.
Waterlogged paper towel.
Fred.
The phonetics of the name seem integral to its image problem: On Urbandictionary.com, a "Fred" is defined as "a person who does stupid, annoying, or idiotic things" (Fred Flintstone, Fred Mertz). The best-case descriptors a Fred can hope for are terms like well-intentioned, predictable, benign Fred Rogers.
There has never before been a major presidential candidate named Fred. There were two Alfreds, in 1928 and 1936. But Alfred, being all British and Batman-y, is not the same.
Then, out of almost nowhere, came Thompson, who is transcending the notion of Fred.
Recent media accounts of the guy (who has not yet officially announced his candidacy) would have us believe that being a Fred means Law and Orderly sex-in-a-suit, a name exuding such flypaper pheromones that people find themselves helplessly drawn in. Chris Matthews dedicated three minutes of a recent "Hardball" to exploring Thompson's sex appeal. London's Sunday Times last month interviewed a bevy of his ex-girlfriends, all of whom have drunk the Fred-Aid: "He's majestic," said country singer/Fredophile Lorrie Morgan. "Women love a soft place to lay and a strong pair of hands to hold us."
Fred?
Why? Is there something about the craggy actor we're not getting? Maybe he's ugly-sexy, like Mick Jagger?
Or maybe the name Fred is etymologically close to obviously sexy names like Dirk, Clint, James?
Grant Smith is an onomastician at Eastern Washington University in Cheney, who studies the branch of linguistics dedicated to proper names. He specializes in dissecting the monikers of political candidates and says he has a 65 percent success rate of predicting elections, based solely on name analysis. Not entirely convincing, but those odds would play in Vegas. "The name Fred is basic and homey," says Smith. "It should give people a reassuring image."
But is it, Dr. Smith, a sexy name?
Silence.
"I would not say that. The name Fred does not suggest blatant sexuality at all."
Thompson is a strong name, he says. Thompson is a name with natural trochaic rhythm, which replicates a heartbeat and thus starts building appeal in the womb. "Does he ever go by Frederick?" Smith asks hopefully. FRED-erick THOMP-son would be a winning combination.
But he doesn't. He goes by Fred. Going by Fred, he still has amassed a clan of pitter-patter, all-a flutter followers.
* * *
At the Fredquarters of the Fred Society in Palm Springs, Calif, "Head Fred" Fred Daniel has been defending his good name against charges of boringness and dolt-itude for 23 years. Daniel, 52, founded the society in 1984 by combing the Los Angeles phone book for Freds and sending out a 500-person mailing. There are 5,000 Freds in the organization now, but Daniel must fight for every member. "Unfortunately, Fred has fast fallen out of favor," he laments. From 1885 to 1896, it was the 15th-most-popular boy's baby name. But the last time Fred appeared in the top 1,000 was 2002.
It's a natural cycle. Onomasticians know that names reach points of saturation, points where every Tom, Dick and Harry is named Fred. Parents want baby names that feel unique yet familiar. So once 20- and 30-somethings forget that monikers like Emily and Jacob (the top boy and girl names for 2006) have actually been around for centuries, they start to use them again.
The Fred Society is attempting to speed up the rebirth of Fred with aggressive campaigning: bumper stickers reading "Name your next baby Fred," coffee mugs that are "Built Fred Tough," postcards from Fredhenge and Freddywood.
Fred Thompson is good for the cause. "We at the Fred Society are overjoyed that he might be running for president, because he'll skyrocket the name," says Daniel. He quickly adds, "That's not an endorsement, though. We can't afford to alienate one single Fred -- Democrat or Republican."
And as a fellow Fred, can Daniel understand Thompson's overwhelming appeal?
"I can see how he would make some women's and men's hearts go boom-boom, just like the opening of 'Law and Order.' "
* * *
Fred.
We are trying to understand.
We are willing to admit that that some people find Fred Thompson, yes, sexy.
But we still cannot understand what that means.
What does it signify that we, as a country, are choosing to deem yummy a guy named Fred?
Motivational speaker Mark Sanborn has a theory about that. Sanborn is the author of 2004's "The Fred Factor" (not to be confused with the same-titled Fred Thompson bio released this May). Sanborn's Fred is a mailman from Denver who delights in performing his unheralded job well. Sanborn wrote "The Fred Factor" to extol the pleasures of hard work, which he says the name represents.
