Gee, I heard of Rush Limbaugh way before Obama used his name.

(Dorine)True they aren't going away, but there are a good amount that don't require it, or only require for certain reasons With a few exceptions (and it seems more a geographical thing), the schools on that list are not what are considered to be among the best schools in the country and I'm not just talking Ivy League, I mean the top 100 or so. I see few of themon that list. I support the SATs--they're a leveler. Everybody takes pretty much the same test. And all the good schools look at a lot of things, SATs, high school curriculum and grades, extracurricular, etc.

Are you kidding, Evelyn? Rush has been big for *years*. He was a prominent conservative talk show host when I used to listen to him and that was over 11 yrs ago. Thought you'd like that Facebook quote. My point is everyone and anyone knows who Rush is and what he represents. From his Wiki entry: On August 1, 1988, after achieving success in Sacramento and drawing the attention of a former president of ABC Radio, Edward F. McLaughlin, Limbaugh moved to New York City and began his national radio show. His show debuted just weeks after the Democratic National Convention, and just weeks before the Republican National Convention. Limbaugh's radio home in New York City was the talk-format station WABC-AM, 770 AM, and continues to this day as his flagship station.[4] 1990s The program gained in popularity and moved to stations with larger audiences eventually growing to over 650 radio stations nationwide. When the Republican Party won control of Congress in 1994, one of the first acts by many freshmen (calling themselves the "Dittohead Caucus") was to award Limbaugh the title of "honorary member of Congress" in recognition of his support of their efforts during this period.[11] Humor columnist and journalist Lewis Grossberger acknowledged that Limbaugh had "more listeners than any other talk show host" and described Limbaugh's style as "bouncing between earnest lecturer and political vaudevillian".[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

What I'm trying to say is that Rush L is an entertainer...he is not a 'journalist'..he has a talk *show*.He is not an elected representative of the Republican Party. Any more than Michael Moore was. (Where is he BTW) Did I tar all the Dems with MM comments? Or Jimmy Carter's comments? Or Nancy Pelosi's for that matter. Ignore the guy [Rush], I say. The president has got to quit being so thin-skinned. Incidents like this will come up again. Glimpses were prominent during the primaries. He kept commenting on Sean Hannity. He didn't like cartoonists bring up his big ears. Actually, the interview with Bill O'Reilly went over well. Obama took Bill with a sense of humor. There was a convivial spirit between them. Bill likes the President personally; has said so. Would never make a comment like Rush's. If I was Emmanuel, who has yrs of political experience, I would tell the prez to lay -off... he's bigger than this.

(Mari), I do understand that the parents are responding to what they feel is an unfair situation; I wanted to point out that a lot of school districts are in the same boat. I seem to recall that the college apps allow for differences in high school GPA measurements, though. Yes, colleges are supposed to check that info before they evaluate a college application, but what if they don't? Then our kids in the toughest grading system are penilized. As you feel that the SAT is the leveler/equalizer, I also want the grading system to be equal across the nation. BTW, UVA is one that is considering dropping the SAT's.

The payback is starting: Obama�s Bill Hands ACORN $5.2 Billion Bailout A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud. Most of the money is secreted away under an item in the now $836 billion package titled �Neighborhood Stabilization Programs.� Ordinarily, neighborhood stabilization funds are distributed to local governments. But revised language in the stimulus bill would make the funds available directly to non-profit entities such as ACORN, the low-income housing organization whose pro-Democrat voter-registration activities have been blasted by Republicans. ACORN is cited by some for tipping the scales in the Democrats' favor in November. According to Fox news, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., could appear to be a �payoff� for community groups� partisan political activities in the last election cycle. �It is of great concern to me,� Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., tells Newsmax. �I think our government has stayed strong because we�ve had a two-party system, we have had robust debate, people have felt that it was one man-one vote. They are privileged and grateful that they have that ability to cast that vote. And when something is done to belittle or diminish that, it is of great concern to me.� Regarding ACORN, Blackburn added, �Additional funds going to these organizations that have tried to skew that system, it causes me great concern and I believe that it causes many of my colleagues great concern.� The three-term congressman stopped short of suggesting the �neighborhood stabilization� money is a power grab by Democrats seeking partisan political advantage. But radio talk giant Rush Limbaugh did not. Limbaugh warned his listeners Tuesday: �I�ll tell you what�s going on here: We, ladies & gentlemen, we�re funding Obama and the Democrats� army on the street. We are funding the forces of the Democrat party�s re-election.� Blackburn echoed the concerns of Republican leaders who object that the bloated package lacks the short-term stimulus a cut in payroll or sales taxes would provide. According to Matthew Vadum of the Capitol Research Center, the stimulus package now under consideration includes: $1 billion stashed away in Community Development Block Grant money that ACORN often vies for successfully. $10 million to develop or refurbish low-income housing, a specialty of ACORN�s. $4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Vadum states the current version of the bill would allow nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money. Some $750 million, however, would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN, which is actually an umbrella organization for over 100 progressive organizations. Regarding the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Vadum writes in American Spectator: �Although ACORN operatives usually get their hands on such funds only after they have first passed through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or state and local governments, the new spending bill largely eliminates these dawdling middle men, making it easier to get Uncle Sam's largess directly into the hands of the same people who run ACORN's various vote fraud and extortion rackets. And the legislative package provides these funds without the usual prohibition on using government money for lobbying or political activities.� The charges of partisan political payback appear to be resonating in part due to Obama�s longstanding association with partisan get-out-the-vote operations. He was endorsed by ACORN, and during the campaign paid an ACORN affiliate $832,600 to get-out-the-vote assistance. Early in his career, he led a voter drive for an ACORN-affiliated group called Project Vote. It�s not the first time ACORN has been entangled in a bailout controversy. In September, House Republicans objected that the original $700 billion bailout package included $100 million for ACORN � a tiny fraction of the sums for ACORN now being considered in the stimulus package. � 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Thanks Moon. But naughty, naughty FOX News for delving into the 'belly of the beast'.

Obama�s Bill Hands ACORN $5.2 Billion Bailout If I hadn't read the article carefully, I would have thought that the money was going directly to ACORN as that's what their headline says. It's not. Italics are mine: $1 billion stashed away in Community Development Block Grant money that ACORN often vies for successfully. (So they have to vie for the money, along with others.) $10 million to develop or refurbish low-income housing, a specialty of ACORN�s. (And there are many other such specialists.) $4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Vadum states the current version of the bill would allow nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money. Some $750 million, however, would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN, which is actually an umbrella organization for over 100 progressive organizations. Again, not just them. It's very sloppy, slanted reporting. And you're talking about approx. 1/2 of 1% of the total stimulus amount, to put it into perspective.

