From CNN:
Instead of being the center of a lavish wedding Saturday night, Jennifer Wilbanks flew home to Georgia from New Mexico, where she surfaced early in the day after a nationwide missing-person search.
Shortly before the plane touched down at 9 p.m. in Atlanta, a flight attendant handed out a written statement from the Wilbanks family to the media: "She has spoken to her fiance. He cannot wait to see her. She says the wedding is not called off, just postponed."
______________________________
POSTPONED???
Fiance John Mason should not walk away from Jennifer Wilbanks. He should run, as fast as he can.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Liberals Do What They Do Best
People for the American Way Disseminates False Statements on Filibusters
The Judicial Confirmation Network says lying is not "the American way"
The following statement from Wendy E. Long, Counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, concerns a recent statement released by People for the American Way on the use of the Senate filibuster against judicial nominees.
"Once again, the extreme liberal organization People for the American Way is circulating false information. In its desperate campaign to rationalize the use of unprecedented filibusters to permanently block President Bush's judicial nominees, PFAW has produced a list of presidential nominees that it claims were subjected to Senate filibusters before the current Bush administration. (http://media.pfaw.org/filibusters.pdf)
"This PFAW list of 34 names, entitled 'Filibusters of Nominations', blatantly misstates the truth. There is not one single judge on the list that was blocked by filibuster. Of the 34 nominations listed by PFAW, only 3 were not confirmed by the Senate. For example, the list of purportedly filibustered nominees includes Justices William H. Rehnquist and Stephen G. Breyer, and Judges Marsha L. Berzon and Richard A. Paez. Obviously, these jurists were not blocked from the bench by a filibuster: the first two currently sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and the next two currently sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
"Every judicial nominee on the PFAW list was confirmed by the Senate, with the exception of Justice Abe Fortas, who was nominated by President Lyndon Johnson in 1968, and after only four days of debate on the Senate floor, received such strong opposition from Democrats and Republicans alike due to allegations of ethical improprieties that President Johnson withdrew the nomination. Even the Fortas nomination was not killed by filibuster.
Read more.
The Judicial Confirmation Network says lying is not "the American way"
The following statement from Wendy E. Long, Counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, concerns a recent statement released by People for the American Way on the use of the Senate filibuster against judicial nominees.
"Once again, the extreme liberal organization People for the American Way is circulating false information. In its desperate campaign to rationalize the use of unprecedented filibusters to permanently block President Bush's judicial nominees, PFAW has produced a list of presidential nominees that it claims were subjected to Senate filibusters before the current Bush administration. (http://media.pfaw.org/filibusters.pdf)
"This PFAW list of 34 names, entitled 'Filibusters of Nominations', blatantly misstates the truth. There is not one single judge on the list that was blocked by filibuster. Of the 34 nominations listed by PFAW, only 3 were not confirmed by the Senate. For example, the list of purportedly filibustered nominees includes Justices William H. Rehnquist and Stephen G. Breyer, and Judges Marsha L. Berzon and Richard A. Paez. Obviously, these jurists were not blocked from the bench by a filibuster: the first two currently sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and the next two currently sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
"Every judicial nominee on the PFAW list was confirmed by the Senate, with the exception of Justice Abe Fortas, who was nominated by President Lyndon Johnson in 1968, and after only four days of debate on the Senate floor, received such strong opposition from Democrats and Republicans alike due to allegations of ethical improprieties that President Johnson withdrew the nomination. Even the Fortas nomination was not killed by filibuster.
Read more.
Checkbook Euthanasia
Hospital officials say they'll stop treating critically ill baby
By Miya Shay
ABC13 Eyewitness News
(4/29/05 - HOUSTON) — The mother of a critically ill baby is trying to figure out where to take her child after being told by doctors at Memorial Hermann Hospital that they would stop treating her in 10 days.
The five-month-old little girl was diagnosed with leukemia just weeks after her birth. Since then, she's undergone a number of different medical treatments and contracted an infection. Doctors and her parents disagree on what should happen next.
The news that Knya Dismute-Howard's doctors believe any more medical treatment would be futile wasn't a surprise to her parents. It only strengthened their resolve
"Her mind is fully there," said the baby's mother, Tamiko Dismuke-Howard. "She knows when we are there. I can't give up because she won't give up."
Tamiko picked up a letter from Memorial Hermann Thursday night. It says simply that doctors believe all medical treatment, other than to ease Knya's pain and suffering, would be useless. Her parents have 10 days to find another hospital for Knya or her medical care will stop.
"We will not give up," said Charles Howard, the baby's father. "We are going all the way."
Knya is fighting leukemia and a life-threatening skin infection. But her parents say she's not giving in.
"It's about knowing your child and knowing when they're tired and when they can't go anymore," said Tamiko.
Knya's parents say right now, they're focused on finding another facility to care for their daughter. Legal experts say the court system could be a final resort.
"Their option would be to seek a court order asking for more time, but the court is going to ask for a reasonable expectation to place a child," said Sandra J. Carnahan with the South Texas College of Law.
Tamiko is convinced that she will find a place soon.
"If everything we do doesn't help, then I've done all I can and I can go on with life," she said. "But if I stop and give up on her...what can I do?"
The hospital says decisions like this one are extremely difficult. Memorial Hermann Hospital held a news conference relating to this case Friday afternoon.
"Continuing treatment at this point would entail the prolonging of this extreme pain and suffering without any hope of a benefit with prolongation of life," said Chairman of the Futility Review Commission Richard Castriotta, MD.
_______________________________
Is this a case of checkbook euthanasia?
Little Knya Dismute-Howard is alive. Her parents are seeking treatment for their daughter, not accepting the opinion of the doctors that have determined the baby's life should end.
Knya is blessed to have such loving parents.
While there's life, there's hope.
By Miya Shay
ABC13 Eyewitness News
(4/29/05 - HOUSTON) — The mother of a critically ill baby is trying to figure out where to take her child after being told by doctors at Memorial Hermann Hospital that they would stop treating her in 10 days.
The five-month-old little girl was diagnosed with leukemia just weeks after her birth. Since then, she's undergone a number of different medical treatments and contracted an infection. Doctors and her parents disagree on what should happen next.
The news that Knya Dismute-Howard's doctors believe any more medical treatment would be futile wasn't a surprise to her parents. It only strengthened their resolve
"Her mind is fully there," said the baby's mother, Tamiko Dismuke-Howard. "She knows when we are there. I can't give up because she won't give up."
Tamiko picked up a letter from Memorial Hermann Thursday night. It says simply that doctors believe all medical treatment, other than to ease Knya's pain and suffering, would be useless. Her parents have 10 days to find another hospital for Knya or her medical care will stop.
"We will not give up," said Charles Howard, the baby's father. "We are going all the way."
Knya is fighting leukemia and a life-threatening skin infection. But her parents say she's not giving in.
"It's about knowing your child and knowing when they're tired and when they can't go anymore," said Tamiko.
Knya's parents say right now, they're focused on finding another facility to care for their daughter. Legal experts say the court system could be a final resort.
"Their option would be to seek a court order asking for more time, but the court is going to ask for a reasonable expectation to place a child," said Sandra J. Carnahan with the South Texas College of Law.
Tamiko is convinced that she will find a place soon.
"If everything we do doesn't help, then I've done all I can and I can go on with life," she said. "But if I stop and give up on her...what can I do?"
The hospital says decisions like this one are extremely difficult. Memorial Hermann Hospital held a news conference relating to this case Friday afternoon.
"Continuing treatment at this point would entail the prolonging of this extreme pain and suffering without any hope of a benefit with prolongation of life," said Chairman of the Futility Review Commission Richard Castriotta, MD.
_______________________________
Is this a case of checkbook euthanasia?
Little Knya Dismute-Howard is alive. Her parents are seeking treatment for their daughter, not accepting the opinion of the doctors that have determined the baby's life should end.
Knya is blessed to have such loving parents.
While there's life, there's hope.
No Room for God in Frank Rich's World
Can FRANK RICH write a column without using some form of the word "theocracy"?
Not surprisingly, he once again exhibits his theophobia in his Sunday column, "Conservatives ♥ 'South Park'". Today, (gasp) he warns of the evil intentions of the "theocratic conservatives" and their "crusade," predicting their arrogance will lead to their demise.
Is it possible for the man to critique anything anymore without displaying an absolutely pathological fear of religion and disparaging believers?
No, I don't think it is.
Not surprisingly, he once again exhibits his theophobia in his Sunday column, "Conservatives ♥ 'South Park'". Today, (gasp) he warns of the evil intentions of the "theocratic conservatives" and their "crusade," predicting their arrogance will lead to their demise.
Is it possible for the man to critique anything anymore without displaying an absolutely pathological fear of religion and disparaging believers?
No, I don't think it is.
Bush's Pro-Choice Social Security Plan
In hopes of killing President Bush's plan to fix Social Security, the Democrats continue to resort to lies. Their rigged calculator at democrats.senate.gov is just part of their deception.
From the DNC:
Death of a Sales Pitch
President Bush and his top officials are on tour trying to sell their risky plan to privatize Social Security to a skeptical public. It seems the more they talk about their plan, the less popular it becomes.
As they have in the past, the Democrats are trying to scare the public about Social Security. In this case, the Dems are not only trying to scare Senior citizens; they are lying to all Americans about the plan.
It's particularly ironic that the group most against Bush's proposals are seniors, people that will not be affected in any way by the plan. If you were born before 1950, this plan won't alter your benefits at all.
To begin, let's not forget Harry Reid pushed a House bill in 1983 that aimed to keep members of Congress out of the Social Security program.
Let's not forget what the minority leader had to say about personal accounts.
Reid then:
Reid: "[M]ost Of Us Have No Problem With Taking A Small Amount Of The Social Security Proceeds And Putting It Into The Private Sector." (Fox’s "Fox News Sunday," 2/14/99)
Fox’s Tony Snow: "Are You Opposed To Letting People Make The Investment Decisions? In Other Words, Having Some Component Where They Say, ‘I’ll Save The Money Rather Than Letting Uncle Sam Do It For Me.’" Reid: "I Think It’s Important That We Look And I’m Totally In Favor Of Do This And In Fact, There Are A Couple Of Programs Now That We’re Taking A Look At To See If It Will Work With Social Security." (Fox’s "News Sunday," 2/14/99)
Reid: "We’re Visiting Chile Because It Is Doing Interesting Things In Social Security And Other Parts Of Its Free Market System." (Tony Batt, "Reid To Embark On South America Trip," Las Vegas Review-Journal, 3/30/99)
Reid Now:
Reid: "We Won’t Hesitate To Tell America Why The President’s Plan On Social Security Is So Dangerous." (CBS’ "The Saturday Early Show," 2/12/05)
Reid: "I Am Especially Concerned By President Bush’s Proposal To Move Toward The Privatization Of Social Security." (Sen. Harry Reid, "Social Security And African Americans," Press Release, 2/4/05)
From factcheck.org:
President Bush announced April 28 that he is embracing a proposal to address Social Security's financial shortfall by slowing the growth of future benefits for higher-income and middle-income workers, but not for lower-income workers.
Bush said, "I propose that future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get." Democrats called the proposal a deep benefit cut. But which side is right? Would benefits be equal, or would they be cut?
Both sides have a claim to accuracy, but neither is giving the full story and thus leaving citizens confused. The fact is that the current Social Security benefit formula would cause benefits for future retirees nearly to double in buying power over the next 75 years, even after adjusting for inflation.
What Bush is proposing is a plan that freezes benefits at their current buying power for upper-income workers, while other workers would continue to see benefits rise faster than inflation.
Compared to the buying power of benefits paid to today's retirees, that would not be a "cut" for anybody. Compared to the rising level of benefits provided by the current formula, that would mean a "cut" for upper-income and middle-income workers. And for the bottom 30 percent of earners, those making $25,000 a year, there would be no "cut" at all.
The Dems are inaccurately screaming about "cuts" when no one's benefits would actually be cut.
The President explained his plan once again in his radio address this morning.
He said:
First, I understand that millions of Americans depend on Social Security checks as a primary source of retirement income, so we must keep this promise to future retirees, as well. As a matter of fairness, future generations should receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get.
Second, I believe a reformed system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most. So in the future, benefits for low-income workers should grow faster than benefits for people who are better off. By providing more generous benefits for low-income retirees, we'll make good on this commitment: If you work hard and pay into Social Security your entire life, you will not retire into poverty.
...Third, any reform of Social Security must replace the empty promises being made to younger workers with real assets, real money. I believe the best way to achieve this goal is to give younger workers the option of putting a portion of their payroll taxes into a voluntary personal retirement account. Because this money is saved and invested, younger workers would have the opportunity to receive a higher rate of return on their money than the current Social Security system can provide.
Some Americans have reservations about investing in the markets because they want a guaranteed return on their money. So one investment option should consist entirely of Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Options like this will make voluntary personal retirement accounts a safer investment that will allow you to build a nest egg that you can pass on to your loved ones.
_______________________________
In sum:
1)The President is not proposing cuts.
2)He is offering the OPTION of personal accounts, in line with his belief in an ownership society.
President Bush is pro-choice when it comes to managing one's retirement funds. It's very funny that the Dems have come out as SO anti-choice on this issue.
Apparently, they are only pro-choice and demand the protection of privacy when it comes to killing the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly.
When the matter is money, the Dems don't trust Americans to make decisions.
"THESE WERE NOT COMBATANTS."
Voices against the Iraq War:
"It's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."
--John Kerry
"We've gotten rid of [Saddam Hussein], and I suppose that's a good thing."
-- Howard Dean
"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."
--Ted Kennedy
"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."
--Nancy Pelosi
"Despite marshaling powerful armed forces in the Persian Gulf region and a virtual declaration of war in the State of the Union message, our government has not made a case for a pre-emptive military strike against Iraq."
--Jimmy Carter, Nobel Peace Laureate
"What makes me cringe even more is the continued claim that we are "liberators." The facts don't seem to support the label we have so euphemistically attached to ourselves. True, we have unseated a brutal, despicable despot, but "liberation" implies the follow up of freedom, self-determination and a better life for the common people. In fact, if the situation in Iraq is the result of "liberation," we may have set the cause of freedom back 200 years."