"It's the quintessential American name," he says. "It might be dated, but the time we date it back to, the 1950s, was a very bucolic one. Middle-class success, a rising standard of living. Working hard was all you needed to succeed."
Maybe that's it.
The love of Fred Thompson is like the comfort food renaissance -- a longing for green bean casserole. If the name Fred were popular now, we wouldn't be able to long for it. Because it would be here already. But it's not, so we do, and ordinary "Fred" seems as exotic as Mick Jagger.
Fred Thompson is not ugly-sexy. He's stodgy-sexy. He is that onomastic combo of unique yet familiar. We once had Freds. We want them back.
Will that be enough to win him the nomination? We can't say. Daniel, that hopeful proponent of all things Fred, only knows this: "We haven't seen anything like him since Fred Astaire. "
Source Washington Post Article- Click Here
It would be difficult to count how many people have been insulted in this article- people from the south and people who like green bean salad just to name two. This is what anti-Republicanism and anti-conservatism has been reduced to. Playground name calling. Name calling without any apparent concern about the bigoted overtones and hate filled assertions about people based solely on a name.
This gem from a woman named "Monica". Monica. "Mon-ick-uh." Just imagine the tables being turned and a Republican or conservative took a close look at the name "Monica". Let your own mind run rampant on that one, I don't need to be the one to start that discussion.
Amazing. This is what modern punditry and politics have come to. "Insult and defame as many people as you need to, just do as much personal damage to the candidate as you can....."
Labels: bias, campaign, Clinton, Democrat Party, Democrats, Fred, Fred Thompson, Liberals, media, media bias, name calling, Thompson, Washington Post
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Obama Announces Willingness to go to War- Against an Ally!: Barak Obama seems to have darted to the right in order to get the "let's go to war" vote with his announcement of his willingness to invade Pakistan- a U.S. ally. You read it right. Democrat Barak Obama announced that if President Musharraf of Pakistan didn't follow his (Obama's) orders, he (Obama) would be perfectly willing to invade the country to see his (Obama's) will done.
A couple points:
1. It's so early in the campaign we probably can't fault the U.S. Senator for being unfamiliar with diplomacy, foreign affairs, declaration of war, invasion of soveriegn allies, or consultation with the U.S. Congress.
2. It's also probably too early to expect the U.S. Senator to understand the ramifications of a jihadist government led by Ayaman al-Zawahiri- al-Qaeda's number two in command- taking control of Pakistan, Pakistan's military, and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
You don't need to believe me on this one, here's the source:
Obama might send troops into Pakistan
By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press WriterWed Aug 1, 8:22 AM ET
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.
Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.
Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."
The speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, 2001, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa
(Source Link: Obama Might Send Troops Into Pakistan)
A couple points:
1. It's so early in the campaign we probably can't fault the U.S. Senator for being unfamiliar with diplomacy, foreign affairs, declaration of war, invasion of soveriegn allies, or consultation with the U.S. Congress.
2. It's also probably too early to expect the U.S. Senator to understand the ramifications of a jihadist government led by Ayaman al-Zawahiri- al-Qaeda's number two in command- taking control of Pakistan, Pakistan's military, and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
You don't need to believe me on this one, here's the source:
Obama might send troops into Pakistan
By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press WriterWed Aug 1, 8:22 AM ET
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.
Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.
Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."
The speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, 2001, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa
(Source Link: Obama Might Send Troops Into Pakistan)
Labels: Barak, Barak Obama, bin Laden, Clinton, Democrat Party, Democrats, Musharraf, Obama, Pakistan, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror, Zawahiri
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
More Lies Spew Forth From Joe Wilson: Notorious liar and disgraced former Ambassador Joe Wilson is still perpetuating the myth (lie) that The White House and Scooter Libby were somehow involved in "outting" his wife Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. Again, more lies from the man whose lies have intruded into foreign policy and now into personal destruction.
For the record and to correct the latest Wilson Lie, Scooter Libby WAS NOT CHARGED WITH LEAKING THE NAME OF HIS WIFE TO ROBERT NOVAK! Richard Armitage did it. But the Armitage leak occured long after Liar and Disgraced Former Ambassador Joe Wilson and wife Valerie provided her name and affiliation for publication in a Washington Whose Who magazine.
For the record and to further correct the latest Wilson Lie, Special Counsel Fitzgerald DID NOT CHARGE ANYONE WITH LEAKING THE NAME OF HIS WIFE TO ROBERT NOVAK! He was either unable to prove the underlying charge or determined she did not meet the requirements to qualify for the "covert" status spelled out in the law. If she did qualify, and if there was an underlying violation of the law RICHARD ARMITAGE committed the crime.