(Evelyn) What I'm trying to say is that Rush L is an entertainer...he is not a 'journalist'..he has a talk *show*. Ok, that may be. I'm not sure what classifying him has anything to do with what we've been talking about. Bottom line, he's been a highly influencial force in and for the Republican Party. He's been as much of a propaganda machine for them as Fox News has over the years. That's it, he's none of those things you mentioned...he's a machine mouthpiece. ;-)

(Mari) It's very sloppy, slanted reporting. Consider the source. ;-)

(Evelyn) What I'm trying to say is that Rush L is an entertainer...he is not a 'journalist'..he has a talk *show*. Ok, that may be. I'm not sure what classifying him has anything to do with what we've been talking about. Bottom line, he's been a highly influencial force in and for the Republican Party. He's been as much of a propaganda machine for them as Fox News has over the years. That's it, he's none of those things you mentioned...he's a machine mouthpiece. ;-)

You know, there's a lot of good stuff in the stimulus package. Today I was reading about provisions for people who have lost their jobs during the current downturn through 2009 that would help them pay to continue their medical coverage from their former employer, by subsidizing some of the cost. Otherwise, many of these people--working folks with families--would go without health insurance. Another provision would potentially help people like me who--like 80% of other Americans who will not get retiree medical benefits from their company when they retire--would be permitted to continue the coverage under COBRA until they're Medicare eligible. That would help a whole lot of working people. The critics would throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Mari, I only see one way to get it done and that's national healthcare. If the Gov. starts with a little bathwater here and a little there, the baby will shrivel up in all that bathwater. ;-) (Dorine), Consider the source. ;-) ROTF! Just keeping it real. I love playing advocat du diable.

LOL, I didn't mean you! I meant Newsmax.

(Dorine)Bottom line, he's been a highly influencial force in and for the Republican Party. Well, that's *your* bottom line. Not mine And if such, he's been recently elevated as such. Do you really think all the Republican congressmen who voted nay for this sad bill all listened to Rush before they voted? (Mari)Today I was reading about provisions for people who have lost their jobs during the current downturn through 2009 that would help them pay to continue their medical coverage from their former employer, by subsidizing some of the cost. Otherwise, many of these people--working folks with families--would go without health insurance Mari, I agree, all the provision are v. noble. I'm all in favor of /comunity development /social programs. But why don't they make this two bills: First a bonfide stimulus package to create jobs.Let's do the infrastucture, tax assistance (payroll!) Next one: to alleviate the ills of the country.

And since Paul Krugman is often quoted on this topic. I want to quote another economist from the Washington Post today: Martin Feldstein An $800 Billion Mistake By Martin Feldstein Thursday, January 29, 2009; A19 As a conservative economist, I might be expected to oppose a stimulus plan. In fact, on this page in October, I declared my support for a stimulus. But the fiscal package now before Congress needs to be thoroughly revised. In its current form, it does too little to raise national spending and employment. It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a month, or even two, if that's what it takes to produce a much better bill. We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake. Start with the tax side. The plan is to give a tax cut of $500 a year for two years to each employed person. That's not a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience shows that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is largely saved or used to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent of last year's tax rebates led to additional spending. The proposed business tax cuts are also likely to do little to increase business investment and employment. The extended loss "carrybacks" are primarily lump-sum payments to selected companies. The bonus depreciation plan would do little to raise capital spending in the current environment of weak demand because the tax benefits in the early years would be recaptured later. Instead, the tax changes should focus on providing incentives to households and businesses to increase current spending. Why not a temporary refundable tax credit to households that purchase cars or other major consumer durables, analogous to the investment tax credit for businesses? Or a temporary tax credit for home improvements? In that way, the same total tax reduction could produce much more spending and employment. Postponing the scheduled increase in the tax on dividends and capital gains would raise share prices, leading to increased consumer spending and, by lowering the cost of capital, more business investment. On the spending side, the stimulus package is full of well-intended items that, unfortunately, are not likely to do much for employment. Computerizing the medical records of every American over the next five years is desirable, but it is not a cost-effective way to create jobs. Has anyone gone through the (long) list of proposed appropriations and asked how many jobs each would create per dollar of increased national debt? The largest proposed outlays amount to just writing unrestricted checks to state governments. Nearly $100 billion would result from increasing the "Medicaid matching rate," a technique for reducing states' Medicaid costs to free up state money for spending on anything governors and state legislators want. An additional $80 billion would be given out for "state fiscal relief." Will these vast sums actually lead to additional spending, or will they merely finance state transfer payments or relieve state governments of the need for temporary tax hikes or bond issues? The plan to finance health insurance premiums for the unemployed would actually increase unemployment by giving employers an incentive to lay off workers rather than pay health premiums during a time of weak demand. And this supposedly two-year program would create a precedent that could be hard to reverse. A large fraction of the stimulus proposal is devoted to infrastructure projects that will spend out very slowly, not with the speed needed to help the economy in 2009 and 2010. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that less than one-fifth of the $50 billion of proposed spending on energy and water would occur by the end of 2010. If rapid spending on things that need to be done is a criterion of choice, the plan should include higher defense outlays, including replacing and repairing supplies and equipment, needed after five years of fighting. The military can increase its level of procurement very rapidly. Yet the proposed spending plan includes less than $5 billion for defense, only about one-half of 1 percent of the total package. Infrastructure spending on domestic military bases can also proceed more rapidly than infrastructure spending in the civilian economy. And military procurement overwhelmingly involves American-made products. Since much of this military spending will have to be done eventually, it makes sense to do it now, when there is substantial excess capacity in the manufacturing sector. In addition, a temporary increase in military recruiting and training would reduce unemployment directly, create a more skilled civilian workforce and expand the military reserves. All new spending and tax changes should have explicit time limits that prevent ever-increasing additions to the national debt. Similarly, spending programs should not create political dynamics that will make them hard to end. The problem with the current stimulus plan is not that it is too big but that it delivers too little extra employment and income for such a large fiscal deficit. It is worth taking the time to get it right. The writer, an economics professor at Harvard University, is president emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research. You know, I think President Obama would have written a better bill instead of outsourcing it to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. To his credit, his PR guy said today , this is only the third inning. We have a way to go. I have hopes.

(Evelyn) Well, that's *your* bottom line. Not mine And if such, he's been recently elevated as such. Perhaps for you personally, but otherwise, it just isn't the case. Did you read his whole Wiki page? It's even missing stuff that I can see. Do you really think all the Republican congressmen who voted nay for this sad bill all listened to Rush before they voted? I'm really baffled by your take on this/him. He doesn't function to influence Congress. They use him to influence the public. The same as Fox News.