--Robert Byrd
"BUSH LIED. PEOPLE DIED."
______________________________
From the Washington Post:
113 Kurds found in Iraqi mass grave
Women, children pulled from trenches that may hold 1,500
By Ellen Knickmeyer
BAGHDAD - U.S. investigators have exhumed the remains of 113 people — all but five of them women, children or teenagers — from a mass grave in southern Iraq that may hold at least 1,500 victims of Saddam Hussein's campaign against the Kurdish minority in the 1980s, U.S. and Iraqi officials said this week.
...The non-acidic soil at the grave site preserved layers and layers of distinctive Kurdish clothing worn by many of the victims, suggesting that they may have piled on their best clothes expecting to be relocated, investigators said.
‘These were not combatants’
Authorities showed reporters some of the remains, including the skull of an older woman with pink dentures and the skeleton of a teenage girl clutching a bag of possessions.
"These were not combatants," said Gregg Nivala, a member of a U.S. team investigating crimes committed by Hussein's government and assisting the tribunal. "These were women and children."
...The grave actually is a series of 18 trenches, which investigators say they believe Iraqi forces dug with front loaders and maintained for systematic executions.
Investigators said that women and children were forced to stand at the edge of the pits, then shot with AK-47 assault rifles. Casings were found near the site, they said.
"They sprayed people with bullets so they fell back" into the graves, Iraq's human rights minister, Bakhtyar Amin, told reporters...
Campaign of violence
From 1987 to 1988, Hussein initiated a wave of violence, called the Anfal campaign, to punish the Kurds for siding with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Hussein's forces forcibly relocated hundreds of thousands of Kurds from their lands in northern Iraq. Amin said that as many as half a million people died or were killed outright and thousands of villages were destroyed.
Hussein's forces carried out similar campaigns against the Shiite majority. More than 300 mass graves have been found across Iraq since U.S.-led forces overthrew Hussein in March 2003, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials. The grave near Samawah would be one of the largest...
"It will ease the suffering and pain of many families to establish a truth for part of the history of Iraq. It will tell us more about what has happened and to whom," Amin told reporters. "Wouldn't you, God forbid, if your father or brother was killed, wouldn't you want to know it was your loved one? You would want to know how they were killed and to see who killed them brought before justice."
...Ten of the 18 trenches are believed to hold remains. Magnetic imaging was used to help reach the estimate of 1,500 victims.
Of the 113 bodies removed from one trench, two-thirds were children or teenagers. Most of the children were very young, and 10 were infants, authorities said.
______________________________
Remember the half million people killed by Saddam Hussein's regime, the next time someone echoes John Kerry, "It's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."
An argument could be made that the war was at the wrong time.
It was a half million lives too late.
"It's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."
--John Kerry
"We've gotten rid of [Saddam Hussein], and I suppose that's a good thing."
-- Howard Dean
"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."
--Ted Kennedy
"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."
--Nancy Pelosi
"Despite marshaling powerful armed forces in the Persian Gulf region and a virtual declaration of war in the State of the Union message, our government has not made a case for a pre-emptive military strike against Iraq."
--Jimmy Carter, Nobel Peace Laureate
"What makes me cringe even more is the continued claim that we are "liberators." The facts don't seem to support the label we have so euphemistically attached to ourselves. True, we have unseated a brutal, despicable despot, but "liberation" implies the follow up of freedom, self-determination and a better life for the common people. In fact, if the situation in Iraq is the result of "liberation," we may have set the cause of freedom back 200 years."
--Robert Byrd
"BUSH LIED. PEOPLE DIED."
______________________________
From the Washington Post:
113 Kurds found in Iraqi mass grave
Women, children pulled from trenches that may hold 1,500
By Ellen Knickmeyer
BAGHDAD - U.S. investigators have exhumed the remains of 113 people — all but five of them women, children or teenagers — from a mass grave in southern Iraq that may hold at least 1,500 victims of Saddam Hussein's campaign against the Kurdish minority in the 1980s, U.S. and Iraqi officials said this week.
...The non-acidic soil at the grave site preserved layers and layers of distinctive Kurdish clothing worn by many of the victims, suggesting that they may have piled on their best clothes expecting to be relocated, investigators said.
‘These were not combatants’
Authorities showed reporters some of the remains, including the skull of an older woman with pink dentures and the skeleton of a teenage girl clutching a bag of possessions.
"These were not combatants," said Gregg Nivala, a member of a U.S. team investigating crimes committed by Hussein's government and assisting the tribunal. "These were women and children."
...The grave actually is a series of 18 trenches, which investigators say they believe Iraqi forces dug with front loaders and maintained for systematic executions.
Investigators said that women and children were forced to stand at the edge of the pits, then shot with AK-47 assault rifles. Casings were found near the site, they said.
"They sprayed people with bullets so they fell back" into the graves, Iraq's human rights minister, Bakhtyar Amin, told reporters...
Campaign of violence
From 1987 to 1988, Hussein initiated a wave of violence, called the Anfal campaign, to punish the Kurds for siding with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Hussein's forces forcibly relocated hundreds of thousands of Kurds from their lands in northern Iraq. Amin said that as many as half a million people died or were killed outright and thousands of villages were destroyed.
Hussein's forces carried out similar campaigns against the Shiite majority. More than 300 mass graves have been found across Iraq since U.S.-led forces overthrew Hussein in March 2003, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials. The grave near Samawah would be one of the largest...
"It will ease the suffering and pain of many families to establish a truth for part of the history of Iraq. It will tell us more about what has happened and to whom," Amin told reporters. "Wouldn't you, God forbid, if your father or brother was killed, wouldn't you want to know it was your loved one? You would want to know how they were killed and to see who killed them brought before justice."
...Ten of the 18 trenches are believed to hold remains. Magnetic imaging was used to help reach the estimate of 1,500 victims.
Of the 113 bodies removed from one trench, two-thirds were children or teenagers. Most of the children were very young, and 10 were infants, authorities said.
______________________________
Remember the half million people killed by Saddam Hussein's regime, the next time someone echoes John Kerry, "It's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."
An argument could be made that the war was at the wrong time.
It was a half million lives too late.
HELP END DEMOCRAT OBSTRUCTION
RNC e-mail:
The proposal Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist sent to his Democrat colleagues yesterday could not have been a fairer compromise to end Democrat obstruction of President Bush's highly qualified judicial nominees.
Leader Frist's proposal would guarantee President Bush's nominees a fair up or down vote on the Senate floor while allowing all Senators an opportunity to have their say through a guaranteed 100 hours of debate.
This is a reasonable resolution to the Democrats' unprecedented use of the filibuster against President Bush's nominees, and will ensure that the filibuster remains intact for use against legislation.
Democrats are obstructing President Bush's nominees because they know that these nominees will strictly interpret the law -- not legislate from the bench. Democrats have even gone so far as to say they will "shut down" the Senate if they do not get their way on judicial nominations.
One of President Bush's nominees, Janice Rogers Brown, grew up as the daughter of Alabama sharecroppers and became the first African American woman to serve on the California Supreme Court. In 1998, Californians reelected her with 76 percent of the vote and the majority of Senators support her nomination for a federal judgeship, but Democrats are standing in the way of her receiving an up or down vote on the Senate floor.
Please visit GOP.com to sign a petition supporting Leader Frist's proposal to ensure President Bush's judicial nominees receive a fair up or down vote. And please also click here to write letters to the editor of your local newspapers.
A fair up or down vote for highly qualified judicial nominees is too important for Republicans to stand by as Democrats sacrifice decades of Senate tradition for partisan gain. I hope I can count on your help to make sure that the President's qualified nominees are given a fair up or down vote.
Sincerely,
Ken Mehlman
Chairman, RNC
P.S. Democrats have never before used the filibuster against judicial nominees. Visit GOP.com and tell them to accept Senator Frist's compromise and stop obstructing the Senate from doing the people's business.
The proposal Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist sent to his Democrat colleagues yesterday could not have been a fairer compromise to end Democrat obstruction of President Bush's highly qualified judicial nominees.
Leader Frist's proposal would guarantee President Bush's nominees a fair up or down vote on the Senate floor while allowing all Senators an opportunity to have their say through a guaranteed 100 hours of debate.
This is a reasonable resolution to the Democrats' unprecedented use of the filibuster against President Bush's nominees, and will ensure that the filibuster remains intact for use against legislation.
Democrats are obstructing President Bush's nominees because they know that these nominees will strictly interpret the law -- not legislate from the bench. Democrats have even gone so far as to say they will "shut down" the Senate if they do not get their way on judicial nominations.
One of President Bush's nominees, Janice Rogers Brown, grew up as the daughter of Alabama sharecroppers and became the first African American woman to serve on the California Supreme Court. In 1998, Californians reelected her with 76 percent of the vote and the majority of Senators support her nomination for a federal judgeship, but Democrats are standing in the way of her receiving an up or down vote on the Senate floor.
Please visit GOP.com to sign a petition supporting Leader Frist's proposal to ensure President Bush's judicial nominees receive a fair up or down vote. And please also click here to write letters to the editor of your local newspapers.
A fair up or down vote for highly qualified judicial nominees is too important for Republicans to stand by as Democrats sacrifice decades of Senate tradition for partisan gain. I hope I can count on your help to make sure that the President's qualified nominees are given a fair up or down vote.
Sincerely,
Ken Mehlman
Chairman, RNC
P.S. Democrats have never before used the filibuster against judicial nominees. Visit GOP.com and tell them to accept Senator Frist's compromise and stop obstructing the Senate from doing the people's business.
Time to Return the Wedding Gifts
It's become part of the media's template--obsess about the case of one person, even though thousands of individuals are classified as "missing persons."
It happened again this week. The nation was engrossed by the story of missing Georgia bride-to-be Jennifer Wilbanks.
John Mason, her fiance, was deemed the latest Scott Peterson.
As it turns out, poor Jennifer got the pre-wedding jitters and decided to runaway.
She put her family, friends, and fiance through hell. She depleted the resources of law enforcement and exploited the concern of strangers as they tirelessly searched for her.
FOR NOTHING!
From AP:
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - A Georgia bride-to-be who vanished just days before her wedding turned up in New Mexico and fabricated a tale of abduction before admitting Saturday that she got cold feet and "needed some time alone," police said.
Jennifer Wilbanks, 32, was in police custody more than 1,420 miles from her home on what was supposed to be her wedding day Saturday.
"It turns out that Miss Wilbanks basically felt the pressure of this large wedding and could not handle it," said Randy Belcher, the police chief in Duluth, Ga., the Atlanta suburb where Wilbanks lives with her fiance. He said there would be no criminal charges.
Wilbanks had called her fiance, John Mason, from a pay phone late Friday and told him that she had been kidnapped three days earlier while jogging, authorities said. Her family rejoiced that she was safe, telling reporters that the media coverage apparently got to the kidnappers.
But Wilbanks, who is a nurse, soon recanted, according to police.
Her uncle, Mike Satterfield, thanked people who had helped in the search.
"Jennifer had some issues the family was not aware of. We're looking forward to loving her and talking to her about these issues," he said.
Ray Schultz, chief of police in Albuquerque, said Wilbanks "had become scared and concerned about her impending marriage and decided she needed some time alone." He said she traveled to Las Vegas by bus before going to Albuquerque.
"She's obviously very concerned about the stress that she's been through, the stress that's been placed on her family," he said. "She is very upset."
_______________________________
I sympathize with Wilbanks' stress. She does indeed have serious "issues."
BUT, what she did cannot simply be dismissed.
Tax-payer dollars went into the search of this bogus missing person. Her story was a nationwide media fixation and she let it drag on. Wilbanks had the power to end it at any point with a simple phone call.
She let her family suffer, no doubt causing hours and hours of agony and sleeplessness. She let doubt be cast on her fiance, allowing him to be looked upon as a possible murderer, causing him to undergo a polygraph test.
Reports that today's scheduled wedding was going to be a prayer vigil played on the heartstrings of millions across the country.
All of this because Wilbanks got cold feet. I hope she receives the help she needs and gets over her ME, ME, ME issues.
I assume the wedding is permanently postponed. I wonder if they'll lose their deposits on the caterer, flowers, etc., etc., etc.
Hands down, Wilbanks wins the selfish award of the week.
Friday, April 29, 2005
WILL DAVID ROSEN GO BEHIND BARS FOR HILLARY?
Say what you will about Dick Morris, you have to admit he can speak with some authority about the Clintons, having been Bill's top political adviser and confidant.
From the New York Post:
HOW HILL GAINED
By DICK MORRIS
DAVID Rosen, the national finance Director for Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, goes on trial May 3 on charges of breaking federal campaign law. The senator's spokespeople insist that she didn't gain from the alleged crime — that the campaign realized no financial benefit from Rosen's understating the costs of a gala Clinton Hollywood fund-raiser.
Not true. Hillary's campaign realized not just a huge benefit, but one critical to her election chances.
Under the arcane rules of the Federal Election Commission at the time, campaigns could use soft money to pay for fund-raising events — provided the gathering's costs came to 40 percent or less of the total of hard money raised. (Soft money was far easier to raise: Donors could give up to $25,000 of soft money, but only $1,000 of hard money).
Hillary's Hollywood gala that raised $1 million in hard money that August. This meant that the campaign could use soft money to pay for all costs up to $400,000. David Rosen conveniently reported to the campaign treasurer that the event did, indeed, cost $400,000, avoiding the necessity of spending any hard money on the affair.
But the federal indictment of Rosen, FBI affidavits and the testimony of the event organizers — Peter Paul and Aaron Tonkin — all confirm that the extravaganza's true cost was at least $1.2 million. Press leaks suggests that the feds may have Rosen on tape acknowledging that he understated the cost of the event on purpose.