RICHARD ARMITAGE INFORMED SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD IN THE OPEN DAYS OF HIS INVESTIGATION THAT IT WAS HE, ARMITAGE, THAT GAVE LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADR JOE WILSON'S WIFE'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK.
The facts are there and are public. The proof that the LIAR IS JOE WILSON is there for the viewing. Isn't it interesting that Reid, Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton have hitched their wagons to the LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON! Much as they might like, they cannot change the information I've provided in this post!
This post is to remind everyone that the actual liar in the matter is now, and has always been LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON who, by the way, is still trying to make money off his wife's CIA career.
For the record and to correct the latest Wilson Lie, Scooter Libby WAS NOT CHARGED WITH LEAKING THE NAME OF HIS WIFE TO ROBERT NOVAK! Richard Armitage did it. But the Armitage leak occured long after Liar and Disgraced Former Ambassador Joe Wilson and wife Valerie provided her name and affiliation for publication in a Washington Whose Who magazine.
For the record and to further correct the latest Wilson Lie, Special Counsel Fitzgerald DID NOT CHARGE ANYONE WITH LEAKING THE NAME OF HIS WIFE TO ROBERT NOVAK! He was either unable to prove the underlying charge or determined she did not meet the requirements to qualify for the "covert" status spelled out in the law. If she did qualify, and if there was an underlying violation of the law RICHARD ARMITAGE committed the crime.
RICHARD ARMITAGE INFORMED SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD IN THE OPEN DAYS OF HIS INVESTIGATION THAT IT WAS HE, ARMITAGE, THAT GAVE LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADR JOE WILSON'S WIFE'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK.
The facts are there and are public. The proof that the LIAR IS JOE WILSON is there for the viewing. Isn't it interesting that Reid, Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton have hitched their wagons to the LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON! Much as they might like, they cannot change the information I've provided in this post!
This post is to remind everyone that the actual liar in the matter is now, and has always been LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON who, by the way, is still trying to make money off his wife's CIA career.
Labels: Bush, Cheney, Clinton, commute, Libby, Obama, Pardon, Pelosi, Plame, Reid, Scooter, Wilson
President Bush Commutes Scooter Libby's Jail Term: President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentences and the reactions have been utterly predictable.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats are apoplectic over the commutation ridiculously charging that this turns The Constitution on it's head. Which is weird because it's The Constitution that grants President Bush the unquestioned authority to commute the sentence.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats, particularly Hillary, seem to have a short or non-existent memory on the issue of pardon's. I seem to remember a dust up when Bill Clinton issued a truck full of pardon's for people with extremely dubious characters. There were obvious ties between the pardons of some and their generous campaign contributions to the Clinton Campaign.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Scooter Libby should continue to clear his name through the court system and I fully expect he will. But, since the underlying crime was never proven, and since the actual leaker was never charged in the matter, I hope that President Bush follows through on this action in January of 2009 and grants the full pardon to Scooter Libby if his continued appeals fail.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
I know this will be a hard issue for the Democrat Party to swallow. They never accepted the fact that if Bill Clinton can fire all 90-some Federal Prosecutors (one of which was investigating Bill Clinton in Arkansas), then President Bush is fully allowed to fire eight, two of which had already announced their own decisions to leave. So I'm sure in the face of Bill Clinton's January 2001 "pardon fest", they'll also explode in hypocrisy over the communtation of Mr. Libby's jail term.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats so far have also predictably ignored the fact that President Bush has, so far, left the guilty verdict, the fine, and the probation in tact. This is standard fare for the Democrat Party. Distort a situation - be it federal prosecutors or the Libby communtation - let the liberal leaning media run with it and continue the distortion, and next will be the equally predictable attack on Fox News for presenting the entire story with all the facts.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
It's almost sad. This is what the Democrat Party- the party of FDR, Harry Truman and John Kennedy- is reduced to. With no new issues and no platform to present and actually run on, they are reduced to class warfare and obfuscation in hopes of confusing the voters and convincing us to vote against some perceived failing of the conservative ideology. Their last big idea was the project to land a man on the moon and bring him safely home. That would be what- 45 years ago? Very sad.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
As we watch the hysteria build and the hyperbole spin out of control over the Libby communtation, let's keep one fact up in mind:
RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats are apoplectic over the commutation ridiculously charging that this turns The Constitution on it's head. Which is weird because it's The Constitution that grants President Bush the unquestioned authority to commute the sentence.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats, particularly Hillary, seem to have a short or non-existent memory on the issue of pardon's. I seem to remember a dust up when Bill Clinton issued a truck full of pardon's for people with extremely dubious characters. There were obvious ties between the pardons of some and their generous campaign contributions to the Clinton Campaign.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Scooter Libby should continue to clear his name through the court system and I fully expect he will. But, since the underlying crime was never proven, and since the actual leaker was never charged in the matter, I hope that President Bush follows through on this action in January of 2009 and grants the full pardon to Scooter Libby if his continued appeals fail.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
I know this will be a hard issue for the Democrat Party to swallow. They never accepted the fact that if Bill Clinton can fire all 90-some Federal Prosecutors (one of which was investigating Bill Clinton in Arkansas), then President Bush is fully allowed to fire eight, two of which had already announced their own decisions to leave. So I'm sure in the face of Bill Clinton's January 2001 "pardon fest", they'll also explode in hypocrisy over the communtation of Mr. Libby's jail term.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats so far have also predictably ignored the fact that President Bush has, so far, left the guilty verdict, the fine, and the probation in tact. This is standard fare for the Democrat Party. Distort a situation - be it federal prosecutors or the Libby communtation - let the liberal leaning media run with it and continue the distortion, and next will be the equally predictable attack on Fox News for presenting the entire story with all the facts.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
It's almost sad. This is what the Democrat Party- the party of FDR, Harry Truman and John Kennedy- is reduced to. With no new issues and no platform to present and actually run on, they are reduced to class warfare and obfuscation in hopes of confusing the voters and convincing us to vote against some perceived failing of the conservative ideology. Their last big idea was the project to land a man on the moon and bring him safely home. That would be what- 45 years ago? Very sad.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
As we watch the hysteria build and the hyperbole spin out of control over the Libby communtation, let's keep one fact up in mind:
RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED
Labels: Armitage, Bush, Cheney, Clinton, commute, Democrats, Fitzgerald, Jail, Libby, Mark Rich, Novak, Pardon, Scooter, sentence
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Democrat Congress- Approval Plunge Continues: All those who continue to believe the "country has turned anti-war" should take note of the latest Gallup Poll that shows the Congressional approval ratings continuing their plunge. Congressional approval is now below that of George W. Bush. The only thing Congress has done over the last several weeks has been to delay funding the troops in the field.
Source Link: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589
And the article:
May 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages
by Joseph Carroll
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.
Congressional Job Approval
According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Congressional approval is down 4 percentage points since last month, and is 3 points lower than the 32% average measured during the first five months of the year. The high point for the congressional approval rating so far this year was the 37% approval measured in February. Although ratings are quite low, Americans have been more positive in their assessments of Congress this year than last year, when an average of just 25% approved of Congress.
Even though Democrats now control both houses of Congress, the poll shows that only 37% of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing right now. These marks are, however, significantly better than those given to Congress by independents (24%) and Republicans (25%). Democrats have been more likely than Republicans to approve of Congress this year, whereas Republicans expressed a higher level of approval prior to the change of power experienced after the midterm congressional elections in November 2006.
So far this year, Republicans' approval of Congress has gradually declined, from a high of 37% in mid-January to 25% in the latest poll. By comparison, ratings among Democrats have shown more fluctuation, ranging between 33% and 44% since January, and are down 6 points this month since early April. More generally, Democrats' ratings of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing are down from a higher point of 44% in February, which is just after the control of Congress switched from the Republicans to the Democrats.
Presidential Job Approval
There has been little meaningful change in the public's rating of the president in quite some time. Thirty-three percent of Americans now approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president, while 62% disapprove. Bush's approval ratings have averaged 35% in 2007, and have fallen within a narrow range between 32% and 38%. Bush's ratings were slightly higher last year, averaging 38%. Bush has not received an approval rating above 40% in any Gallup polling since September 2006.
Republicans continue to be much more likely than independents or Democrats to support the president. Seventy-three percent of Republicans approve of Bush, substantially higher than the 27% approval among independents and the 9% approval among Democrats. Although the three party groups' ratings of Bush's job approval have been quite stable in recent months, since last May presidential approval ratings have shown somewhat more fluctuation among Republicans (ranging between 68% and 86%) than among independents (23% to 36%) or Democrats (4% to 15%).