OBAMA BOOM AT FOXNEWS... RATINGS SOAR... NIGHT OF 1/28/09... VIEWERS... FOXNEWS OREILLY 3,891,000 FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,034,000 FOXNEWS BECK 2,306,000 FOXNEWS SHEP 2,299,000 FOXNEWS GRETA 2,155,000 MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,581,000 CNN COOPER 1,559,000 CNN KING 1,420,000 CNN BLITZER 1,490,000 CNNHN GRACE 1,435,000 MSNBC MADDOW 1,398,000

(WaPo) The plan is to give a tax cut of $500 a year for two years to each employed person. That's not a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience shows that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is largely saved or used to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent of last year's tax rebates led to additional spending. I just read a while ago in the NY Daily News that he doesn't want to give it lump sum for just that reason... On the tax side, the big ticket item is a $500-per-worker ($1,000 per couple) tax cut for two years for anyone making less than $100,000 a year ($200,000 per couple). The government would simply not withhold as much as it does now, leaving workers with an extra $20 a month or so in their paychecks. The theory is that, while workers would stuff the money under the mattress if handed to them in a lump, they'll spend it if it's spread over 24 months in smaller chunks. http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/01/28/2009-01-28_obamas_stimulus_bill_allout_effort_to_pr.html

Computerizing the medical records of every American over the next five years is desirable, but it is not a cost-effective way to create jobs. Granted it's not a public works project, but someone's gotta sell, set-up and train all those hospitals, clinics and MD offices how to use it. If nothing else, it's an important component of health care reform. I'm too tired to think about it anymore tonight.

(WaPo) A large fraction of the stimulus proposal is devoted to infrastructure projects that will spend out very slowly, not with the speed needed to help the economy in 2009 and 2010. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that less than one-fifth of the $50 billion of proposed spending on energy and water would occur by the end of 2010. I don't know, speed may not be a feasible variable. Our resident financial wiz could speak to that better I suppose. The Daily News (or Brookings Institute) take: "The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that about two-thirds of the stimulus money - or $526 billion - will be spent by September 2010, or over the next 20 months. That's almost $1 billion in new spending or tax cuts, every day, for 20 months - and it won't end there. A healthy chunk of cash is reserved for 2011, when many economists say we could still be in a recession." (link in previous post) Also: "And laid-off workers - no matter how high their previous incomes - will qualify for Medicaid under Obama's plan. " I'll reserve judgement on this. Sounds great in theory, but Medicaid money runs out now just on the people who actually do qualify with current rules (including the non-resident aliens). We've been looking at drastic cuts in Medicaid on the state and fed level (and that also begins to affect whether I have a job at some point to a degree), though I understand that some more Medicaid $$ is supposed to be forthcoming in this bill, but didn't realize it would include those with higher incomes. And there's so much fraud to boot. At what point do those with higher incomes become ineligible? If they get other jobs? Bureaucracy now isn't the most efficient in this system. I feel for the workers for the state having to process all the new accounts. I'm very ambivalent on this issue. And the subsidizing 2/3rds of COBRA is a real gift. In relation to the point above, if you have COBRA eligibility, you shouldn't be able to qualify for Medicaid. But as a matter of curiousity, I'm curious which would actually cost the govt more. One would think subsidizing COBRA. I went without COBRA for 2-3 yrs because I couldn't afford it or afford to buy my own insurance through an employer offer while I had a job that didn't pay for it. "Alternatively, if laid-off workers want to pay to maintain their health benefits under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, better known as Cobra, the feds will pay two-thirds of the cost. Now, they pay none"

The plan to finance health insurance premiums for the unemployed would actually increase unemployment by giving employers an incentive to lay off workers rather than pay health premiums during a time of weak demand. Huh? That makes no sense at all. If I'm an employer in dire straits, I'm going to lay you off out of necessity regardless of whether your post-employment medical premiums are subsidized by the government. It's a ridiculous argument. That's not a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience shows that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is largely saved But it's not a lump sum, it's a reduction in the amount withheld from your paycheck. Did this guy even read the bill?

And the subsidizing 2/3rds of COBRA is a real gift. Actually, in a way, it seems to be almost a test start to having nationalized health care. That's an interesting concept I'll have to ponder at a later point.

(Dorine) if you have COBRA eligibility, you shouldn't be able to qualify for Medicaid. Let's leave Medicaid for the poor who need it the most. Not all the stray straphangers. I'm for a separate bill to incorporate the entire wish list.

(Dorine), LOL, I didn't mean you! I meant Newsmax I knew that. If I'm a source, it would not be for politics. ;-))) I say don't wait, start the Health Care revolution now.

Yay! $700B bailout impact tough to assess, auditors say By DANIEL WAGNER, AP Business Writer � 2 hrs 7 mins ago http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/ap_on_bi_ge/gao_bailout_oversight And I'll be curious to see McCain's ideas for his stimulus plan. McCain: Obama needs to consult on stimulus By Steve Holland � Fri Jan 30, 12:41 pm ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090130/pl_nm/us_usa_stimulus_mccain

How exciting! Alaskans brace for Redoubt Volcano eruption By DAN JOLING, Associated Press Writer � Fri Jan 30, 7:32 am ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/ap_on_re_us/alaska_volcano

Martin Feldstein - An $800 Billion Mistake - The writer, an economics professor at Harvard University, is president emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research Economics is soooooooo unscientific and possibly the safest profession on the earth, as no one is ever held accountable. (Feldman) Experience shows that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is largely saved or used to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent of last year's tax rebates led to additional spending. I can't be bothered to check if he made the same argument in prior years when this was put forward by Rs as a means to stimulate spending. Instead, the tax changes should focus on providing incentives to households and businesses to increase current spending. Why not a temporary refundable tax credit to households that purchase cars or other major consumer durables, analogous to the investment tax credit for businesses? Or a temporary tax credit for home improvements? Tax credits for those with money, analogous to giving loans to people who don't need them. Since most people aren't sitting on $30K in cash, ready to plop down on a car, then you're talking about increasing personal debt. Puhleez, don't people have enough of that? For those who click on links, a great "Word" segment on Colbert. Click on the second box for "The Word - The Audacity of Nope" http://www.colbertnation.com/home