Here's why he would have done it: If the real cost of the event were $1.2 million instead of $400,000, the campaign would have had to use hard money to make up the difference. The Hillary Clinton campaign would have had $800,000 less of hard money to spend running TV ads and funding get-out-the-vote operations.
And, at the time of that fund-raiser, Rick Lazio, the GOP candidate, had challenged Hillary to refuse to accept soft money. He found himself awash in hard money — small checks from Hillary haters across the country. But First Lady Hillary Clinton was heavily dependent on large checks from fat-cat donors whom she and the president wined, dined, photographed, and hosted at the White House. And these folks gave a lot more than $1,000 each.
Hillary temporized and delayed, but the handwriting was on the wall. On Sept. 24, the candidates agreed on a soft-money ban. Now she had to pay for it all with hard money. And she was hard up for hard money.
So if Rosen had owned up to the full cost of the fundraiser, the campaign would have had to cough up $800,000 of hard money at exactly the time that it needed the funds the most.
Did Hillary know? Paul and Tonken say she did, and it seems obvious that she must have: Hillary followed every dime in her campaign, personally calling donors for most of it. How could she possibly not have known of a decision that saved her $800,000?
But the person who knows if she knew is David Rosen. If found guilty, he faces a potential sentence of 15 years. If the feds threaten him with jail — and it's hard to see how they wouldn't —Rosen faces a choice: Tell the truth or go to prison.
Rosen is no long-term Clinton loyalist like Webb Hubbell, nor did he have an affair with a Clinton (as Bill implied to me that Susan McDougal did). And there is no Clinton in the White House to pardon him if he goes to prison.
David Rosen is a young man in his late 30s, with a life ahead of him. He would be a fool to go to jail to protect Hillary.
If he did, she wouldn't even visit him.
_______________________________
Obviously, Morris pulls no punches.
He buys Peter Paul and Aaron Tonkin's claims that Hillary knew exactly what Rosen was up to when he underestimated the cost of a Clinton Hollywood fund-raiser to the campaign treasurer.
Morris has already convicted Rosen of breaking federal campaign law, so the question for him becomes whether Rosen will take a fall for Hillary the way Susan McDougal did for Bill.
Although Morris makes no predictions about what Rosen will do when the trial begins on May 3, he does remark that this young man would be a fool to go to prison for her.
He hasn't had an affair with Hillary. He is not bound by any long-term commitments of loyalty. She has no power to pardon him.
David Rosen is no Susan McDougal. I imagine that makes Hillary very uneasy.
From the New York Post:
HOW HILL GAINED
By DICK MORRIS
DAVID Rosen, the national finance Director for Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, goes on trial May 3 on charges of breaking federal campaign law. The senator's spokespeople insist that she didn't gain from the alleged crime — that the campaign realized no financial benefit from Rosen's understating the costs of a gala Clinton Hollywood fund-raiser.
Not true. Hillary's campaign realized not just a huge benefit, but one critical to her election chances.
Under the arcane rules of the Federal Election Commission at the time, campaigns could use soft money to pay for fund-raising events — provided the gathering's costs came to 40 percent or less of the total of hard money raised. (Soft money was far easier to raise: Donors could give up to $25,000 of soft money, but only $1,000 of hard money).
Hillary's Hollywood gala that raised $1 million in hard money that August. This meant that the campaign could use soft money to pay for all costs up to $400,000. David Rosen conveniently reported to the campaign treasurer that the event did, indeed, cost $400,000, avoiding the necessity of spending any hard money on the affair.
But the federal indictment of Rosen, FBI affidavits and the testimony of the event organizers — Peter Paul and Aaron Tonkin — all confirm that the extravaganza's true cost was at least $1.2 million. Press leaks suggests that the feds may have Rosen on tape acknowledging that he understated the cost of the event on purpose.
Here's why he would have done it: If the real cost of the event were $1.2 million instead of $400,000, the campaign would have had to use hard money to make up the difference. The Hillary Clinton campaign would have had $800,000 less of hard money to spend running TV ads and funding get-out-the-vote operations.
And, at the time of that fund-raiser, Rick Lazio, the GOP candidate, had challenged Hillary to refuse to accept soft money. He found himself awash in hard money — small checks from Hillary haters across the country. But First Lady Hillary Clinton was heavily dependent on large checks from fat-cat donors whom she and the president wined, dined, photographed, and hosted at the White House. And these folks gave a lot more than $1,000 each.
Hillary temporized and delayed, but the handwriting was on the wall. On Sept. 24, the candidates agreed on a soft-money ban. Now she had to pay for it all with hard money. And she was hard up for hard money.
So if Rosen had owned up to the full cost of the fundraiser, the campaign would have had to cough up $800,000 of hard money at exactly the time that it needed the funds the most.
Did Hillary know? Paul and Tonken say she did, and it seems obvious that she must have: Hillary followed every dime in her campaign, personally calling donors for most of it. How could she possibly not have known of a decision that saved her $800,000?
But the person who knows if she knew is David Rosen. If found guilty, he faces a potential sentence of 15 years. If the feds threaten him with jail — and it's hard to see how they wouldn't —Rosen faces a choice: Tell the truth or go to prison.
Rosen is no long-term Clinton loyalist like Webb Hubbell, nor did he have an affair with a Clinton (as Bill implied to me that Susan McDougal did). And there is no Clinton in the White House to pardon him if he goes to prison.
David Rosen is a young man in his late 30s, with a life ahead of him. He would be a fool to go to jail to protect Hillary.
If he did, she wouldn't even visit him.
_______________________________
Obviously, Morris pulls no punches.
He buys Peter Paul and Aaron Tonkin's claims that Hillary knew exactly what Rosen was up to when he underestimated the cost of a Clinton Hollywood fund-raiser to the campaign treasurer.
Morris has already convicted Rosen of breaking federal campaign law, so the question for him becomes whether Rosen will take a fall for Hillary the way Susan McDougal did for Bill.
Although Morris makes no predictions about what Rosen will do when the trial begins on May 3, he does remark that this young man would be a fool to go to prison for her.
He hasn't had an affair with Hillary. He is not bound by any long-term commitments of loyalty. She has no power to pardon him.
David Rosen is no Susan McDougal. I imagine that makes Hillary very uneasy.
Moreover, the media of 2005 are not the media of 1996.
Harry Reid's Brush with Sanity
'Miracle' needed to win back Senate
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid raised a few eyebrows yesterday on the Senate floor when he said it would take a "miracle" for Democrats to win enough races next year to take back the Senate.
"I would like to think a miracle would happen and we would pick up five seats this time," he said during a floor debate over the filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. "I guess miracles never cease."
Republicans were delighted by what they called an "admission" from the highest-ranking elected Democrat in the country.
"After listening to Senator Reid's political spin about judicial nominees for the last several weeks, it is good to hear him come back to reality -- if even for a brief moment," said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "Senator Reid can do the math: A Democratic Party, plus no ideas, plus obstruction, plus over-the-top partisan rhetoric equals continued minority."
Partisans on both sides of the aisle privately acknowledged that it was a fairly stunning remark.
But Democrats pointed out that Mr. Reid was making a larger point about the so-called "nuclear option" that Republicans have threatened to use to unclog the filibusters -- that Republicans might one day regret abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees.
"If the Republicans keep abusing their power, it won't take such a miracle," said Phil Singer, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Jim Manley, spokesman for Mr. Reid, noted that his boss "also said he believes in miracles."
"As a small-town boy from Searchlight, Nevada, who rose to become Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate, Senator Reid has shown that we can overcome the odds and is certain that we can win back the Senate," Mr. Manley said.
_______________________________
When the minority leader acknowledges it will take a miracle to win back the Senate in 2006, the party can officially be considered adrift.
It looks like the Dems may actually have to admit to the value of prayer.
Melody Townsel
Are Melody Townsel's allegations against John Bolton uncorroborated?
Is it true she doesn't have a single witness to back up her claims?
Is she a self-described "very liberal Democrat," who helped organize the Dallas chapter of "Mothers Opposing Bush" during the 2004 presidential campaign?
Did she fail to come forward with her complaint in 2001, when the same committee was considering Bolton's nomination for undersecretary of state?
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Since this is the case, I think it would be wise for Democrats and their liberal media mouthpieces to stop repeating her charges.
Is it true she doesn't have a single witness to back up her claims?
Is she a self-described "very liberal Democrat," who helped organize the Dallas chapter of "Mothers Opposing Bush" during the 2004 presidential campaign?
Did she fail to come forward with her complaint in 2001, when the same committee was considering Bolton's nomination for undersecretary of state?
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Since this is the case, I think it would be wise for Democrats and their liberal media mouthpieces to stop repeating her charges.
HILLARY CLINTON PLAYS WITH WORDS AND REALITY
I have finally figured out Hillary Clinton.
I used to wonder why she stayed with Bill, a serial philanderer with no respect for her or their marriage vows.
I wondered how she could tolerate his lies.
Now, I understand. She has the ability to create a reality that fits her needs. This isn't the same as Bill's compartmentalization. (He was very effective at compartmentalizing his marriage at opportune moments.)
Hillary is a master at denying the truth, massaging the facts, and reconstructing reality, so that it becomes completely unrecognizable to observers. Just by saying something, she believes she can make it real.
This technique proves very useful when the truth doesn't conform to the image she wishes to present to her supporters and those she hopes to win over.
From the New York Times:
In an interview on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton called Admiral Jacoby's statement "the first confirmation, publicly, by the administration that the North Koreans have the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device that can reach the United States," adding, "Put simply, they couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can."
While this may be technically true, her statement suggests it is the President's fault. She assigns negligence to the Bush administration. In effect, she says Bill had North Korea under control and President Bush mismanaged policy, resulting in Kim Jong Il's possible capacity to hit the U.S. with a nuclear weapon.
What a joke!
Does she really think that she can suggest that her dearest Bill isn't responsible? Obviously, she does believe she can get away with it. How wrong she is!
In July, 1999, Daryl M. Plunk wrote an analysis of Bill Clinton's North Korea policy.
(Excerpts)
When South Korean President Kim Dae Jung visits Washington, D.C., on July 2 for a summit with President Bill Clinton, the discussion of "rewards" for North Korea should be linked to clear concessions from Pyongyang that lead to peace. The Korean Peninsula--the most heavily militarized spot on earth--is the only place where an outbreak of war would result in the swift and heavy loss of American lives.
Despite $419 million in aid to North Korea since 1995, the Clinton Administration has not achieved any reduction in the threat North Korea poses to the South, the region, and the United States. On August 31, 1998, for example, North Korea launched a Taepo Dong-1 missile over Japan, achieving intercontinental range. On June 14, 1999, its ships exchanged fire with the South's ships in the Yellow Sea--the first such exchange since the Korean War. Future aid to the North must be linked to real concessions that reduce the likelihood of such belligerence and promote lasting peace on the Peninsula.
Although North Korea has made occasional concessions since signing the October 1994 Agreed Framework with the Clinton Administration, it has failed to change its aggressive behavior. Concessions--such as recently allowing the United States to inspect a suspected nuclear weapons site--have come at too great a price. For example, to gain access to this site, the Administration pledged to provide the North with $200 million worth of grain. To date, the United States already has given the North nearly half a billion dollars in foreign aid. Congress is justifiably frustrated in funding policies that fail to reduce tension on the Peninsula...
THE FAILURE OF THE AGREED FRAMEWORK
Early in his first term in office, President Clinton grappled with North Korea's renegade nuclear weapons program. After many months of tedious negotiations, the first U.S.-North Korea political agreement was signed in October 1994. This Agreed Framework marked a sharp break with the established policy that had governed relations with North Korea for decades. With the signing of this Framework, the United States entered a major agreement with Pyongyang that did not include the South. Such direct political ties had been a key North Korean diplomatic goal for years.
In the Agreed Framework, the Administration offered improved trade and political ties that eventually would end the U.S. economic embargo on the North and lead to the beginning of formal diplomatic relations. But more important, for the first time the United States pledged economic aid to the North, including $50 million per year for fuel oil and the construction of two nuclear reactors valued at about $5 billion. Together with a consortium of about a dozen nations, the United States is raising funds to support this process, although Seoul pledged to pick up most of the tab. This approach was justified by the Administration because it would promote greater North-South economic interaction and increase the chances of an eventual peaceful unification.
...The Agreed Framework clearly has failed to achieve its intended goals. North Korea has not suspended its nuclear program, has not sought reconciliation with the South, and now poses new threats to the world in the form of its long-range ballistic missiles.
Plunk pointed out, in 1999, the woeful inadequacies of Clinton's North Korea policy and predicted its dire consequences.
He concluded, "The Administration's current policy toward North Korea has failed. The North continues to threaten South Korea, refuses to engage in meaningful dialogue with the South, and continues to build dangerous missiles."
Before Bill Clinton left the oval office, it was clear that he and his administration really blew it.
For Hillary to imply that the Bush administration is at fault for the current situation is as historically inaccurate as it is personally disingenuous.
Her need to make such a statement, "Put simply, they couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can," is the surest sign that Hillary understands she must alter reality as quickly as possible, utilizing her twisted method of offense.
When one looks at the truth of Bill Clinton's disastrous policy, it is undeniable that blame for the North Korean nuclear threat does not fall in President Bush's lap.
Bad news for Hillary.
I used to wonder why she stayed with Bill, a serial philanderer with no respect for her or their marriage vows.
I wondered how she could tolerate his lies.
Now, I understand. She has the ability to create a reality that fits her needs. This isn't the same as Bill's compartmentalization. (He was very effective at compartmentalizing his marriage at opportune moments.)
Hillary is a master at denying the truth, massaging the facts, and reconstructing reality, so that it becomes completely unrecognizable to observers. Just by saying something, she believes she can make it real.
This technique proves very useful when the truth doesn't conform to the image she wishes to present to her supporters and those she hopes to win over.
From the New York Times:
In an interview on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton called Admiral Jacoby's statement "the first confirmation, publicly, by the administration that the North Koreans have the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device that can reach the United States," adding, "Put simply, they couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can."