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 10-13, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Source Link: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589
And the article:
May 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages
by Joseph Carroll
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.
Congressional Job Approval
According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Congressional approval is down 4 percentage points since last month, and is 3 points lower than the 32% average measured during the first five months of the year. The high point for the congressional approval rating so far this year was the 37% approval measured in February. Although ratings are quite low, Americans have been more positive in their assessments of Congress this year than last year, when an average of just 25% approved of Congress.
Even though Democrats now control both houses of Congress, the poll shows that only 37% of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing right now. These marks are, however, significantly better than those given to Congress by independents (24%) and Republicans (25%). Democrats have been more likely than Republicans to approve of Congress this year, whereas Republicans expressed a higher level of approval prior to the change of power experienced after the midterm congressional elections in November 2006.
So far this year, Republicans' approval of Congress has gradually declined, from a high of 37% in mid-January to 25% in the latest poll. By comparison, ratings among Democrats have shown more fluctuation, ranging between 33% and 44% since January, and are down 6 points this month since early April. More generally, Democrats' ratings of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing are down from a higher point of 44% in February, which is just after the control of Congress switched from the Republicans to the Democrats.
Presidential Job Approval
There has been little meaningful change in the public's rating of the president in quite some time. Thirty-three percent of Americans now approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president, while 62% disapprove. Bush's approval ratings have averaged 35% in 2007, and have fallen within a narrow range between 32% and 38%. Bush's ratings were slightly higher last year, averaging 38%. Bush has not received an approval rating above 40% in any Gallup polling since September 2006.
Republicans continue to be much more likely than independents or Democrats to support the president. Seventy-three percent of Republicans approve of Bush, substantially higher than the 27% approval among independents and the 9% approval among Democrats. Although the three party groups' ratings of Bush's job approval have been quite stable in recent months, since last May presidential approval ratings have shown somewhat more fluctuation among Republicans (ranging between 68% and 86%) than among independents (23% to 36%) or Democrats (4% to 15%).
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 10-13, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Labels: approval, Biden, Bush, Clinton, Congress, congressional, Democrats, Funding, Hillary, Hoyer, Iraq, Levin, Murtha, Obama, Pelosi, Poll, ratings, Reid, War
Monday, May 07, 2007
The Return of U.S. Allies: Let's see, Angela Merkel- a pro-America candidate- elected Chancellor of Germany. Nicolas Sarkozy- a pro-America candidate- elected President of France. Seems like our allies are coming home.
Where exactly does that leave the Democrats? I'll tell you. It leaves them with a big gaping hole where their "Bush lost us the respect of our allies" plank used to be in their party platform.
Where exactly does that leave the Democrats? I'll tell you. It leaves them with a big gaping hole where their "Bush lost us the respect of our allies" plank used to be in their party platform.
Labels: Bush, Bush Administration, Clinton, Dean, Democrats, DNC, Hillary, Iraq, Kennedy, Kerry, Levin, Merkel, Murtha, Reid, Sarkozy, War, War on Terror
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Democrat Congressional Agenda- Status Check: Let's take a look at the Democrat Party's agenda in congress and see how effective they are. Oh wait, the Washington Post has done it for me....
Source Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402262_pf.html
Democrats' Momentum Is StallingAmid Iraq Debate, Priorities On Domestic Agenda Languish
By Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey LaytonWashington Post Staff WritersSaturday, May 5, 2007; A01
In the heady opening weeks of the 110th Congress, the Democrats' domestic agenda appeared to be flying through the Capitol: Homeland security upgrades, a higher minimum wage and student loan interest rate cuts all passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
But now that initial progress has foundered as Washington policymakers have been consumed with the debate over the Iraq war. Not a single priority on the Democrats' agenda has been enacted, and some in the party are growing nervous that the "do nothing" tag they slapped on Republicans last year could come back to haunt them.
"We cannot be a one-trick pony," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who helped engineer his party's takeover of Congress as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "People voted for change, but Iraq, the economy and Washington, D.C., [corruption] all tied for first place. We need to do them all."