Ann Coulter and Evelyn are on the same page. I do think Obama should've completely left off mentioning Rush though. Coulter: Double Standard for Liberal Pundits; Calls Olbermann a '57-Year-Old Woman Trapped in a Man's Body' By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive) January 30, 2009 - 13:25 ET Being an outspoken conservative in the media has proven dicey lately, as the Democrat-controlled Congress and White House are working toward seeing an $819 billion stimulus bill signed into law. According to Ann Coulter, there has been a double standard applied to those outspoken conservatives. Coulter appeared on the Fox News Channel's "America's Newsroom" on Jan. 30 to promote her new book, "Guilty: Liberal �Victims' and Their Assault on America" currently second on The New York Times Bestseller's list in only its second week. "I think it's just another reminder of how the left hates free speech," Coulter said. "It really is strange how they go after speakers like this. I mean, there is no campaign by conservatives to shutdown Keith Olbermann. In fact, I wish more Americans would listen to him - to see the face of the left, the only 57-year-old woman trapped in a man's body to host his own TV show." She also noted the unprecedented use by President Barack Obama of Rush Limbaugh's name to encourage congressional Republicans to vote for the stimulus proposal. "It's revealing, telling, a little bit shocking, that the president has identified this leading practitioner of First Amendment speech and attacking him by name," Coulter said, adding that she hoped President Obama had ulterior motives. "My Machieavellian explanation, that I wish were true, but I don't think is true - is this stimulus bill is so completely insane," Coulter said. "It will be such a disaster that Obama is hoping the Republicans will stop it somehow. And he will gin them up to oppose this stimulus bill, not make it this massive government takeover of every industry in America, because he is not going to be a successful president if this stimulus bill goes through as it's written now. And it looks like it's going to - with a majority Democrat House and Senate." Earlier this month, Obama responded to Limbaugh's opposition to the stimulus and urged GOP members of Congress to ignore the talk show host. That prompted MoveOn.org to launch an advertisement attacking Limbaugh - asking constituents if they "were with Obama or Limbaugh" in support of the stimulus bill awaiting a vote in the U.S. Senate. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/01/30/coulter-double-standard-liberal-pundits-calls-olbermann-57-year-old-woman

LOL at Colbert!!! Classic. Thanks, Karen!

LOL, certainly worth pondering... http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/01/john_boehner_stealing_jobs_fro.html

*snort* " The Obama administration has asked for more time to straighten things out, and the Senate voted unanimously to postpone the deadline for four months. This shows that legislators of good will (Democrat Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas) can work in a bipartisan manner when the issue at hand is every American�s God-given right to television reception. Then the bill moved to the House, where quick action required permission of a two-thirds majority. For once, the Republicans got a chance to make their presence felt, and they instantly sprang into action and refused to allow anybody to do anything. This shows you why Nancy Pelosi always seems a little irritable. How could the Republicans not be worried about this? A disproportionate number of the endangered TV viewers are senior citizens. Bill O�Reilly�s entire audience is in danger!" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/opinion/31collins.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

This article is loosely summarizing both sides of the debate of several issues in D.C. this week. Have highlighted the debate about Rush. "Rush Limbaugh Is the Leader of the Republican Party He sure is: The party has lost its way, and only Rush speaks the truth. He's not just a bomb thrower. Look at this eminently reasonable op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. The new president, so well-known for his unflappability, sure seems irritated by Rush. Obama's always mentioning him. He sure is, alternate version: I couldn't agree more. Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He is both the ideological center and spiritual touchstone of all that the party can and forever will be. Any smart Republican would do well to consult Rush before speaking out against the president. Rush is an extremely powerful man. He is also good-looking. Oh, stop it, he is not: Rush is an entertainer. That's it. The Republican Party just elected Michael Steele, a dynamic African-American, to lead his party. (Forget about the whole scarlet letter thing for a minute.) In the House, Republicans were united in a way they haven't been for ages. Republicans aren't idiots. We know what Obama is up to with the Rush-bashing, and we can get past the cheap trick and sell our ideas to the country on their merits. Plus, is the change-we-can-believe-in president really so rattled that he defines all opposition as coming from the most abrasive member of the opposition? I thought it was George Bush who was always trying to frighten people." http://www.slate.com/id/2210095?nav=wp

Switzerland to consider hosting Guantanamo inmates Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:49pm GMT By Emma Thomasson ZURICH (Reuters) - Switzerland is ready to consider taking in detainees from the U.S. prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba if that helps to shut it down, the Swiss government said on Wednesday. "For Switzerland, the detention of people in Guantanamo is in conflict with international law. Switzerland is ready to consider how it can contribute to the solution of the Guantanamo problem," the government said in a statement. Switzerland said it welcomed the expressed intention of U.S. President Barack Obama to close the prison and would investigate security and legal implications of possibly taking in detainees. Hours after taking office on Tuesday, Obama ordered military prosecutors in the Guantanamo war crimes tribunals to ask for a 120-day halt in all pending cases. The camp is widely seen as a stain on the United States' human rights record under the administration of George W. Bush. European governments, which for years have called for the camp to be closed, are under pressure to help find a home for around 245 remaining detainees. The camp has held more than 750 captives since opening in 2002, most without trial. Under Bush, Washington tried in vain to persuade its allies, in particular in the 27-nation European Union, to take in inmates who cannot go back to their home country and who the United States does not want to accept either. Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU, has historically attracted refugees from trouble spots around the world and is home to international humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross and U.N. refugee agency. But its reputation for tolerance has been threatened by the rise of the right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP), and its campaigns against immigration. The SVP condemned the government overture as giving "free rein for terrorists." Portugal was the first EU state to say it would accept detainees and France has said it is ready to do so as well, but others are less enthusiastic. EU foreign ministers will discuss the issue at a meeting on January 26. EU Justice Commissioner Jacques Barrot welcomed on Wednesday Obama's plans to freeze military trials at Guantanamo. "I am delighted that one of the first actions of President Obama was to turn the page on this sad episode of Guantanamo prison," he said in a statement. "For me, this is very symbolic. In a lawful state, everybody should enjoy the right to defense." (Additional reporting by Marcin Grajewski in Brussels; editing by Elizabeth Piper) http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE50K4K120090121

(Evelyn) Not just jump to the guidelines from The Nation, moveon.org, Dailykos, and the other George Soros' groups from the far left. Have to go back to this discussion as I was rereading.... I'm not sure how you can diss the things you purport not to read. I can diss some of the far right-wing stuff such as RedState.org, Newsmax and FreeRepublic.org...as I actually will read them from time to time myself. And furthermore, I don't read any of the sites above that you reference (except Daily Kos), nor have I ever cited them as I recall, because why??? I don't read those. I don't even know what a George Soros group is. And why do I read Daily Kos? To give me information....succinctly.....from original sources of mainstream media (like Media Matters.org!), and yes, other blogs, who often base their pieces on....wait for it....mainstream media. Do they give their opinions also? Yes. Do they summarize things for me with informaton that is generally coherent, informed and with little to no spin? Yes. And I'll agree or disagree with them. I read places that inform me, not incite me and feel that as a discerning individual, I can gauge which is which. I certainly don't expect agreement on many things here, even among those with like ideology, but I expect an informed debate on both sides. :-))

.from original sources of mainstream media (like Media Matters.org!), It's easier to proofread after it's been posted in bigger type... So before someone gets up in arms...just to clarify as I didn't type that right... I'm not saying that Media Matters is mainstream media, I'm saying they also use mainstream media as the basis of their postings or discuss mainstream media itself, with examples, as in the links I posted quite a number of posts ago.