While this may be technically true, her statement suggests it is the President's fault. She assigns negligence to the Bush administration. In effect, she says Bill had North Korea under control and President Bush mismanaged policy, resulting in Kim Jong Il's possible capacity to hit the U.S. with a nuclear weapon.
What a joke!
Does she really think that she can suggest that her dearest Bill isn't responsible? Obviously, she does believe she can get away with it. How wrong she is!
In July, 1999, Daryl M. Plunk wrote an analysis of Bill Clinton's North Korea policy.
(Excerpts)
When South Korean President Kim Dae Jung visits Washington, D.C., on July 2 for a summit with President Bill Clinton, the discussion of "rewards" for North Korea should be linked to clear concessions from Pyongyang that lead to peace. The Korean Peninsula--the most heavily militarized spot on earth--is the only place where an outbreak of war would result in the swift and heavy loss of American lives.
Despite $419 million in aid to North Korea since 1995, the Clinton Administration has not achieved any reduction in the threat North Korea poses to the South, the region, and the United States. On August 31, 1998, for example, North Korea launched a Taepo Dong-1 missile over Japan, achieving intercontinental range. On June 14, 1999, its ships exchanged fire with the South's ships in the Yellow Sea--the first such exchange since the Korean War. Future aid to the North must be linked to real concessions that reduce the likelihood of such belligerence and promote lasting peace on the Peninsula.
Although North Korea has made occasional concessions since signing the October 1994 Agreed Framework with the Clinton Administration, it has failed to change its aggressive behavior. Concessions--such as recently allowing the United States to inspect a suspected nuclear weapons site--have come at too great a price. For example, to gain access to this site, the Administration pledged to provide the North with $200 million worth of grain. To date, the United States already has given the North nearly half a billion dollars in foreign aid. Congress is justifiably frustrated in funding policies that fail to reduce tension on the Peninsula...
THE FAILURE OF THE AGREED FRAMEWORK
Early in his first term in office, President Clinton grappled with North Korea's renegade nuclear weapons program. After many months of tedious negotiations, the first U.S.-North Korea political agreement was signed in October 1994. This Agreed Framework marked a sharp break with the established policy that had governed relations with North Korea for decades. With the signing of this Framework, the United States entered a major agreement with Pyongyang that did not include the South. Such direct political ties had been a key North Korean diplomatic goal for years.
In the Agreed Framework, the Administration offered improved trade and political ties that eventually would end the U.S. economic embargo on the North and lead to the beginning of formal diplomatic relations. But more important, for the first time the United States pledged economic aid to the North, including $50 million per year for fuel oil and the construction of two nuclear reactors valued at about $5 billion. Together with a consortium of about a dozen nations, the United States is raising funds to support this process, although Seoul pledged to pick up most of the tab. This approach was justified by the Administration because it would promote greater North-South economic interaction and increase the chances of an eventual peaceful unification.
...The Agreed Framework clearly has failed to achieve its intended goals. North Korea has not suspended its nuclear program, has not sought reconciliation with the South, and now poses new threats to the world in the form of its long-range ballistic missiles.
Plunk pointed out, in 1999, the woeful inadequacies of Clinton's North Korea policy and predicted its dire consequences.
He concluded, "The Administration's current policy toward North Korea has failed. The North continues to threaten South Korea, refuses to engage in meaningful dialogue with the South, and continues to build dangerous missiles."
Before Bill Clinton left the oval office, it was clear that he and his administration really blew it.
For Hillary to imply that the Bush administration is at fault for the current situation is as historically inaccurate as it is personally disingenuous.
Her need to make such a statement, "Put simply, they couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can," is the surest sign that Hillary understands she must alter reality as quickly as possible, utilizing her twisted method of offense.
When one looks at the truth of Bill Clinton's disastrous policy, it is undeniable that blame for the North Korean nuclear threat does not fall in President Bush's lap.
Bad news for Hillary.
Teddy Kennedy Should Resign Immediately
Clifford D. May had a traumatic experience. It happened twenty years ago, but the scars remain.
He details the horror in his column, "Teddy Kennedy yelled at me! So shouldn't he resign?"
______________________________
April 28, 2005
For 20 years I have kept my silence. I will do so no longer. In the debate over John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, it finally has been made clear to me that a human being who yells at another human being does not deserve to hold high office. It's what Sen. George Voinovich calls “the Kitchen Test.”
And so, it's time I finally told the painful truth: Ted Kennedy yelled at me. He hurt my feelings. Therefore, those who believe John Bolton does not deserve to be confirmed must surely also agree that Senator Kennedy must step down. Here is the never-before-told story:
It happened in Ethiopia during the height of the Great Famine of the 1980s. Sen. Kennedy had come on a fact-finding mission. As Africa correspondent of The New York Times, I was assigned to travel with him.
One night, after we had flown into a small city northeast of Addis Abba, we repaired to a ramshackle hotel. One of the Senator's staffers told me there would be no further events that evening. So I turned to Martha Radditz (now of ABC News but in those days a Boston anchor woman) and said something like: “Great! What say we go check out this burg?” Martha agreed.
We had a pleasant excursion but found no restaurant to our liking so we returned to the hotel early. We were shocked at what we saw: Senator Kennedy was holding forth at a dinner with local luminaries. As quietly as we could, we tip-toed into the dining room to take our seats -- but the Senator spotted us. He was furious. He interrupted the proceedings.
“What do you think you're doing?” he shouted for all to hear. “You're either with this group or you're not with this group. You don't come waltzing in anytime you choose!”
I can't recall whether his hands were on his hips; probably not since he was sitting down. I do know that he scolded us for what seemed a long time. To be candid, his words were a bit slurred. It was his custom, in those days, to propose a few toasts – and then a few more toasts - to Ethiopian-American amity.
In any case, Martha and I retreated, meekly, to her room, feeling like children sent to bed without supper. Not long after, one of Kennedy's staffers knocked on the door.
“It's been explained to the Senator that there was a mistake,” he said. “He now knows you were told there was no event tonight and you had left the hotel before plans changed. The reception is continuing and the Senator would like you to re-join it.”
We demurred. Our self-esteem was too badly battered. He insisted. “The Senator would really like you to return,” he said. “I would like you to return.” And something in the way he said it made us believe that if we did not respond to this entreaty, he, too, might feel the Kennedy wrath.
Downstairs, Martha and I approached the Senator to offer our apologies. “Oh, forget about it!” he said amicably. “Let's just forget the whole thing.” He seemed in a much improved mood.
“Forget it, Senator?” I responded. “Senator, I will never forget it. I will forever remember the night that Edward Kennedy laid me to bat guano [I actually used a more common term] in Ethiopia.”
“Oh, don't say that!” he exclaimed. “It was no big deal.”
And all these years, I have tried to convince myself that it was no big deal. People get angry. People yell. People get over it. Life goes on.
But now I know better. Now I know what happened was a terrible trauma. And what the Senator did was unpardonable. People who hurt people are the most hurtful people in the world – and they should not serve in positions of trust and authority. They should not serve as ambassadors, senators or maitre d's.
It was what Sen. Voinovich might call: “The Dining Room Test.”
________________________________
For years, I've considered Kennedy unfit to serve as a U.S. senator.
This recent revelation makes me even more uncomfortable.
Do we really want a man that went off the deep end and yelled at someone to be serving in the Senate?
May's story shows he does not have the temperament to hold that office.
"And all these years, I have tried to convince myself that it was no big deal. People get angry. People yell. People get over it. Life goes on.
But now I know better. Now I know what happened was a terrible trauma. And what the Senator did was unpardonable. People who hurt people are the most hurtful people in the world – and they should not serve in positions of trust and authority. They should not serve as ambassadors, senators or maitre d's."
Senator Kennedy should resign immediately.
He details the horror in his column, "Teddy Kennedy yelled at me! So shouldn't he resign?"
______________________________
April 28, 2005
For 20 years I have kept my silence. I will do so no longer. In the debate over John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, it finally has been made clear to me that a human being who yells at another human being does not deserve to hold high office. It's what Sen. George Voinovich calls “the Kitchen Test.”
And so, it's time I finally told the painful truth: Ted Kennedy yelled at me. He hurt my feelings. Therefore, those who believe John Bolton does not deserve to be confirmed must surely also agree that Senator Kennedy must step down. Here is the never-before-told story:
It happened in Ethiopia during the height of the Great Famine of the 1980s. Sen. Kennedy had come on a fact-finding mission. As Africa correspondent of The New York Times, I was assigned to travel with him.
One night, after we had flown into a small city northeast of Addis Abba, we repaired to a ramshackle hotel. One of the Senator's staffers told me there would be no further events that evening. So I turned to Martha Radditz (now of ABC News but in those days a Boston anchor woman) and said something like: “Great! What say we go check out this burg?” Martha agreed.
We had a pleasant excursion but found no restaurant to our liking so we returned to the hotel early. We were shocked at what we saw: Senator Kennedy was holding forth at a dinner with local luminaries. As quietly as we could, we tip-toed into the dining room to take our seats -- but the Senator spotted us. He was furious. He interrupted the proceedings.
“What do you think you're doing?” he shouted for all to hear. “You're either with this group or you're not with this group. You don't come waltzing in anytime you choose!”
I can't recall whether his hands were on his hips; probably not since he was sitting down. I do know that he scolded us for what seemed a long time. To be candid, his words were a bit slurred. It was his custom, in those days, to propose a few toasts – and then a few more toasts - to Ethiopian-American amity.
In any case, Martha and I retreated, meekly, to her room, feeling like children sent to bed without supper. Not long after, one of Kennedy's staffers knocked on the door.
“It's been explained to the Senator that there was a mistake,” he said. “He now knows you were told there was no event tonight and you had left the hotel before plans changed. The reception is continuing and the Senator would like you to re-join it.”
We demurred. Our self-esteem was too badly battered. He insisted. “The Senator would really like you to return,” he said. “I would like you to return.” And something in the way he said it made us believe that if we did not respond to this entreaty, he, too, might feel the Kennedy wrath.
Downstairs, Martha and I approached the Senator to offer our apologies. “Oh, forget about it!” he said amicably. “Let's just forget the whole thing.” He seemed in a much improved mood.
“Forget it, Senator?” I responded. “Senator, I will never forget it. I will forever remember the night that Edward Kennedy laid me to bat guano [I actually used a more common term] in Ethiopia.”
“Oh, don't say that!” he exclaimed. “It was no big deal.”
And all these years, I have tried to convince myself that it was no big deal. People get angry. People yell. People get over it. Life goes on.
But now I know better. Now I know what happened was a terrible trauma. And what the Senator did was unpardonable. People who hurt people are the most hurtful people in the world – and they should not serve in positions of trust and authority. They should not serve as ambassadors, senators or maitre d's.
It was what Sen. Voinovich might call: “The Dining Room Test.”
________________________________
For years, I've considered Kennedy unfit to serve as a U.S. senator.
This recent revelation makes me even more uncomfortable.
Do we really want a man that went off the deep end and yelled at someone to be serving in the Senate?
May's story shows he does not have the temperament to hold that office.
"And all these years, I have tried to convince myself that it was no big deal. People get angry. People yell. People get over it. Life goes on.
But now I know better. Now I know what happened was a terrible trauma. And what the Senator did was unpardonable. People who hurt people are the most hurtful people in the world – and they should not serve in positions of trust and authority. They should not serve as ambassadors, senators or maitre d's."
Senator Kennedy should resign immediately.
No New Information on Jeffrey Ake
From LaPorte County's Herald-Argus:
Ake's home up for sale
By DANIEL PRZYBYLA — Staff Writer
LAPORTE — While no news has emerged regarding the abduction of LaPorte’s Jeffrey Ake in Iraq, a new development has occurred here at home.
The Akes’ home, at 400 Closser Ave. in LaPorte, went up for sale over the weekend. A sign in front of the home identifies R&R Construction and Realty as the Realtor.
...Also this morning, FBI Special Agent Wendy Osborne, with the FBI’s Indianapolis field office, said that while the investigation into Ake’s kidnapping on April 11 in Baghdad is ongoing, there is no new information at this time.
Meanwhile, interest in the April 11 abduction of Ake by terrorists remains high in different parts of the U.S. The Russian immigrant newspaper The Russian Advertisement, published in Brooklyn, N.Y., published a story Friday that sought to inform its readers about Ake’s wife, Russian-born Liliana. Freelance reporter Max Samadov told the Herald-Argus Tuesday that he knows the Russian immigrants of New York care about the well being of the Ake family because they are “compassionate people. I believe the story of Jeffrey Ake and his wife touched them.”
The Ake family has made it a point to not talk with the media since Ake was taken hostage.
The city of Rock Hill, S.C., knows something of what LaPorteans are going through right now. Rock Hill resident Ty Hensley is the brother of Jack Hensley, a civilian contractor in Iraq who was kidnapped by terrorists and beheaded a week later in September 2004.
“It just brought it home,” Larry Timbs, Rock Hill-based Winthrop University associate professor of mass communication, told The Herald-Argus. “When something like this happens and as grisly a murder as it was, can you imagine something so horrific?”
...“It gets heavy, heavy coverage when someone gets abducted.” And “For a few days it gets heavy national coverage.”
...But he said in some cases, as in the Ake case, “it disappears off the radar screen. It’s gone. Like it’s a story and (then) it’s not a story.”
_______________________________
When an American civilian is being held hostage by terrorists in Iraq, the story should not disappear off the radar screen.
Do many Americans even know about Ake's abduction and his family's agony?
They should know. They should care. Most importantly, they should pray for his safe return.
Ake's home up for sale
By DANIEL PRZYBYLA — Staff Writer
LAPORTE — While no news has emerged regarding the abduction of LaPorte’s Jeffrey Ake in Iraq, a new development has occurred here at home.
The Akes’ home, at 400 Closser Ave. in LaPorte, went up for sale over the weekend. A sign in front of the home identifies R&R Construction and Realty as the Realtor.
...Also this morning, FBI Special Agent Wendy Osborne, with the FBI’s Indianapolis field office, said that while the investigation into Ake’s kidnapping on April 11 in Baghdad is ongoing, there is no new information at this time.