The "Six for '06" policy agenda on which Democrats campaigned last year was supposed to consist of low-hanging fruit, plucked and put in the basket to allow Congress to move on to tougher targets. House Democrats took just 10 days to pass a minimum-wage increase, a bill to implement most of the homeland security recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, a measure allowing federal funding for stem cell research, another to cut student-loan rates, a bill allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices under Medicare, and a rollback of tax breaks for oil and gas companies to finance alternative-energy research.
The Senate struck out on its own, with a broad overhaul of the rules on lobbying Congress.
Not one of those bills has been signed into law. President Bush signed 16 measures into law through April, six more than were signed by this time in the previous Congress. But beyond a huge domestic spending bill that wrapped up work left undone by Republicans last year, the list of achievements is modest: a beefed-up board to oversee congressional pages in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal, and the renaming of six post offices, including one for Gerald R. Ford in Vail, Colo., as well as two courthouses, including one for Rush Limbaugh Sr. in Cape Girardeau, Mo.
The minimum-wage bill got stalled in a fight with the Senate over tax breaks to go along with the wage increase. In frustration, Democratic leaders inserted a minimum-wage agreement into a bill to fund the Iraq war, only to see it vetoed.
Similar homeland security bills were passed by the House and the Senate, only to languish as attention shifted to the Iraq debate. Last week, family members of those killed on Sept. 11, 2001, gathered in Washington to demand action.
"We've waited five and a half years since 9/11," said Carie Lemack, whose mother died aboard one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. "We waited three years since the 9/11 commission. We can't wait anymore."
House and Senate staff members have begun meeting, with the goal of reporting out a final bill by Memorial Day, but they concede that the deadline is likely to slip, in part because members of the homeland security committees of both chambers, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the two intelligence committees all want their say. The irony, Lemack said, is that such cumbersomeness is precisely why the Sept. 11 commission recommended the creation of powerful umbrella security committees with such broad jurisdiction that other panels could not muscle their way in. That was one recommendation Congress largely disregarded.
The Medicare drug-negotiations bill died in the Senate, after Republicans refused to let it come up for debate. House Democrats are threatening to attach the bill to must-pass government funding bills.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, has proposed his own student-loan legislation, but it is to be part of a huge higher-education bill that may not reach the committee until June.
The House's relatively simple energy bill faces a similar fate. The Senate has in mind a much larger bill that would ease bringing alternative fuels to market, regulate oil and gas futures trading, raise vehicle and appliance efficiency standards, and reform federal royalty payments to finance new energy technologies.
The voters seem to have noticed the stall. An ABC News-Washington Post poll last month found that 73 percent of Americans believe Congress has done "not too much" or "nothing at all." A memo from the Democratic polling firm Democracy Corps warned last month that the stalemate between Congress and Bush over the war spending bill has knocked down the favorable ratings of Congress and the Democrats by three percentage points and has taken a greater toll on the public's hope for a productive Congress.
"The primary message coming out of the November election was that the American people are sick and tired of the fighting and the gridlock, and they want both the president and Congress to start governing the country," warned Leon E. Panetta, a chief of staff in Bill Clinton's White House. "It just seems to me the Democrats, if they fail for whatever reason to get a domestic agenda enacted . . . will pay a price."
Republicans are already trying to extract that price. Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said Democrats are just "trying to score political points on the war. . . . Part of their party can't conceive of anything else to talk about but the war."
Norman J. Ornstein, a Congress watcher at the American Enterprise Institute, said a Congress's productivity is not measured solely on the number of bills signed into law. Bills and resolutions approved by either chamber totaled 165 during the first four months of this Congress, compared with 72 in 2005. And Congress recorded 415 roll-call votes, compared with 264 when Republicans were in charge and the House GOP leaders struggled to impose their agenda on a closely divided Senate.
Democratic leaders remain hopeful that a burst of activity will put the doubts about them to rest. They have promised to pass a war funding bill and a minimum-wage increase that Bush can sign, to complete a budget blueprint and to finish the homeland security bill by Memorial Day. The House wants to pass defense and intelligence bills, its own lobbying measure and the first gun-control legislation since 1994, which would tighten the national instant-check system for gun purchases. The Senate hopes to complete a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee, said his party needs to get some achievements under its belt, but not until voters begin to focus on the campaigns next year. "People understand the Democrats in Congress are doing everything in their power to move an agenda forward, doing everything possible to change direction in the war in Iraq, and the president is standing in the way," he said.
Kyl was not so sanguine. If accomplishments are not in the books by this fall, he said, the Democrats will find their achievements eclipsed by the 2008 presidential race. Panetta agreed.