Some opinion with nods to mainstream media (MM from now on) from Glenn Greenwald at Salon on Guantanamo. Friday Jan. 23, 2009 08:35 EST The newest fear-mongering campaign from the Right and the media (Updated below - Update II - Update III -Update IV - Update V - Updated VI) The latest fear-mongering campaign in the U.S. -- this one devoted to scaring Americans that they will be slaughtered if Guantanamo is closed and Terrorism suspects are brought into the U.S. for real trials -- is now in full swing. [.....] http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/23/al_qaeda/

I was reminded reading the above post, that the abbrev is generally MSM, not MM. And another thing to note that I thought about putting earlier, at least in Daily Kos, and now Glenn Greenwald, if they post something incorrectly, and are flagged about it (as from a NYT writer in GG's case), they will admit they were wrong and correct it.

Ok, last of this tonight... Glenn published the entire email conversation with Scott Shane of the NYT when Scott objected to some stuff GG wrote. I thought Glenn's thoughts on this were pertinent in view of what's been discussed recently: GG: "As for your broader points: I'm always a little baffled when establishment journalists claim there is a "parasitical" relationship between them and bloggers. What that usually means -- though you're somewhat vague about what you mean by it -- is that bloggers, for free, feed off the hard work of journalists. In fact, many bloggers do original research -- "journalism" by any measure -- which establishment journalists frequently use, often without credit. In fact, the piece of mine that you're complaining about has some of that in it, as do many others posts, from me and lots of others bloggers. Additionally, as numerous NYT people will be happy to tell you, a significant strategy for newspapers is to generate online traffic from bloggers. Lots of bloggers -- even just single, stand-alone bloggers -- have readerships comparable in size to mid-sized newspapers. When bloggers of that sort link to your articles, even if it's to say things that you disagree with, that helps to sustain the newspaper business model. The relationship may be parasitical (I actually think it's a lot more complementary than that), but if it is parasitical, it's reciprocally so. Finally, I'm well aware of the distinction between fact reporting and opinion journalism. I don't think that reporters should include opinions in their articles and my criticisms aren't based on the expectation that what reporters write should be grounded in my own views. My criticisms are always grounded in the complaint that relevant facts aren't included, or are distorted, in order to promote a subjective narrative [for instance, my objection today (though it turned out to be inaccurate) [Ed. note - show me *any* right wing blog/MSM/anything, TV or print, that will admit that] was that you failed to include a relevant fact in your article: that there are already numerous terrorists in U.S. prisons]. It's just a cliche -- a defense mechanism -- for reporters to claim condescendingly that those who criticize their work simply don't understand what journalists are supposed to do. I understand what your role is supposed to be. My criticisms are that the role isn't being fulfilled." http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/23/al_qaeda/index1.html

I'm not sure how you can diss the things you purport not to read. I. don't. read. blogs. And you are taking me out of context. I was referring to the President who has to throw the lefties a bone now and then. I don't care what you read ....or don't. Including my posts;-)

And I don't want Guantanamo closed. When humans behave like monsters are they still human? I think not. I believe in human rights is not monster rights.

You know I read all your posts, Evelyn. :-) I read everyone's posts. I don't have to agree, but I read them. (Moon) I believe in human rights is not monster rights. Well, unfortunately, the US became what they condemn in other countries with regards to human rights and it has to stop. You seem to assume that everyone in there should be or deserves to be. Even the former prosecutor from there has said people have been in there for years without anyone really knowing if they've actually done anything wrong. I guess your feeling is that everyone in our prisons are deserving as well, though as we all know, that has turned out not to be the case. Unfortunately some spent many, many years in prison wrongly before that came to light. You know I'm an eye for an eye kind of person as well, Moon. In that regard I believe in the concept of a death penalty for certain crimes, but I will say that anymore it's hard to believe in a system that isn't really working. And for the 5 known terrorists at Guantanamo, who were directly involved in 9/11, let them rot...somewhere. But thanks to overzealousness, it's become a representation of everything the US has always said it was against.

(Dorine), Unfortunately some spent many, many years in prison wrongly before that came to light. Like the two that were released and are now Al-Kaida? You know I'm an eye for an eye kind of person as well, Moon. Good, so we see eye to eye. ;-D IMO, when that system doesn't work is because action wasn't taken swiftly.

We don't know what they did before, if anything at all. Though I was talking about our people not people in Guantanamo.

We don't know what they did before, if anything at all. And according to the former Gitmo prosecutor, neither do they for many of them. And if they don't know, they shouldn't treat them like animals. Or monsters as you put it. That's what trials and evidence is for an apparently the research to get to that point wasn't done on many of them. Have you read about that?

Either way, we'll agree to disagree. ;-D

Treating prisoners like animals? Frankly, Scarlet... Now being a monster... promoting the death of innocents or Jihad in the name of Allah. If they are treated like animals in prison that's already too much consideration. Eye for an eye.

Is a top Dem stirring Daschle trouble? "But Daschle did not inform the Obama transition team of his tax liabilities until weeks after Obama announced Daschle�s nomination. " http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090202/pl_politico/18271 What a pal! Not to tell his boss. Of course he'll sail through...because he's "indispensable". Hiccup #2.

What an idiot.

No, we are for rubber-stamping that behavior.