Meanwhile, interest in the April 11 abduction of Ake by terrorists remains high in different parts of the U.S. The Russian immigrant newspaper The Russian Advertisement, published in Brooklyn, N.Y., published a story Friday that sought to inform its readers about Ake’s wife, Russian-born Liliana. Freelance reporter Max Samadov told the Herald-Argus Tuesday that he knows the Russian immigrants of New York care about the well being of the Ake family because they are “compassionate people. I believe the story of Jeffrey Ake and his wife touched them.”
The Ake family has made it a point to not talk with the media since Ake was taken hostage.
The city of Rock Hill, S.C., knows something of what LaPorteans are going through right now. Rock Hill resident Ty Hensley is the brother of Jack Hensley, a civilian contractor in Iraq who was kidnapped by terrorists and beheaded a week later in September 2004.
“It just brought it home,” Larry Timbs, Rock Hill-based Winthrop University associate professor of mass communication, told The Herald-Argus. “When something like this happens and as grisly a murder as it was, can you imagine something so horrific?”
...“It gets heavy, heavy coverage when someone gets abducted.” And “For a few days it gets heavy national coverage.”
...But he said in some cases, as in the Ake case, “it disappears off the radar screen. It’s gone. Like it’s a story and (then) it’s not a story.”
_______________________________
When an American civilian is being held hostage by terrorists in Iraq, the story should not disappear off the radar screen.
Do many Americans even know about Ake's abduction and his family's agony?
They should know. They should care. Most importantly, they should pray for his safe return.
NO SPIN
Did you watch Bush's press conference or did you only catch bits of the talking heads picking it apart?
Here's the transcript.
Read it for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Here's the transcript.
Read it for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Ken Mehlman's statement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON -RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman tonight issued the following statement:
"Now that President Bush has set a clear course to permanently strengthening Social Security for future generations, the time for Democrat obstructionism is over. Progressive indexing will make Social Security a better deal for all Americans, and it is now time for Democrats to propose their own strategies if they disagree with President Bush's common sense ideas. It's no longer acceptable for Democrats to play politics with the retirements of American workers by refusing to show up at the negotiating table."
WASHINGTON -RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman tonight issued the following statement:
"Now that President Bush has set a clear course to permanently strengthening Social Security for future generations, the time for Democrat obstructionism is over. Progressive indexing will make Social Security a better deal for all Americans, and it is now time for Democrats to propose their own strategies if they disagree with President Bush's common sense ideas. It's no longer acceptable for Democrats to play politics with the retirements of American workers by refusing to show up at the negotiating table."
Biden
I'm listening to Biden on ABC.
He's saying Bush did not present a single idea on how to manage Social Security.
Was he in the bathroom during the press conference?
He's saying Bush did not present a single idea on how to manage Social Security.
Was he in the bathroom during the press conference?
Bush Press Conference
In my case, Bush is preaching to the choir. Nonetheless, trying to be as objective as possible, I think he did a great job.
He didn't trip up on any questions.
Hey, libs! Did you notice how he pronounced "nuclear"?
Funny that all the networks except ABC cut the President off at 8:00. Only ABC is still on, doing their best now to criticize him, citing polls that Americans are against his policies.
I thought it was interesting that border policy was not mentioned at all.
It was hilarious to hear some of the journalists almost clamoring for military action in North Korea. They didn't seem to be satisfied with going down the diplomatic road.
Overall, I think Bush seemed extremely comfortable, confident, and in command.
He didn't trip up on any questions.
Hey, libs! Did you notice how he pronounced "nuclear"?
Funny that all the networks except ABC cut the President off at 8:00. Only ABC is still on, doing their best now to criticize him, citing polls that Americans are against his policies.
I thought it was interesting that border policy was not mentioned at all.
It was hilarious to hear some of the journalists almost clamoring for military action in North Korea. They didn't seem to be satisfied with going down the diplomatic road.
Overall, I think Bush seemed extremely comfortable, confident, and in command.
"Democracy is not a spectator sport -- get in the game"
To: Conservative Activists
From: Townhall.com
RE: John Bolton nomination
Thanks to wavering Republicans, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote to confirm John Bolton as UN ambassador has been delayed until May 12. Liberals are taking advantage of the delay to smear Bolton, who’s a bit too pro-America to suit them. If they succeed in convincing Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee to vote against him, they will derail his nomination. You can read more about this fight in an editorial from the Townhall.com editors.
It's time for action. Here's how.
1. Phone and write to Senator George Voinovich's office and tell them you support the John Bolton nomination. Senator Voinovich is the primary reason we're in the position we're in right now but it’s extremely important that your communications remain polite and stick to the facts. His Capitol Hill Senate office phone number is 202-224-3353 and more contact information for his different offices is here. Those of you who live in Ohio should contact his district office closest to where you live.
Columbus
Phone: (614) 469-6697
Fax: (614) 469-7733
37 West Broad St., Ste. 310
Columbus, OH 43215
Cleveland
Phone: (216) 522-7095
Fax: (216) 522-7097
1240 East Ninth St., Room 2955
Cleveland, OH 44199
Cincinnati
Phone: (513) 684-3265
Fax: (513) 684-3269
36 East 7th St., Rm. 2615
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Toledo
Phone: (419) 259-3895
Fax: (419) 359-3899
420 Madison Ave., Rm. 1210
Toledo, OH 43604
Gallipolis
Phone: (740) 441-6410
Fax: (740) 441-6414
417 Second St.
Gallipolis, OH 45631
2. Contact Senator Lincoln Chafee’s office and tell them you support the John Bolton nomination. His Capitol office phone number is 202-224-2921 (fax: 202-228-2853). Those of you in Rhode Island should also call his district offices in the state. Contact information is here.
3. Contact Senator Chuck Hagel's office and tell them you support the John Bolton nomination. His Capitol office phone number is 202-224-4224 (fax: 202-224-5213). Those of you in Nebraska should also call his district offices in the state. Contact information is here.
4. Write a letter to the editor of the Washington Post (1150 15th St NW Washington, DC 20071-0070) and Washington Times (3600 New York ve NE Washington, DC 20002). Make sure to indicate from which state you’re from. They'd love to hear from citizens outside the beltway.
5. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Visit the Townhall media contact page, enter your zip code, find your local paper and find the "letters to the editor" link. Do you want your Senator to see your letter? Mention him/her by name.
6. Stay tuned over the next couple of weeks to help keep Washington DC accountable.
From: Townhall.com
RE: John Bolton nomination
Thanks to wavering Republicans, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote to confirm John Bolton as UN ambassador has been delayed until May 12. Liberals are taking advantage of the delay to smear Bolton, who’s a bit too pro-America to suit them. If they succeed in convincing Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee to vote against him, they will derail his nomination. You can read more about this fight in an editorial from the Townhall.com editors.
It's time for action. Here's how.
1. Phone and write to Senator George Voinovich's office and tell them you support the John Bolton nomination. Senator Voinovich is the primary reason we're in the position we're in right now but it’s extremely important that your communications remain polite and stick to the facts. His Capitol Hill Senate office phone number is 202-224-3353 and more contact information for his different offices is here. Those of you who live in Ohio should contact his district office closest to where you live.
Columbus
Phone: (614) 469-6697
Fax: (614) 469-7733
37 West Broad St., Ste. 310
Columbus, OH 43215
Cleveland
Phone: (216) 522-7095
Fax: (216) 522-7097
1240 East Ninth St., Room 2955
Cleveland, OH 44199
Cincinnati
Phone: (513) 684-3265
Fax: (513) 684-3269
36 East 7th St., Rm. 2615
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Toledo
Phone: (419) 259-3895
Fax: (419) 359-3899
420 Madison Ave., Rm. 1210
Toledo, OH 43604
Gallipolis
Phone: (740) 441-6410
Fax: (740) 441-6414
417 Second St.
Gallipolis, OH 45631
2. Contact Senator Lincoln Chafee’s office and tell them you support the John Bolton nomination. His Capitol office phone number is 202-224-2921 (fax: 202-228-2853). Those of you in Rhode Island should also call his district offices in the state. Contact information is here.
3. Contact Senator Chuck Hagel's office and tell them you support the John Bolton nomination. His Capitol office phone number is 202-224-4224 (fax: 202-224-5213). Those of you in Nebraska should also call his district offices in the state. Contact information is here.
4. Write a letter to the editor of the Washington Post (1150 15th St NW Washington, DC 20071-0070) and Washington Times (3600 New York ve NE Washington, DC 20002). Make sure to indicate from which state you’re from. They'd love to hear from citizens outside the beltway.
5. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Visit the Townhall media contact page, enter your zip code, find your local paper and find the "letters to the editor" link. Do you want your Senator to see your letter? Mention him/her by name.
6. Stay tuned over the next couple of weeks to help keep Washington DC accountable.
factcheck.org Debunks the Dems' Lies
Democrats harness false assumptions to generate projections that individual Social Security accounts would be losers.
Summary
Democrats have been using a web-based "calculator" to generate individualized answers to the question, "How much will you lose under Bush privatization plan?" For young, low-wage workers it projects cuts of up to 50% in benefits. And a $1-million TV advertising campaign is amplifying the claim, saying, "Look below the surface (of Bush's plan) and you'll find benefit checks cut almost in half."
In fact, the calculator is rigged. We find it is based on a number of false assumptions and deceptive comparisons. For one thing, it assumes that stocks will yield average returns of only 3 percent per year above inflation. The historical average is close to 7 percent.
The calculator's authors claim that they use the same assumption used by the
Congressional Budget Office. Actually, CBO projects a 6.8 percent gain.
________________________
Check out the RIGGED CALCULATOR here.
This is not a fringe loon group using this.
Find the calculator at democrats.senate.gov, official Democrat Senate site.
Summary
Democrats have been using a web-based "calculator" to generate individualized answers to the question, "How much will you lose under Bush privatization plan?" For young, low-wage workers it projects cuts of up to 50% in benefits. And a $1-million TV advertising campaign is amplifying the claim, saying, "Look below the surface (of Bush's plan) and you'll find benefit checks cut almost in half."
In fact, the calculator is rigged. We find it is based on a number of false assumptions and deceptive comparisons. For one thing, it assumes that stocks will yield average returns of only 3 percent per year above inflation. The historical average is close to 7 percent.
The calculator's authors claim that they use the same assumption used by the
Congressional Budget Office. Actually, CBO projects a 6.8 percent gain.
________________________
Check out the RIGGED CALCULATOR here.
This is not a fringe loon group using this.
Find the calculator at democrats.senate.gov, official Democrat Senate site.
Bush v. Dems on Social Security
Bush to Announce Social Security Plans
By JENNIFER LOVEN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush is ready to begin talking with Congress and the public about specific steps he supports to ensure the future of Social Security and will announce his ideas during a prime-time news conference Thursday.
Bush was also using the formal question-and-answer session with reporters - his first in the evening in over a year - to talk about skyrocketing gas prices. The White House asked television networks to broadcast the news conference, scheduled for 8:30 p.m. EDT in the East Room of the White House.
The focus of the president's planned 10- to 12-minute opening statement was to be Social Security, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
...House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush's cross-country sales job on Social Security has been "a dismal failure."
"What I'm hoping" is that he will say "Uncle" about his privatization plan, she said. The White House shot back that Democrats are behaving as the do-nothing party with no ideas to offer.
_______________________
I don't understand why the Dems want to ignore the Social Security crisis. They used to consider it an issue of utmost importance.
Now, Harry Reid (D-NV) says, "The so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans."
He didn't always feel that way.
From The Hill:
RNC finds Bush-Reid tit-for-tat
By Alexander Bolton
The Republican National Committee (RNC) has resurrected a bill Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sponsored when he was in the House more than 20 years ago that would have kept members of Congress out of the Social Security program.
RNC researchers contend that the 1983 bill belies Reid’s repeated claim that Social Security is the “most successful program in the history of the world.”
The Republican salvo is in response to Democrats’ frequent use of a statement President Bush made in 1978 during his unsuccessful campaign for Congress that Social Security will “go bust in 10 years unless there are some changes.”
...In a statement scheduled for release today, the RNC blasts Reid for the 1983 bill. He sponsored it a few months after Congress passed legislation that required all members and other federal employees to join Social Security. Previously, federal employees, including lawmakers, participated in a generous defined-benefit pension program that exempted them from Social Security taxes.
That action may seem embarrassing when contrasted with Reid’s recent ebullient praise of Social Security, praise he reiterated yesterday at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters.
“Senator Reid has asserted that Social Security is the ‘most successful program in the history of the world,’ yet he wrote legislation allowing himself and other members of Congress to stay out of Social Security,” said Brian Jones, the RNC’s communications director.
_______________________
Perhaps House minority leader Reid should clarify.
Is Social Security the "most successful program in the history of the world"?
Reid's position on personal accounts has shifted dramatically since he took on a leadership role for the Democrats.
Reid Then:
Reid: "[M]ost Of Us Have No Problem With Taking A Small Amount Of The Social Security Proceeds And Putting It Into The Private Sector." (Fox’s "Fox News Sunday," 2/14/99)
Fox’s Tony Snow: "Are You Opposed To Letting People Make The Investment Decisions? In Other Words, Having Some Component Where They Say, ‘I’ll Save The Money Rather Than Letting Uncle Sam Do It For Me.’" Reid: "I Think It’s Important That We Look And I’m Totally In Favor Of Do This And In Fact, There Are A Couple Of Programs Now That We’re Taking A Look At To See If It Will Work With Social Security." (Fox’s "News Sunday," 2/14/99)
Reid: "We’re Visiting Chile Because It Is Doing Interesting Things In Social Security And Other Parts Of Its Free Market System." (Tony Batt, "Reid To Embark On South America Trip," Las Vegas Review-Journal, 3/30/99)
Reid Now:
Reid: "We Won’t Hesitate To Tell America Why The President’s Plan On Social Security Is So Dangerous." (CBS’ "The Saturday Early Show," 2/12/05)
Reid: "I Am Especially Concerned By President Bush’s Proposal To Move Toward The Privatization Of Social Security." (Sen. Harry Reid, "Social Security And African Americans," Press Release, 2/4/05)
___________________________
EMBARRASSING
By JENNIFER LOVEN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush is ready to begin talking with Congress and the public about specific steps he supports to ensure the future of Social Security and will announce his ideas during a prime-time news conference Thursday.