"This leadership, these Democrats have shown that they can fight," he said. "Now they have to show they can govern."
Source Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402262_pf.html
Democrats' Momentum Is StallingAmid Iraq Debate, Priorities On Domestic Agenda Languish
By Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey LaytonWashington Post Staff WritersSaturday, May 5, 2007; A01
In the heady opening weeks of the 110th Congress, the Democrats' domestic agenda appeared to be flying through the Capitol: Homeland security upgrades, a higher minimum wage and student loan interest rate cuts all passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
But now that initial progress has foundered as Washington policymakers have been consumed with the debate over the Iraq war. Not a single priority on the Democrats' agenda has been enacted, and some in the party are growing nervous that the "do nothing" tag they slapped on Republicans last year could come back to haunt them.
"We cannot be a one-trick pony," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who helped engineer his party's takeover of Congress as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "People voted for change, but Iraq, the economy and Washington, D.C., [corruption] all tied for first place. We need to do them all."
The "Six for '06" policy agenda on which Democrats campaigned last year was supposed to consist of low-hanging fruit, plucked and put in the basket to allow Congress to move on to tougher targets. House Democrats took just 10 days to pass a minimum-wage increase, a bill to implement most of the homeland security recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, a measure allowing federal funding for stem cell research, another to cut student-loan rates, a bill allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices under Medicare, and a rollback of tax breaks for oil and gas companies to finance alternative-energy research.
The Senate struck out on its own, with a broad overhaul of the rules on lobbying Congress.
Not one of those bills has been signed into law. President Bush signed 16 measures into law through April, six more than were signed by this time in the previous Congress. But beyond a huge domestic spending bill that wrapped up work left undone by Republicans last year, the list of achievements is modest: a beefed-up board to oversee congressional pages in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal, and the renaming of six post offices, including one for Gerald R. Ford in Vail, Colo., as well as two courthouses, including one for Rush Limbaugh Sr. in Cape Girardeau, Mo.
The minimum-wage bill got stalled in a fight with the Senate over tax breaks to go along with the wage increase. In frustration, Democratic leaders inserted a minimum-wage agreement into a bill to fund the Iraq war, only to see it vetoed.
Similar homeland security bills were passed by the House and the Senate, only to languish as attention shifted to the Iraq debate. Last week, family members of those killed on Sept. 11, 2001, gathered in Washington to demand action.
"We've waited five and a half years since 9/11," said Carie Lemack, whose mother died aboard one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. "We waited three years since the 9/11 commission. We can't wait anymore."
House and Senate staff members have begun meeting, with the goal of reporting out a final bill by Memorial Day, but they concede that the deadline is likely to slip, in part because members of the homeland security committees of both chambers, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the two intelligence committees all want their say. The irony, Lemack said, is that such cumbersomeness is precisely why the Sept. 11 commission recommended the creation of powerful umbrella security committees with such broad jurisdiction that other panels could not muscle their way in. That was one recommendation Congress largely disregarded.
The Medicare drug-negotiations bill died in the Senate, after Republicans refused to let it come up for debate. House Democrats are threatening to attach the bill to must-pass government funding bills.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, has proposed his own student-loan legislation, but it is to be part of a huge higher-education bill that may not reach the committee until June.
The House's relatively simple energy bill faces a similar fate. The Senate has in mind a much larger bill that would ease bringing alternative fuels to market, regulate oil and gas futures trading, raise vehicle and appliance efficiency standards, and reform federal royalty payments to finance new energy technologies.
The voters seem to have noticed the stall. An ABC News-Washington Post poll last month found that 73 percent of Americans believe Congress has done "not too much" or "nothing at all." A memo from the Democratic polling firm Democracy Corps warned last month that the stalemate between Congress and Bush over the war spending bill has knocked down the favorable ratings of Congress and the Democrats by three percentage points and has taken a greater toll on the public's hope for a productive Congress.
"The primary message coming out of the November election was that the American people are sick and tired of the fighting and the gridlock, and they want both the president and Congress to start governing the country," warned Leon E. Panetta, a chief of staff in Bill Clinton's White House. "It just seems to me the Democrats, if they fail for whatever reason to get a domestic agenda enacted . . . will pay a price."
Republicans are already trying to extract that price. Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said Democrats are just "trying to score political points on the war. . . . Part of their party can't conceive of anything else to talk about but the war."