Oops....Another "hiccup" "She proposed more money to bring an additional 1,000 cases against high-income tax cheats and to boost by 42 percent the audits of corporations that try to dodge taxes" obviously she didn't consider herself a "tax-dodger" Obama's performance czar has tried to improve IRS By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN � Jan 8, 2009 WASHINGTON (AP) � Nancy Killefer, the management consultant chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to make federal agencies work better for the public, has a lot of experience trying to improve the agency taxpayers love to hate, the Internal Revenue Service. The longtime senior partner at the giant global consulting firm McKinsey & Co. has previously worked at the Treasury to modernize the IRS and on a public-private oversight board to push the tax agency to more aggressively pursue corporate and high-income tax cheats. Killefer returns to government to take a new White House job Obama created � chief performance officer � to make federal programs more efficient and more responsive to those they serve and to help eliminate those that don't work. With the 55-year-old mother of two at his side, Obama told a news conference Wednesday that Killefer's goal will be no less than to "restore the American people's confidence in their government, that it's on their side, spending their money wisely to meet their family's needs." Killefer was astute enough not to promise overnight success. "Most of the operational issues that the government faces today have developed over decades and will take time to address," she told the news conference. "But there is an urgency to begin now." Key people who worked with her during when she served as the Clinton administration's assistant treasury secretary for management during 1997-2000 were quick to praise her skills. "She's got a good understanding of how government works and what the challenges are," said John Koskinen, now the conservator trying to overhaul Freddie Mac. As deputy Office of Management and Budget director for management under Clinton, Koskinen worked with her on Treasury Department reforms. Later, he also worked with her to be sure Treasury and IRS computers weren't flummoxed by the new millennium's arrival in 2000. While serving as chief financial officer and chief operating officer for the Treasury and its 160,000 employees, Killefer led a major modernization of the IRS. But even an experienced financial expert like Killefer is susceptible to tax errors: Four years ago, the District of Columbia slapped a $946 tax lien on her home for a few months until she paid back unemployment compensation tax for her personal employees. As he left office, Clinton named Killefer to a five-year term on the IRS Oversight Board, a group of outside experts and internal officials that Congress established after taxpayer mistreatment scandals came to light in the late 1990s. The board was to regularly assess IRS practices and spending for Congress, but as its chairman in 2004, Killefer went further. On behalf of the board, she presented Congress an alternative IRS budget to the one submitted by President George W. Bush. She proposed more money to bring an additional 1,000 cases against high-income tax cheats and to boost by 42 percent the audits of corporations that try to dodge taxes. And she said the extra spending would ensure IRS could continue to answer at least eight of every 10 calls from individuals taxpayers seeking help. "That's encouraging," said Adam Hughes of OMB Watch, a private group that scrutinizes federal management. Her message addressed the trends in IRS enforcement that OMB Watch found disturbing, Hughes said. From a management reform perspective, Hughes was also pleased by the advice Killefer gave Harvard Business School students in 2004. She told the students that consultants need to focus on operational people below the CEO and get to know them as people. "Sit on your hands if you have to, but consulting is 75 percent listening," she said. Hughes said that attitude would help, because federal workers now think top officials don't listen to them and set up irrelevant performance management systems. Killefer arrived at McKinsey in 1979 with a new MBA in finance from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Secretive as a spy agency, McKinsey never divulges its client lists, but Killefer has said she was drawn to consumer and retail industries and has served clients in packaged goods, hotels, restaurants, pharmaceuticals and other businesses. When she returned to McKinsey she shifted her emphasis. She now heads the firm's public sector practice, which in the United States primarily works with the federal government, McKinsey spokeswoman Yolande Daeninck said. Even with that high-powered job, Killefer told the Harvard students she rarely worked weekends and always made time for her family: husband Robert Cumby, who is a Georgetown University economics professor, and a teenage son and daughter. But she could afford an enviable support system: two nannies and an assistant who runs her life when she's on the road. Those personal employees apparently played a role in an embarrassing toe-stub for a former chief financial officer of the Treasury. In 2005, the District of Columbia placed a $946.69 tax lien on her home for unemployment compensation taxes she had failed to pay. Over a year and a half, she had failed to pay $298 in taxes (the rest was interest and penalties), and she cleared up the debt within a few months. "She did make an error having to do with district unemployment tax payment, but it has been corrected," Obama transition spokesman Tommy Vietor said. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gfS4MpLstbt1vSBTODBVsglt8gnQD95IRUC00

What gets me is that these people *knew* when they were nominated that they had evaded taxes and chose not to tell the President. What nerve...how disrespectful . Dashcle should withdraw his name . This is the man who is going to reform our health system??? Lord save us.

He just has.... Daschle withdraws as nominee for HHS secretary http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/daschle_taxes

They both withdrew now. Smart moves.

How dare they embarass the President!

Right! Or themselves for that matter. Though I guess they were past that point. ;-)

Wasn't sure if this would fit on O&E, so I didn't put it there, though I wanted as many people as possible at Drool to see this. I don't know who all reads here, or doesn't OMG, HYS-terical! I was cryin'. You have to move through the pictures as cued in the letter. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/4344890/Virgin-the-worlds-best-passenger-complaint-letter.html

The item on the left looks like polenta over a tomato and oily pesto sauce on top. The other looks like hummus and ? Never would I have thought it was dessert, especially since it was the starter. Odd.

Did you go through the rest? Talk about mystery foods.

Well, this is refreshing.... Obama blames himself for mishandling Daschle AP � 1 hr 27 mins ago WASHINGTON � President Barack Obama is taking responsibility for mistakes in the handling of the tax controversy that led to Tom Daschle's withdrawal as President Barack Obama's nominee to be health and human services secretary, saying: "I screwed up." Full Story� http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/daschle_taxes

Well, this is refreshing.... What...throwing himself on the sword? Dirtbag -Daschle , I say.

What...throwing himself on the sword? Obama?

I think it's refreshing that Obama admitted a mistake so the process can move on. Quite a novel concept from the recent past.

(Dorine)Quite a novel concept from the recent past. I can't recall any tax evaders in the Bush cabinet nominees. But in the not too recent...there was Clinton and Zoe. And as I remember, it was cruel just letting her hang out there . Cut your losses, and move on.

You're missing the point. It's not the tax evaders. Zoe?

Zo� Baird From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Zo� Eliot Baird (born 1952) is an American lawyer. She is the President of the Markle Foundation. The Markle Foundation focuses on how to accelerate the use of information technologies to address critical public needs, particularly in the areas of health and national security. She was Bill Clinton's first unsuccessful nominee for attorney general in 1993. Baird withdrew her name from consideration for the attorney general position when it was learned that she had hired illegal aliens to serve as her chauffeur and nanny, and neglected to pay their social security taxes. She paid $2,900 in fines for the infractions.[1] [my italics] She was general counsel and senior vice president of Aetna (1992 - 1996).[2]. Previously she worked as counselor and staff executive at General Electric Company (1986-1990)and was a partner at the law firm O�Melveny & Myers, Washington, DC (1981-1986). From 1980 till 1981 she was Associate Counsel to President Jimmy Carter. She also worked as Attorney-Advisor at the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, (1979-1980). She earned a B.A. in political science in 1974 and a J.D. in 1977 from the Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley.[2] She clerked to the Honorable Albert C. Wollenberg, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of California (1977-1978). Prior Government Positions: Department of Defense, Technology and Privacy Advisory (TAPAC) Committee (2003 � 2004) (appointed by ...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo%C3%AB_Baird