Bush was also using the formal question-and-answer session with reporters - his first in the evening in over a year - to talk about skyrocketing gas prices. The White House asked television networks to broadcast the news conference, scheduled for 8:30 p.m. EDT in the East Room of the White House.
The focus of the president's planned 10- to 12-minute opening statement was to be Social Security, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
...House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush's cross-country sales job on Social Security has been "a dismal failure."
"What I'm hoping" is that he will say "Uncle" about his privatization plan, she said. The White House shot back that Democrats are behaving as the do-nothing party with no ideas to offer.
_______________________
I don't understand why the Dems want to ignore the Social Security crisis. They used to consider it an issue of utmost importance.
Now, Harry Reid (D-NV) says, "The so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans."
He didn't always feel that way.
From The Hill:
RNC finds Bush-Reid tit-for-tat
By Alexander Bolton
The Republican National Committee (RNC) has resurrected a bill Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sponsored when he was in the House more than 20 years ago that would have kept members of Congress out of the Social Security program.
RNC researchers contend that the 1983 bill belies Reid’s repeated claim that Social Security is the “most successful program in the history of the world.”
The Republican salvo is in response to Democrats’ frequent use of a statement President Bush made in 1978 during his unsuccessful campaign for Congress that Social Security will “go bust in 10 years unless there are some changes.”
...In a statement scheduled for release today, the RNC blasts Reid for the 1983 bill. He sponsored it a few months after Congress passed legislation that required all members and other federal employees to join Social Security. Previously, federal employees, including lawmakers, participated in a generous defined-benefit pension program that exempted them from Social Security taxes.
That action may seem embarrassing when contrasted with Reid’s recent ebullient praise of Social Security, praise he reiterated yesterday at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters.
“Senator Reid has asserted that Social Security is the ‘most successful program in the history of the world,’ yet he wrote legislation allowing himself and other members of Congress to stay out of Social Security,” said Brian Jones, the RNC’s communications director.
_______________________
Perhaps House minority leader Reid should clarify.
Is Social Security the "most successful program in the history of the world"?
Reid's position on personal accounts has shifted dramatically since he took on a leadership role for the Democrats.
Reid Then:
Reid: "[M]ost Of Us Have No Problem With Taking A Small Amount Of The Social Security Proceeds And Putting It Into The Private Sector." (Fox’s "Fox News Sunday," 2/14/99)
Fox’s Tony Snow: "Are You Opposed To Letting People Make The Investment Decisions? In Other Words, Having Some Component Where They Say, ‘I’ll Save The Money Rather Than Letting Uncle Sam Do It For Me.’" Reid: "I Think It’s Important That We Look And I’m Totally In Favor Of Do This And In Fact, There Are A Couple Of Programs Now That We’re Taking A Look At To See If It Will Work With Social Security." (Fox’s "News Sunday," 2/14/99)
Reid: "We’re Visiting Chile Because It Is Doing Interesting Things In Social Security And Other Parts Of Its Free Market System." (Tony Batt, "Reid To Embark On South America Trip," Las Vegas Review-Journal, 3/30/99)
Reid Now:
Reid: "We Won’t Hesitate To Tell America Why The President’s Plan On Social Security Is So Dangerous." (CBS’ "The Saturday Early Show," 2/12/05)
Reid: "I Am Especially Concerned By President Bush’s Proposal To Move Toward The Privatization Of Social Security." (Sen. Harry Reid, "Social Security And African Americans," Press Release, 2/4/05)
___________________________
EMBARRASSING
Huffington Report Preview
May 9th, the day the Huffington Report is set to launch, can't come soon enough for me.
From The Guardian:
With friends like these ...
US socialite and journalist Arianna Huffington is to launch a super blog featuring contributions by a host of her celebrity chums, from Gwyneth Paltrow to Norman Mailer. Tim Dowling got a preview
Wednesday April 27, 2005
The Guardian
Welcome!!!!! posted by "Huff" on Mon May 9 2005 at 09:00 PDT
Hi everybody! Allow me to introduce my innovative new publishing venture, a groundbreaking "group blog", where over 250 creative minds from every corner of my Rolodex weigh in on topics ranging from the political to the personal, and anything in between! Well, that's enough from me - let's blog!
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
Great New Experiment in Democracy, posted by "Huff" on Mon May 9 at 09:02 PDT
The "blogosphere" is the biggest leap forward in journalism since the days of Tom Paine, a unique opportunity to tap directly into the cultural bloodstream. But I'm not here to put words in anyone's mouth, I'm just providing the megaphone!
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
A New Kind of Communication, posted by "Huff" on Mon May 9 at 09:07 PDT
Instant, interactive, intelligent, informed; reaching out across the political spectrum. What? Did everybody forget their passwords already?
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
I can't think of anything to say, posted by G Paltrow on Mon May 9 at 09:21 PDT
Arianna: its rlly uncool whn my cell rings during pilates. i said id post whn & if i had something to say. rt now im just too busy. stop bugging me.
Gwynniex
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
Another Cutting Edge Contribution, posted by "Huff" on Mon May 9 at 09:23 PDT
Cantankerous, unafraid and always outspoken, that's Gwyneth (Paltrow) to a tee! You can expect to be hearing a lot more from her on Huffingtonpost.com, on a whole variety of subjects!
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
Does anyone know how to get red wine stains out of a wool carpet? posted by NORMAN MAILER on Mon May 9 at 10:14 PDT
I'm screwed if my wife sees this. I'm not even supposed to drink in that room. I've been scrubbing but that just seems to spread the stain around. A quick answer would be most appreciated.
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
I think I'm going to run for president, posted by WarrenBeatty on Mon May 9 at 10:39 PDT
You heard it here first, people. The official announcement will be on Jay Leno on Wednesday. Most of you know that I've been actively interested in politics for many years, but recent events in our country have finally made me realise that someone has got to take a stand. I know I can count on your support. Oh hang on, I've got a fridge being delivered that day. Forget about it.
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
This is so blogciting, posted by Tina Brown on Mon May 9 at 11:04 PDT
Today we are entering a new paradigm: the energy and passion that I see on this mega-blog will ensure that it becomes not just the premiere electro-salon of the liberal elite, but the soul-search engine for the entire Alter-net. In today's fast-moving, cross-pollinating media perfect storm we don't always want considered essays or spelled-out arguments. Sometimes we just want to say "Bush sucks". Although his wife is really sweet.
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
Re: Does anyone know how to get red wine stains out of a wool carpet? posted by BarryDillerCEO.IAC/InterActiveCrop on Mon May 9 at 11:17 PDT
pour white wine over it & then blot GENTLY with a clean cloth. Rinse with warm water & repeat until gone. Whatever you do, don't rub. Who's got a good sourdough bread recipe, btw? The last loaf I made was like a paving stone.
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
I know I'm just providing the megaphone but. posted by "Huff" on Mon May 9 2005 at 11:34 PDT
perhaps I could suggest a topic? The president's proposals for private investment accounts are aimed at improving the long-term solvency of social security, but does it come at too high a price, namely sacrificing the commitment to guarantied benefits?
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
Dear hopeless liberals, Posted by David "Axis of Evil" Frum on Mon May 9 2005 at 11:45 PDT
Unless you got to that stain right away, white wine ain't gonna do jack. You need BLEACH and plenty of it, and you need to rub hard. Hope this doesn't shatter your cosy little worldview.
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
OH MY GOD ARIANNA Posted by G Paltrow on Mon May 9 2005 at 12:22 PDT
Did you just like take that text I sent you and post it on your stupid frigging blog? That was private! How dare you! Don't post this email either!
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
Whoops! The fridge is coming today! Posted by WarrenBeatty on Mon May 9 2005 at 13:09 PDT
They just called. So I guess I can announce my candidacy on wed after all, but now I don't really feel like it. Hi Gwynnie! Hi Norman! What's everyone having for lunch?
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
Gore in MoveOn Mode
Yesterday, Al Gore switched gears again.
He dropped the congenial facade he trotted out to announce his cable TV channel, Current, and morphed into the fire-breathing Al. Addressing the fringe extremists that have hijacked the Democrat party, Gore delivered, offering lots of loony rhetoric to the radicals.
Complete transcript of Gore's remarks
(Excerpts)
As Aristotle once said of virtue, respect for the rule of law is "one thing."
It is indivisible.
And so long as it remains indivisible, so will our country.
But if either major political party is ever so beguiled by a lust for power that it abandons this unifying principle, then the fabric of our democracy will be torn.
The survival of freedom depends upon the rule of law.
Suddenly, Gore is opining about the rule of law. He had no problem standing by his man, Bill Clinton, during his dismissal of the law when he repeatedly lied under oath. Gore seems to have an odd, selective interpretation when it comes to "no controlling legal authority."
So, it is not as a Democrat but as an American, that I appeal today to the leadership of the majority in the Senate to halt their efforts to break the Senate's rules and instead protect a meaningful role in the confirmation of judges and justices for Senators of both parties. Remember that you will not always be in the majority, but much more importantly, remember what is best for our country regardless of which party is temporarily in power. Many of us know what it feels like to be disappointed with decisions made by the courts. But instead of attacking the judges with whose opinions we disagree, we live by the rule of law and maintain respect for the courts.
With all due respect, what a load!
The constitutional option has nothing to do with being in the majority. It has everything to do with fairness.
"For over 200 years, a majority vote is all that has been required to confirm judicial nominations. Now the Democrats are changing the rules and preventing the majority from confirming these nominees. The Senate majority should not be forced to choose between fulfilling their Constitutional obligation and conducting the people's business. "
I am genuinely dismayed and deeply concerned by the recent actions of some Republican leaders to undermine the rule of law by demanding the Senate be stripped of its right to unlimited debate where the confirmation of judges is concerned, and even to engage in outright threats and intimidation against federal judges with whom they philosophically disagree.
1) No one is advocating the use of physical violence or illegal means to threaten judges.
2) The reiteration of these false accusations suits the liberal agenda. However, Gore's perpetuation of this myth only serves to highlight the irresponsible rhetoric of desperate Dems.
This aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry is actually a throwback to the intolerance that led to the creation of America in the first place.
James Madison warned us in Federalist #10 that sometimes, "A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction."
Unfortunately the virulent faction now committed to changing the basic nature of democracy now wields enough political power within the Republican party to have a major influence over who secures the Republican nomination for president in the 2008 election. It appears painfully obvious that some of those who have their eyes on that nomination are falling all over themselves to curry favor with this faction.
...I think it is truly important to expose the fundamental flaw in the arguments of these zealots. The unifying theme now being pushed by this coalition is actually an American heresy -- a highly developed political philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with the founding principles of the United States of America.
Gore bashes Christians, people of faith, calling them dangerous zealots. This sort of mischaracterization only reinforces the resolve of these "zealots" to elect Republicans. Keep it up, Al.
This fight is not about responding to a crisis. It is about the desire of the administration and the Senate leadership to stifle debate in order to get what they want when they want it. What is involved here is a power grab -- pure and simple.
How is upholding the Constitution, by allowing judicial nominees an up or down vote in the Senate, stifling debate?
Power Grab?
Is Gore flashing back to the 2000 election again? The attempt to alter election law when liberal Florida judges legislated from the bench was most definitely a power grab--pure and simple.
And what makes it so dangerous for our country is their willingness to do serious damage to our American democracy in order to satisfy their lust for total one-party domination of all three branches of government. They seek nothing less than absolute power. Their grand design is an all-powerful executive using a weakened legislature to fashion a compliant judiciary in its own image. They envision a total breakdown of the separation of powers. And in its place they want to establish a system in which power is unified in the service of a narrow ideology serving a narrow set of interests.
Their coalition of supporters includes both right-wing religious extremists and exceptionally greedy economic special interests. Both groups are seeking more and more power for their own separate purposes. If they were to achieve their ambition -- and exercise the power they seek -- America would face the twin dangers of an economic blueprint that eliminated most all of the safeguards and protections established for middle class families throughout the 20th century and a complete revision of the historic insulation of the rule of law from sectarian dogma. One of the first casualties would be the civil liberties that Americans have come to take for granted.
Gore really wanders into paranoiac territory here.
One-party domination? The American people CHOSE to give Republicans power in the executive and legislative branches. They voted them into office. They expect judicial nominees to reflect their voices. What lust!
Are American voters part of this diabolical "grand design" of one-party rule?
What's particularly ironic about Gore's ramblings on "right-wing religious extremists and exceptionally greedy economic special interests" seeking absolute power is that he delivered his speech to a room filled with MoveOn's left-wing extremists and special interests.
Regarding his fear-mongering skills, Gore shows he hasn't lost his touch. He claims that opposition to using the filibuster to block judicial nominees would somehow translate into a loss of civil liberties for Americans.
Gore is twisting support for judicial nominess to be granted an up or down vote into an effort to transform the U.S. government into a dictatorship.
Absolutely ridiculous!
Yet today's Republicans seem hell-bent on squelching the ability of the minority in this country to express dissent. This is in keeping with other Republican actions to undercut the legislative process.
And in the filibuster fight they are doing it with utter disregard for the rule of law so central to our democracy.
Explain to me how a vote squelches dissent. I would agrue that preventing a vote squelches the voice of the people.
The minority is seeking to undercut what the American people want. They are showing complete disregard for the fact that voters determined the makeup of the House, Senate, and Presidency.
And now, all of the new public opinion polls show an overwhelming majority of the American people are opposed to this current effort to cripple the United States Senate's position in our constitutional framework by destroying the principle of unlimited debate. But, the congressional Republican leadership and the White House are so beholden to the extremists that they feel like they have to do what they say.