Norman J. Ornstein, a Congress watcher at the American Enterprise Institute, said a Congress's productivity is not measured solely on the number of bills signed into law. Bills and resolutions approved by either chamber totaled 165 during the first four months of this Congress, compared with 72 in 2005. And Congress recorded 415 roll-call votes, compared with 264 when Republicans were in charge and the House GOP leaders struggled to impose their agenda on a closely divided Senate.
Democratic leaders remain hopeful that a burst of activity will put the doubts about them to rest. They have promised to pass a war funding bill and a minimum-wage increase that Bush can sign, to complete a budget blueprint and to finish the homeland security bill by Memorial Day. The House wants to pass defense and intelligence bills, its own lobbying measure and the first gun-control legislation since 1994, which would tighten the national instant-check system for gun purchases. The Senate hopes to complete a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee, said his party needs to get some achievements under its belt, but not until voters begin to focus on the campaigns next year. "People understand the Democrats in Congress are doing everything in their power to move an agenda forward, doing everything possible to change direction in the war in Iraq, and the president is standing in the way," he said.
Kyl was not so sanguine. If accomplishments are not in the books by this fall, he said, the Democrats will find their achievements eclipsed by the 2008 presidential race. Panetta agreed.
"This leadership, these Democrats have shown that they can fight," he said. "Now they have to show they can govern."
Labels: Clinton, Congress, congressional, Democrats, DNC, Edwards, Hillary, Hoyer, Kennedy, Levin, Murtha, Obama, Pelosi, Rahm, Reid, Waxman
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Global Warming- The Carbon Offset Scam:
Next time you hear one of the global warming activists boasting they live a "carbon neutral" life, or are running a "carbon netural" campaign, remember the information in the following article published in the Financial Times:
Source Link: http://www.ft.com:80/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’
By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler in London
Published: April 25 2007 22:07 Last updated: April 25 2007 22:07
Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on "carbon credit" projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.
The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a "green gold rush", which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go "carbon neutral", offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.
The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.
The FT investigation found:
■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.
Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found "serious credibility concerns" in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.
"The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it," he said.
These concerns led the bank to ignore the market and fund its own carbon reduction projects directly.
Some companies are benefiting by asking "green" consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.
The FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets.
Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling "carbon credits" for burying the carbon.
There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial.
BP said it would not buy credits resulting from improvements in industrial efficiency or from most renewable energy projects in developed countries.
Additional reporting by Rebecca Bream
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Next time you hear one of the global warming activists boasting they live a "carbon neutral" life, or are running a "carbon netural" campaign, remember the information in the following article published in the Financial Times:
Source Link: http://www.ft.com:80/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’
By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler in London
Published: April 25 2007 22:07 Last updated: April 25 2007 22:07
Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on "carbon credit" projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.
The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a "green gold rush", which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go "carbon neutral", offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.
The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.
The FT investigation found:
■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.
Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found "serious credibility concerns" in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.
"The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it," he said.
These concerns led the bank to ignore the market and fund its own carbon reduction projects directly.
Some companies are benefiting by asking "green" consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.
The FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets.
Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling "carbon credits" for burying the carbon.
There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial.
BP said it would not buy credits resulting from improvements in industrial efficiency or from most renewable energy projects in developed countries.
Additional reporting by Rebecca Bream
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Labels: candidate, candidates, Carbon, carbon footprint, carbon neutral, Clinton, Crow, Democrats, Edwards, environmentalist, footprint, Global, Gore, green, Hillary, Obama, Offset, Streisand, Warming
Monday, April 23, 2007
Hillary Clinton- Pulling Up The Rug: So, Hillary is worried about what she'd find if she pulls up the rug in the Oval Office? My guess is it would be more of the Rose Law Firm billing records under that carpet. We won't speculate about what she might find on the carpet, although hubby Bill and gal friend Monica can probably identify it......
Labels: Clinton, drawl, Hillary, Lewinsky, Monica, Offfice, Oval, rug, slang, speech
Thursday, March 15, 2007
U.S. Attorney Removal: Let's take a quick check of the score on the firing of U.S. Attorneys:
Bill Clinton - 93
George Bush - 8
Hum, seems like President Bush has some catching up to do!
Bill Clinton - 93
George Bush - 8
Hum, seems like President Bush has some catching up to do!
Labels: attorney, attorneys, Bush, Clinton, Fire, Fired, Gonzales, Hubbell, Reno