Cheney Warns of New Attacks Former Vice President Dick Cheney is blasting the fledgling administration of Barack Obama, arguing that its policies dealing with terrorism and international foes are na�ve and dangerous, making it all the more likely that terrorists will succeed in their next attempt at killing Americans, according to a report in Politico. Simply by closing Guantanamo Bay�s detention camp for terrorists, Cheney said, Obama inadvertently will aid enemies eager to make another attack on the United States. Another major attack on this country � perhaps even using biological or nuclear materials � is very likely in the next few years, Cheney said. �I think there�s a high probability of such an attempt,� Cheney said. �Whether or not they can pull it off depends whether or not we keep in place policies that have allowed us to defeat all further attempts, since 9/11, to launch mass-casualty attacks against the United States.� Cheney opined that the inevitable attack will be �a 9/11-type event where the terrorists are armed with something much more dangerous than an airline ticket and a box cutter � a nuclear weapon or a biological agent of some kind� that is set off in an American city. In a wide-ranging interview with Politico, Cheney emphasized the usefulness of the interrogations at Gitmo while lambasting the policies emerging from the new administration. �When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an al-Qaida terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,� Cheney said. Concentrating on the merits of Gitmo, Cheney described it as a first-class operation, noting that one of the painful lessons learned was the penchant for those detainees who were released to return to their terrorist roots. He noted that 61 of the inmates who were released from Guantanamo during the Bush administration had �gone back into the business of being terrorists.� He also characterized the remaining 200 or so remaining detainees as �hard core� cases that were even more likely to be repeat offenders. Releasing the prisoners or ramping up their due process would be unwise, Cheney charged. �The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected. Sometimes, that requires us to take actions that generate controversy. I�m not at all sure that that�s what the Obama administration believes,� he said. Cheney defended the hard-line tactics of the Bush administration as responsible for the safety of the country after 9/11. �If it hadn�t been for what we did � with respect to the terrorist surveillance program, or enhanced interrogation techniques for high-value detainees, the Patriot Act, and so forth � then we would have been attacked again,� he said. �Those policies we put in place, in my opinion, were absolutely crucial to getting us through the last seven-plus years without a major-casualty attack on the U.S.� Protecting the country�s security is �a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,� he said. �These are evil people. And we�re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.� � 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Cheney....that bastion of truth and patriotism.

I know, Dorine. I'm not a fan, but I find truth in what he says on Guantanamo. I'm waiting to see what happens in Iraq after the election results are announced. Democracy is something being forced on those tribal sects. Our Government has to realize it sooner or later.

(Dorine)Cheney....that bastion of truth and patriotism. *I* think so. Voted for him twice. And what's more ,I would vote for him again.

LOL!!! Someone I know sent posted this on his Facebook page a few days ago, but I forgot about it til I just ran across it again elsewhere. http://www.theonion.com/content/news/cheney_dunk_tank_raises_800

(Me) Cheney....that bastion of truth and patriotism. Yes, who can forget these Greatest Hits of Truth and Patriotism.....(though I did off the top of my head rather well until brought to my attention again ;-)). "This from the man who went to war with the people of Iraq after we were attacked by Al Qaeda. This from the man who shot a "friend" in the face -- and then "graciously" accepted his friend's apology."

Oh and I forgot, what can be more patriotic than ordering the outing a spy (and yes, she was covert, working on nuclear arms proliferation in the middle east) and then more truthful by throwing a minion under the bus to take the fall for it all (who did so willingly I'm so sure).

(Moon) I find truth in what he says on Guantanamo. And on the other side of the coin.... Seton Hall Law: Department of Defense Wrong Again on guant�namo �Recidivism� The Seton Hall Center for Policy and Research has issued a report which rebuts and debunks the most recent claim by the Department of Defense (DOD) that �61, in all, former Guant�namo detainees are confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight.� Professor Denbeaux of the Center for Policy & Research has said that the Center has determined that �DOD has issued 'recidivism' numbers 43 times, and each time they have been wrong�this last time the most egregiously so.� Denbeaux stated: �Once again, they�ve failed to identify names, numbers, dates, times, places, or acts upon which their report relies. Every time they have been required to identify the parties, the DOD has been forced to retract their false IDs and their numbers. They have included people who have never even set foot in Guant�namo�much less were they released from there. They have counted people as 'returning to the fight' for their having written an Op-ed piece in the New York Times and for their having appeared in a documentary exhibited at the Cannes Film Festival. The DOD has revised and retracted their internally conflicting definitions, criteria, and their numbers so often that they have ceased to have any meaning�except as an effort to sway public opinion by painting a false portrait of the supposed dangers of these men. "Forty-three times they have given numbers�which conflict with each other�all of which are seriously undercut by the DOD statement that 'they do not track' former detainees. Rather than making up numbers �willy-nilly� about post release conduct, America might be better served if our government actually kept track of them.� ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Seton Hall University School of Law, New Jersey�s only private law school, and a leading law school in the New York metropolitan area, is dedicated to preparing students for the practice of law through excellence in scholarship and teaching, with a strong focus on clinical education. The Center for Policy and Research enables students to gain practical experience while engaging in research and analysis that promotes respect for the rights of individuals worldwide. The students examine primary sources pertaining to national security law and practices of the U.S. government, as well as the reliability of forensic evidence for criminal investigations and prosecution. Seton Hall Law is located in Newark, NJ and offers both day and evening degree programs. For more information, visit http://law.shu.edu. http://law.shu.edu/administration/public_relations/press_releases/2009/shl_defense_dept_wrong_on_gtmo.htm

I just discovered if you go to the link above, on the right side under contact information, is a link to the pdf file of his actual detailed report about what's posted above. I don't know if it's possible to link a pdf file directly. From the beginning of the report on page 2: PROPAGANDA AS TERRORISM: RECIDIVISM BY THE NUMBERS Time and time again, the Department of Defense, the Executive Branch, and other government officials have claimed publicly that Guant�namo Bay detainees who have been released have �returned to the battlefield� where they have then been re-captured or killed. On January 13, 2009, during a press conference the Department of Defense provided its 43rd attempt to report on the number of detainees released from Guantanamo who returned to the battlefield. This latest report alleges that 61 detainees have returned to the battlefield. This report seeks to examine the last numbers. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The 43rd attempt to enumerate the number of detainees who have returned to the battlefield is false by the Department of Defense�s own data and prior reports. 2. In each of its forty-three attempts to provide the numbers of the recidivist detainees, the Department of Defense has given different sets of numbers that are contradictory and internally inconsistent with the Department�s own data. 3. The Department of Defense does not keep track of released detainees nor does it follow their post release conduct. 4. The Department of Defense�s previous statements about the post release conduct of former Guantanamo detainees were produced in writing in July 2007 and May 2008. 5. The January 13, 2009 press statement identifies no names, dates, places nor any conduct by released detainees. The raw numbers that are cited are unsupported, inconsistent with all other statements and appear to be presented to support the internal Department of Defense purposes.

Oh and I forgot, what can be more patriotic than ordering the outing a spy (and yes, she was covert, working on nuclear arms proliferation in the middle east) and then more truthful by throwing a minion under the bus to take the fall for it all (who did so willingly I'm so sure). "I am so sure"...LOL... Won't cut it, pal. Prove it.

You first. I've done more than my share on more than one occasion. ;-)

*snort* But, ..but, ..*I'm* not the one making the accusation;-)

Oops! Panetta takes back remarks on detainee rendition http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090206/ap_on_go_co/cia_panetta Panetta to foreign countries:"On your honor"..."Cross your heart";-)))

Sorry

Dorine, at this point I believe in "guilty until proven innocent" for any suspect in Guantanamo. I am a very sanguine anti-terrorist person and I won't give the secularist/agnostic limosine liberals another thought. They don't understand Jihad, how could they?