Right. The push polls that phrase questions in a manner which nudges people to answer in accordance with the liberal agenda of the polls' creators are in agreement with the Dems.
When questions are posed to Americans without this bias, the results are not to the Dems' liking.
Moreover, Congressional Republicans and the WH should be beholden to the people that elected them. That's what representative government is about.
In effect, Gore is saying the majority that elected Bush and a Republican House and Senate are extremists. He really doesn't get it. The man and his party are out of touch with the American people and reality.
The proposal from the Senate majority leader to abolish the right of unlimited debate is a poison pill for America's democracy. It is the stalking horse for a dangerous American heresy that would substitute persuasion on the merits with bullying and an effort at partisan domination.
Granting judicial nominees their right to an up or down vote in the Senate is not a "poison pill."
It is upholding the U.S. Constitution.
For Gore and the out of touch Dems, that is a poison pill.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Who's Sorry Now?
From Drudge:
WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN MCCLELLAN CALLS AIR AMERICA SKIT "VERY INAPPROPRIATE AND OVER THE LINE."
AIR AMERICA President of Programming Jon Sinton: "We regret that a produced comedy bit that was in bad taste slipped through our normal vetting process. We do acknowledge that it was an internal error and internal discipline will be enforced..."
HOST RANDI RHODES APOLOGIZED WEDNESDAY FOR THE NETWORK'S AIRING OF A CLIP WHICH APPEARED TO TIE A GUNSHOT THREAT TO PRESIDENT BUSH... "IT WAS A LAME ATTEMPT AT HUMOR, I APOLOGIZE... IT WAS BAD..."
______________________________
You know when anyone at Air America makes an apology they must be up to their necks in it.
In addition to the disgraceful bit, I would apply the term "bad" to AIR AMERICA, overall.
Programming--BAD
Personalities--BAD
Substance--BAD
Entertainment value--BAD
Air America itself is a "lame attempt" at talk radio.
BAD!
WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN MCCLELLAN CALLS AIR AMERICA SKIT "VERY INAPPROPRIATE AND OVER THE LINE."
AIR AMERICA President of Programming Jon Sinton: "We regret that a produced comedy bit that was in bad taste slipped through our normal vetting process. We do acknowledge that it was an internal error and internal discipline will be enforced..."
HOST RANDI RHODES APOLOGIZED WEDNESDAY FOR THE NETWORK'S AIRING OF A CLIP WHICH APPEARED TO TIE A GUNSHOT THREAT TO PRESIDENT BUSH... "IT WAS A LAME ATTEMPT AT HUMOR, I APOLOGIZE... IT WAS BAD..."
______________________________
You know when anyone at Air America makes an apology they must be up to their necks in it.
In addition to the disgraceful bit, I would apply the term "bad" to AIR AMERICA, overall.
Programming--BAD
Personalities--BAD
Substance--BAD
Entertainment value--BAD
Air America itself is a "lame attempt" at talk radio.
BAD!
Air America Has Bush in its Crosshairs--Literally
Air America is in trouble.
No, I'm not talking about its dismal ratings, tiny network, nor its dearth of sponsors. I'm not talking about its lackluster group of personalitites, nor the embarrassingly boring and misguided substance of its broadcasts.
This from Drudge:
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED APRIL 27, 2005 09:01:25 ET XXXXX
AIR AMERICA RADIO INVESTIGATED AFTER BUSH 'GUNSHOTS'
**Exclusive**
The red-hot rhetoric over Social Security on liberal talkradio network AIR AMERICA has caught the attention of the Secret Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Government officials are reviewing a skit which aired on the network Monday evening -- a skit featuring an apparent gunshot warning to the president!
The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."
The audio production at the center of the controversy aired during opening minutes of The Randi Rhodes Show.
"What is with all the killing?" Rhodes said, laughing, after the clip aired.
"Even joking about shooting the president is a crime, let alone doing it on national radio... we are taking this very seriously," a government source explained.
Developing...
______________________________
Have you ever listened to Randi Rhodes?
Have you ever had dental work without novocaine?
Apparently, Air America has crossed the line from tasteless to criminal.
The Dems got all bent out of shape about Tom DeLay supposedly threatening judges and provoking violence against them; yet they find the sound of shots being fired at the president amusing.
Such is the moral relativism of the Democrats.
Such is the utter lameness of Air America.
___________________________
By the way, while checking Air America's website this morning, I found this poll:
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist rallied against the judicial filibuster in a church. Was that inappropriate?
--No, I love it when religion bleeds into government.
--Yes, we are visibly eroding the separation of church and state.
I didn't bother to check the poll results. I would guess the liberals overwhelmingly support religion bleeding into government, based on the way Al Gore and John Kerry talk.
No, I'm not talking about its dismal ratings, tiny network, nor its dearth of sponsors. I'm not talking about its lackluster group of personalitites, nor the embarrassingly boring and misguided substance of its broadcasts.
This from Drudge:
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED APRIL 27, 2005 09:01:25 ET XXXXX
AIR AMERICA RADIO INVESTIGATED AFTER BUSH 'GUNSHOTS'
**Exclusive**
The red-hot rhetoric over Social Security on liberal talkradio network AIR AMERICA has caught the attention of the Secret Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Government officials are reviewing a skit which aired on the network Monday evening -- a skit featuring an apparent gunshot warning to the president!
The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."
The audio production at the center of the controversy aired during opening minutes of The Randi Rhodes Show.
"What is with all the killing?" Rhodes said, laughing, after the clip aired.
"Even joking about shooting the president is a crime, let alone doing it on national radio... we are taking this very seriously," a government source explained.
Developing...
______________________________
Have you ever listened to Randi Rhodes?
Have you ever had dental work without novocaine?
Apparently, Air America has crossed the line from tasteless to criminal.
The Dems got all bent out of shape about Tom DeLay supposedly threatening judges and provoking violence against them; yet they find the sound of shots being fired at the president amusing.
Such is the moral relativism of the Democrats.
Such is the utter lameness of Air America.
___________________________
By the way, while checking Air America's website this morning, I found this poll:
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist rallied against the judicial filibuster in a church. Was that inappropriate?
--No, I love it when religion bleeds into government.
--Yes, we are visibly eroding the separation of church and state.
I didn't bother to check the poll results. I would guess the liberals overwhelmingly support religion bleeding into government, based on the way Al Gore and John Kerry talk.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Smart Move
GOP to Reverse Ethics Rule Blocking New DeLay Probe
January Change Led Democrats to Shut Down Panel
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01
House Republican leaders, acknowledging that ethics disputes are taking a heavy toll on the party's image, decided yesterday to rescind a controversial rule change that led to the three-month shutdown of the ethics committee, according to officials who participated in the talks.
Republicans touched off a political uproar in January by changing a rule that had required the ethics committee to continue considering a complaint against a House member if there was a deadlock between the committee's five Republicans and five Democrats. The January change reversed this, calling for automatic dismissal of an ethics complaint when a deadlock occurs.
Democrats rebelled against that and other changes -- saying Republicans were trying to protect House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) from further ethics investigations -- and blocked the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics panel is officially known, from organizing for the new Congress.
Republicans on the committee say they will launch an investigation of DeLay's handling of overseas trips and gifts as soon as the impasse over the rules is broken.
_______________________________
This makes sense.
The Democrats are benefiting from shutting the Ethics Committee down. It's time to get it moving again and let DeLay's actions be judged.
Taking this issue away from the Dems will be far more helpful to Republicans in the long run than any political losses they might take as a result of giving into the Dems' demands.
January Change Led Democrats to Shut Down Panel
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01
House Republican leaders, acknowledging that ethics disputes are taking a heavy toll on the party's image, decided yesterday to rescind a controversial rule change that led to the three-month shutdown of the ethics committee, according to officials who participated in the talks.
Republicans touched off a political uproar in January by changing a rule that had required the ethics committee to continue considering a complaint against a House member if there was a deadlock between the committee's five Republicans and five Democrats. The January change reversed this, calling for automatic dismissal of an ethics complaint when a deadlock occurs.
Democrats rebelled against that and other changes -- saying Republicans were trying to protect House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) from further ethics investigations -- and blocked the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics panel is officially known, from organizing for the new Congress.
Republicans on the committee say they will launch an investigation of DeLay's handling of overseas trips and gifts as soon as the impasse over the rules is broken.
_______________________________
This makes sense.
The Democrats are benefiting from shutting the Ethics Committee down. It's time to get it moving again and let DeLay's actions be judged.
Taking this issue away from the Dems will be far more helpful to Republicans in the long run than any political losses they might take as a result of giving into the Dems' demands.
New Excecution Deadline for Hostages in Iraq
By Laura Chiriac in Bucharest
Wednesday, 27 April , 2005, 08:40
The kidnappers of three Romanian journalists held in Iraq on Tuesday set a new ultimatum for their execution, hours after the employer of two of the hostages announced they were still alive.
The kidnappers have given Bucharest until 13.00 (GMT) on Wednesday to announce the withdrawal of its 860 troops from Iraq in order to save the journalists' lives, Al-Jazeera television reported.
The Arab satellite news channel said it had a video showing the hostages with their hands tied, and setting the new deadline for Bucharest. An earlier ultimatum expired on Tuesday.
Prima TV reporter Marie-Jeanne Ion and cameraman Sorin Miscoci were seized in a Baghdad suburb on March 28, along with Romania Libera correspondent Eduard Ohanesian.
...In Tuesday's broadcast, Al-Jazeera played soundless extracts showing the three journalists and a fourth hostage, a US-Iraqi businessman, Mohamed Munaf, kidnapped at the same time as them.
According to Al-Jazeera, Munaf appealed to US President George W Bush to intervene to save his life. Romanian media have identified Munaf as the journalists' guide in Iraq.
From the Washington Post:
Hundreds of Romanians and Arabs gathered downtown the Romanian capital calling for the release of the three journalists, hours before a deadline set by the kidnappers for the pullout of Romanian troops from Iraq. (AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda)
...Romanians demonstrated by the hundreds in Bucharest and other cities Tuesday. Carrying posters saying "Freedom" in Romanian, English and Arabic, they stood in silence in Bucharest's University Square. The rally continued late into the night, with supporters pledging to remain there until the hostages are freed.
Prime Minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu appealed to Romanians to be calm.
"Please trust that Romanian authorities are making all efforts to bring them (the hostages) home safely," he said.
______________________________
These tapes are absolutely heartbreaking.
Condoleezza Rice reiterates that we don't negotiate with terrorists. Romania does not appear to be ready to capitulate. In the meantime, we are treated to these deeply disturbing scenes on Aljazeera.
There is still no new information about Jeffrey Ake, the American from LaPorte, Indiana, being held hostage in Iraq since April 11.
I pray the terrorists spare all their lives. I pray for their families.
One more thing: I think it would be appropriate for Ted Kennedy to make a statement about the barbaric methods of these terrorist kidnappers.
I would like to see him mark the anniversaries of the exeutions of hostages by Iraqis, rather than harping on Abu Ghraib.
Of course, he says nothing, because condemning terrorists doesn't score political points.
Wednesday, 27 April , 2005, 08:40
The kidnappers of three Romanian journalists held in Iraq on Tuesday set a new ultimatum for their execution, hours after the employer of two of the hostages announced they were still alive.
The kidnappers have given Bucharest until 13.00 (GMT) on Wednesday to announce the withdrawal of its 860 troops from Iraq in order to save the journalists' lives, Al-Jazeera television reported.
The Arab satellite news channel said it had a video showing the hostages with their hands tied, and setting the new deadline for Bucharest. An earlier ultimatum expired on Tuesday.
Prima TV reporter Marie-Jeanne Ion and cameraman Sorin Miscoci were seized in a Baghdad suburb on March 28, along with Romania Libera correspondent Eduard Ohanesian.
...In Tuesday's broadcast, Al-Jazeera played soundless extracts showing the three journalists and a fourth hostage, a US-Iraqi businessman, Mohamed Munaf, kidnapped at the same time as them.
According to Al-Jazeera, Munaf appealed to US President George W Bush to intervene to save his life. Romanian media have identified Munaf as the journalists' guide in Iraq.
From the Washington Post:
Hundreds of Romanians and Arabs gathered downtown the Romanian capital calling for the release of the three journalists, hours before a deadline set by the kidnappers for the pullout of Romanian troops from Iraq. (AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda)
...Romanians demonstrated by the hundreds in Bucharest and other cities Tuesday. Carrying posters saying "Freedom" in Romanian, English and Arabic, they stood in silence in Bucharest's University Square. The rally continued late into the night, with supporters pledging to remain there until the hostages are freed.
Prime Minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu appealed to Romanians to be calm.
"Please trust that Romanian authorities are making all efforts to bring them (the hostages) home safely," he said.
______________________________
These tapes are absolutely heartbreaking.
Condoleezza Rice reiterates that we don't negotiate with terrorists. Romania does not appear to be ready to capitulate. In the meantime, we are treated to these deeply disturbing scenes on Aljazeera.
There is still no new information about Jeffrey Ake, the American from LaPorte, Indiana, being held hostage in Iraq since April 11.
I pray the terrorists spare all their lives. I pray for their families.
One more thing: I think it would be appropriate for Ted Kennedy to make a statement about the barbaric methods of these terrorist kidnappers.
I would like to see him mark the anniversaries of the exeutions of hostages by Iraqis, rather than harping on Abu Ghraib.
Of course, he says nothing, because condemning terrorists doesn't score political points.
Teddy Celebrates!
Once again, Ted Kennedy goes off the deep end. (I mean that metaphorically, of course.)
Excerpts from Drudge:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON ANNIVERSARY OF ABU GHRAIB SCANDAL
The sad anniversary of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal is now upon us. It's an appropriate time to reflect on how well we've responded as a nation.
The images of cruelty, and perversion are still difficult to look at a year later. An Iraqi prisoner in a dark hood and cape, standing on a cardboard box with electrodes attached to his body. Naked men forced to simulate sex acts on each other. The corpse of a man who had been beaten to death, lying in ice, next to soldiers smiling and giving a "thumbs up" sign. A pool of blood from the wounds of a naked, defenseless prisoner attacked by a military dog.