*I'm* not the one making the accusation;-) I'm not making an accusation either. ;-)

(Moon) at this point I believe in "guilty until proven innocent" for any suspect in Guantanamo. I am a very sanguine anti-terrorist person and I won't give the secularist/agnostic limosine liberals another thought. They don't understand Jihad, how could they? Ok, fine. Whatever. Quoting Cheney and his BS is another matter.

Panetta takes back remarks on detainee rendition http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090206/ap_on_go_co/cia_panetta Um, that's not what the article says unless I missed something. Was that the title on the article when you posted this?

Yup. Here's essentially the same article...from AP Panetta takes back rendition remarks http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/06/panetta-takes-back-remarks-detainee-rendition/ "Panetta told the committee that the Obama administration will continue to hand foreign detainees over to other countries for questioning, but only if it is confident the prisoners will not be tortured in the process..."

Well, then I've missed some previous statements, I'm not understanding a connection or the article title is incorrect. Because prosecuting for CIA interrogations and extraordinary rendition are 2 different subjects. Or it's just a very poorly written article. I'm doing some googling later to see if I understand some connection.

Oh, ok, I found what remarks they meant in the 2nd page that I just skimmed over because I didn't find what they were talking about on pg 1. It's a badly written article then. The bit about the statements that were retracted should've been up in the front of the article. Thanks.

(Dorine) Oh and I forgot, what can be more patriotic than ordering the outing a spy (and yes, she was covert, working on nuclear arms proliferation in the middle east) and then more truthful by throwing a minion under the bus to take the fall for it all (who did so willingly I'm so sure). (Evelyn) Prove it. The chief of staff to Cheney did this all on his own and then gets his prison sentence commuted. I'm laughing so hard my sides are aching.

The definition of patriot should be rewritten.

Actually, I forgot about Rove and even Bush involvement in the Plame saga. No bastions of truth themselves. And you know, I followed that trial daily, frequently while it was occurring, through unofficial transcripts and reports from people in the room, as well as many media reports and magazine articles. I know what went on and I don't have to prove anything. It's already been proven by people trained and paid to do so. Plus....(singing).....Goo - gle, a little dab will do ya! ;-)

Someone sent me this on email and I thought it rather amusing.... Dear World, The United States of America, your quality supplier of ideals of liberty and democracy, would like to apologize for its 2001-2008 service outage. The technical fault that led to this eight-year service interruption has been located. Replacement components were ordered Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, and have begun arriving. Early test of the new equipment indicate that it is functioning correctly and we expect it to be fully operational by mid-January. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the outage and we look forward to resuming full service and hopefully even improving it in years to come. Thank you for your patience and understanding, The USA

Reading back... (some article from somewhere) Instead, the tax changes should focus on providing incentives to households and businesses to increase current spending. Why not a temporary refundable tax credit to households that purchase cars or other major consumer durables, analogous to the investment tax credit for businesses? Or a temporary tax credit for home improvements? (Karen) Tax credits for those with money, analogous to giving loans to people who don't need them. Since most people aren't sitting on $30K in cash, ready to plop down on a car, then you're talking about increasing personal debt. Puhleez, don't people have enough of that? I've only skimmed headlines the past week. Isn't this pretty much what ended up in the bill? Or what's been talked about this week?

Go ahead and laugh...but watch those sides;-) Scooter Libby was wrongly sentenced under the "guise" that he lied to a jury . Had nothing to do with the outing of Valerie Plame, which Armitage already had confessed to Fitzgerald.

Despicable...how can the we stand by and watch this happen. "The Togo-flagged Tali aid ship was reported to have set off from the Lebanese port of Tripoli on Tuesday carrying 50 tonnes of medical supplies, food, clothing and toys for Gaza" Israel seizes Gaza-bound aid ship http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7871874.stm Heartless! Cut the aid to Israel, I say.

(Moon)..I won't give the secularist/agnostic limosine liberals another thought. They ... Moon, you always phrase your thoughts so colorfully; I compliment you. "You should publish"!

(Evelyn) Cut the aid to Israel, I say. Them's fightin' words. :-O "You should publish"! As long as it's not in a blog. Then she won't read it, Moon. ;-)) Had nothing to do with the outing of Valerie Plame, No, he didn't have talks with Judith Miller or Tim Russert. No, nada to do with it. ;-)

Oh, and Matthew Cooper from Time.

Those octuplet doctors need to have their licenses taken away. There's no excuse unless she totally made up some story for them and they didn't know better. And frankly take away licenses for the ones that inseminated her with any eggs after the 2nd one, if not the first. I find it really hard to believe that they truly found her to be an appropriate candidate for further procedures and children, psychologically, by her own admission and apparently her medical records. Nor at times, physically. Bet they were just greedy bastards. How did she pay for this? Long-term disability? You don't get great insurance coverage on workers comp, do you? I feel sorry for those kids. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-octuplets6-2009feb06,0,1342962.story

Libby's assertion that the information came from Russert and was only gossip was central to his claims that he did nothing wrong because if he instead had learned the information from government officials he might be in trouble for leaking classified information. At Libby's trial, several government witnesses -- among them an under secretary of State, a senior CIA official, Libby's CIA briefing officer, and a senior aide to Cheney -- said they informed Libby that Plame was a CIA officer. Testifying as a prosecution witness, Russert said that although he and Libby did indeed speak on July 10, 2003, they never discussed Plame during their conversation. Libby is also alleged by prosecutors to have lied to the FBI and a federal grand jury in claiming that when he mentioned Plame's name to two reporters -- Matthew Cooper, then of Time magazine, and Judith Miller, then of The New York Times -- he was careful to point out to them he was simply repeating rumors that he had heard from Russert. Cooper and Miller testified that Libby stated no such qualifications to them in telling them about Plame. Libby also testified to the federal grand jury that when Russert purportedly told him about Plame, he had absolutely no memory of having heard the information earlier from anyone else, including Cheney, and was thus "taken aback" when Russert told him. In his opening argument, Fitzgerald, referring to Libby's conversation with Russert on July 10, said: "You can't be startled about something on Thursday [July 10] that you told other people about on Monday [July 7] and Tuesday [July 8]." Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer testified as a prosecution witness that on July 7, 2003, Libby told Fleischer, "Ambassador Wilson was sent by his wife. His wife works for the CIA." Fleischer testified that Libby referred to Wilson's wife by her maiden name, Valerie Plame. "He added it was hush-hush, on the Q.T., and that most people didn't know it," Fleischer said Libby told him. http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/021907nj1.htm