These images are seared into our collective memory. The reports of widespread abuse by U.S. personnel were initially met with disbelief, then incomprehension. They stand in sharp contrast to the values America has always stood for-our belief in the dignity and worth of all people-our unequivocal stance against torture and abuse -- our commitment to the rule of law. The images horrified us and severely damaged our reputation in the Middle East and around the world.
Personally, I think leaving a woman to drown is cruel and perverted. In my view, since we are discussing sharp contrasts, I find Ted's finger-wagging sermon condemning torture to be in sharp contrast with his torturing of Mary Jo Kopechne.
Kennedy goes on:
Top officials in the Administration have endorsed interrogation methods that we've condemned in other countries, including binding prisoners in painful "stress" positions, threatening them with dogs, extended sleep deprivation, and simulated drownings.
I certainly do not endorse torture. I do find it ironic that Ted is complainging about "simulated drownings." How can he say those words with a straight face? Why doesn't someone tell him to stop talking about drownings? It's bad imagery for him to use.
He directly attacks President Bush:
Many of us were struck by the rhetoric in President Bush's Inaugural Address. "From the day of our founding," he said, "we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth." Many of us would like to work with the President to develop a foreign policy that advances these important values. But rarely has the gulf between a President's rhetoric and his Administration's actions been so wide. It is simply not possible to reconcile his claim that "America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies" with the barbaric acts that have been committed in America's name.
We must not allow inaction to undermine two bedrock principles of human rights law that we worked hard to establish at Nuremberg: that higher officials cannot escape command responsibility and lower officials cannot excuse their actions by claiming that they were "just following orders."
These are extrememly strong words, charging Bush with responsiblity for barbaric acts. Kennedy then speaks of Republican support for torture.
...Torture became something that Americans of all political affiliations agreed never to do.
...It is clear beyond a doubt that we cannot trust this Republican Congress or this Republican Administration to conduct the full investigation that should have been conducted long before now. We've had enough whitewashes by the Administration and Congressional Committees.
And he blathers on about the restoring America's standing in the world. Ted just can't give up on Abu Ghraib. He marks the anniversary of the scandal with a long-winded statement. If he is so concerned about torture, why wait for today, the anniversary, to make it an issue?
I'm not clear. Does today mark the day when the story broke? Is today when cable news jumped on it? Whatever, this must be a first--reflecting on the anniversary of headlines and lead stories.
Will this be commemorated annually from now on? Will it become a federal holiday? Will it mean another three day weekend?
Excerpts from Drudge:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON ANNIVERSARY OF ABU GHRAIB SCANDAL
The sad anniversary of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal is now upon us. It's an appropriate time to reflect on how well we've responded as a nation.
The images of cruelty, and perversion are still difficult to look at a year later. An Iraqi prisoner in a dark hood and cape, standing on a cardboard box with electrodes attached to his body. Naked men forced to simulate sex acts on each other. The corpse of a man who had been beaten to death, lying in ice, next to soldiers smiling and giving a "thumbs up" sign. A pool of blood from the wounds of a naked, defenseless prisoner attacked by a military dog.
These images are seared into our collective memory. The reports of widespread abuse by U.S. personnel were initially met with disbelief, then incomprehension. They stand in sharp contrast to the values America has always stood for-our belief in the dignity and worth of all people-our unequivocal stance against torture and abuse -- our commitment to the rule of law. The images horrified us and severely damaged our reputation in the Middle East and around the world.
Personally, I think leaving a woman to drown is cruel and perverted. In my view, since we are discussing sharp contrasts, I find Ted's finger-wagging sermon condemning torture to be in sharp contrast with his torturing of Mary Jo Kopechne.
Kennedy goes on:
Top officials in the Administration have endorsed interrogation methods that we've condemned in other countries, including binding prisoners in painful "stress" positions, threatening them with dogs, extended sleep deprivation, and simulated drownings.
I certainly do not endorse torture. I do find it ironic that Ted is complainging about "simulated drownings." How can he say those words with a straight face? Why doesn't someone tell him to stop talking about drownings? It's bad imagery for him to use.
He directly attacks President Bush:
Many of us were struck by the rhetoric in President Bush's Inaugural Address. "From the day of our founding," he said, "we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth." Many of us would like to work with the President to develop a foreign policy that advances these important values. But rarely has the gulf between a President's rhetoric and his Administration's actions been so wide. It is simply not possible to reconcile his claim that "America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies" with the barbaric acts that have been committed in America's name.
We must not allow inaction to undermine two bedrock principles of human rights law that we worked hard to establish at Nuremberg: that higher officials cannot escape command responsibility and lower officials cannot excuse their actions by claiming that they were "just following orders."
These are extrememly strong words, charging Bush with responsiblity for barbaric acts. Kennedy then speaks of Republican support for torture.
Never before has torture been a Republican versus Democrat issue. Instead, it's always been an issue of broad consensus and ideals, reflecting the fundamental values of the nation, and the ideals of the world.
...Torture became something that Americans of all political affiliations agreed never to do.
...It is clear beyond a doubt that we cannot trust this Republican Congress or this Republican Administration to conduct the full investigation that should have been conducted long before now. We've had enough whitewashes by the Administration and Congressional Committees.
And he blathers on about the restoring America's standing in the world. Ted just can't give up on Abu Ghraib. He marks the anniversary of the scandal with a long-winded statement. If he is so concerned about torture, why wait for today, the anniversary, to make it an issue?
I'm not clear. Does today mark the day when the story broke? Is today when cable news jumped on it? Whatever, this must be a first--reflecting on the anniversary of headlines and lead stories.
Will this be commemorated annually from now on? Will it become a federal holiday? Will it mean another three day weekend?
Melody Townsel and Joe Biden: Kindred Spirits
Important Melody Townsel revelation--PLEASE DISSEMINATE
DISSEMINATION UNDERWAY!
(No wonder Biden took such a liking to Melody.)
DISSEMINATION UNDERWAY!
(No wonder Biden took such a liking to Melody.)
Poor, Poor, Pitiful Jane
On April 22, Jane Fonda was Bill Maher's guest on Real Time.
Transcript Excerpts:
FONDA: I've been on the road for two-and-a-half weeks, and hundreds of Vietnam veterans have crossed my path at the various events and book signings, and they've been fabulous. [applause] You know, they've—
MAHER: Yeah.
FONDA: --they've been friendly and welcoming. And they have forgiven me. And so there are some who are stuck back there and – but most are not.
MAHER: Yeah, it really is on them at this point, isn't it, if somebody can't get over something in 35 years.
FONDA: Well, you know, the problem is we've never come to terms with the war. You know, generally, the revisionism that started during the Reagan Administration has been bought into by a lot of people in this country, and it's prevented us from learning the lessons that we were supposed to learn from the war.
Fonda blames Reagan for a revisionism that keeps Americans from understanding Vietnam and some vets from forgiving her. Yeah, that makes sense.
FONDA: And – and so they blame the anti-war movement and people like me for losing the war. It was a war we couldn't win, and five administrations knew that and sent men over there to die in spite of it. [applause]
MAHER: Yeah. And I think what they would say is, “Yes, but that's something different than going to the country that was fighting us, however wrong the war would be. And I think you've acknowledged that yourself.
FONDA: No. Hunh-huh, no. I went to North Vietnam . There were only 24,000 American combat troops in South Vietnam when I went in 1972, and the Nixon Administration was lying to the American people, and men were dying as a result. And I went to expose the lies and stop the bombing of the dikes, which, according to Kissinger, would have caused about 200,000 people to starve. I am proud that I went. About 300 people had gone before me to North Vietnam , Americans. The thing that I apologized for was sitting on an anti-aircraft gun.
Again, Fonda apologizes for sitting on the gun. NOTHING ELSE.
FONDA: --Air Force, Marines, sailors. I had spent a lot of time with soldiers and listened to them, and knew their stories, and knew their wives, what their wives had to say. It's why I made “Coming Home” later, because I knew a lot about what was going on. It was servicemen that got me into the war. What I heard from them made me understand that that war was different than the war that my father had fought, the Second World War.
MAHER: Yeah. What about the war that's going on now? How valid a comparison point is Vietnam , do you think, to what's going on in Iraq ?
FONDA: Well, the similarity is that – based on lies. American men, and in this case, men and women—[applause]—are being sent into harm's way based on lies. This is – Vietnam was based on lies and deceit. And, you know, none of us like bullies like Saddam Hussein, you know. Not a good guy at all. There were other ways of getting rid of him, and I would be all for that. But we didn't have to kill 100,000 innocent women and children and innocent men—[applause]—in order to – in order to do that.
MAHER: But we're there now. And, yes, I agree, they lied like the thieves they are, to get us into that war. But don't you think there's something more hopeful that may be going on there now than was ever possible in Vietnam ? Can't some good come out of bad? Even a lying – I mean, some people would say you have to lie to get people into any war.
FONDA: No, the – no, I don't agree with that. Something may come out, but I fear very much that it's – that we've laid the groundwork for an increase in terrorism. We have prepared a fertile ground for recruiting terrorists in Iraq , where one didn't exist before we went in there. We still haven't gotten Osama bin Laden. You know, there were other ways to do it.
In effect, Fonda is stating that our military has not accomplished anything of value in Iraq. She dwells on the innocents killed in the fighting, but ignores the mass murder, the mass graves, the brutality and suffering of Iraqis under Saddam Hussein's regime. She ignores the fact that for fourteen years the dictator refused to comply with UN resolutions and relief for Iraqis was nowhere in sight.
Fonda says there was a better way. Exactly what would that be? It's that same John Kerry "I have a plan" gibberish.
She believes Iraq was not a recruiting ground for terrorists before the war. How inexcusably naive!
FONDA: I don't believe in the Christianity that says one thing and then goes and kills innocent people and tries to rob women of their fundamental human right to control their reproductive lives, or deny people of the same sex their right to be married and have relationships—[applause]—and is judgmental and narrow-minded, and angry and vengeful. That is not the Jesus Christ that I believe in. And there's a lot of people like me out there. [applause] [cheers]
What? Fonda has reconstructed Christianity to feed her massive ego and fit her political agenda.
If she believes Jesus is pro-abortion, she is pathetically misguided.
It's hard to be angry at someone who is so messed up. I pity her.
Transcript Excerpts:
FONDA: I've been on the road for two-and-a-half weeks, and hundreds of Vietnam veterans have crossed my path at the various events and book signings, and they've been fabulous. [applause] You know, they've—
MAHER: Yeah.
FONDA: --they've been friendly and welcoming. And they have forgiven me. And so there are some who are stuck back there and – but most are not.
MAHER: Yeah, it really is on them at this point, isn't it, if somebody can't get over something in 35 years.
FONDA: Well, you know, the problem is we've never come to terms with the war. You know, generally, the revisionism that started during the Reagan Administration has been bought into by a lot of people in this country, and it's prevented us from learning the lessons that we were supposed to learn from the war.
Fonda blames Reagan for a revisionism that keeps Americans from understanding Vietnam and some vets from forgiving her. Yeah, that makes sense.
FONDA: And – and so they blame the anti-war movement and people like me for losing the war. It was a war we couldn't win, and five administrations knew that and sent men over there to die in spite of it. [applause]
MAHER: Yeah. And I think what they would say is, “Yes, but that's something different than going to the country that was fighting us, however wrong the war would be. And I think you've acknowledged that yourself.
FONDA: No. Hunh-huh, no. I went to North Vietnam . There were only 24,000 American combat troops in South Vietnam when I went in 1972, and the Nixon Administration was lying to the American people, and men were dying as a result. And I went to expose the lies and stop the bombing of the dikes, which, according to Kissinger, would have caused about 200,000 people to starve. I am proud that I went. About 300 people had gone before me to North Vietnam , Americans. The thing that I apologized for was sitting on an anti-aircraft gun.
Again, Fonda apologizes for sitting on the gun. NOTHING ELSE.
FONDA: --Air Force, Marines, sailors. I had spent a lot of time with soldiers and listened to them, and knew their stories, and knew their wives, what their wives had to say. It's why I made “Coming Home” later, because I knew a lot about what was going on. It was servicemen that got me into the war. What I heard from them made me understand that that war was different than the war that my father had fought, the Second World War.
MAHER: Yeah. What about the war that's going on now? How valid a comparison point is Vietnam , do you think, to what's going on in Iraq ?
FONDA: Well, the similarity is that – based on lies. American men, and in this case, men and women—[applause]—are being sent into harm's way based on lies. This is – Vietnam was based on lies and deceit. And, you know, none of us like bullies like Saddam Hussein, you know. Not a good guy at all. There were other ways of getting rid of him, and I would be all for that. But we didn't have to kill 100,000 innocent women and children and innocent men—[applause]—in order to – in order to do that.
MAHER: But we're there now. And, yes, I agree, they lied like the thieves they are, to get us into that war. But don't you think there's something more hopeful that may be going on there now than was ever possible in Vietnam ? Can't some good come out of bad? Even a lying – I mean, some people would say you have to lie to get people into any war.
FONDA: No, the – no, I don't agree with that. Something may come out, but I fear very much that it's – that we've laid the groundwork for an increase in terrorism. We have prepared a fertile ground for recruiting terrorists in Iraq , where one didn't exist before we went in there. We still haven't gotten Osama bin Laden. You know, there were other ways to do it.
In effect, Fonda is stating that our military has not accomplished anything of value in Iraq. She dwells on the innocents killed in the fighting, but ignores the mass murder, the mass graves, the brutality and suffering of Iraqis under Saddam Hussein's regime. She ignores the fact that for fourteen years the dictator refused to comply with UN resolutions and relief for Iraqis was nowhere in sight.
Fonda says there was a better way. Exactly what would that be? It's that same John Kerry "I have a plan" gibberish.
She believes Iraq was not a recruiting ground for terrorists before the war. How inexcusably naive!
FONDA: I don't believe in the Christianity that says one thing and then goes and kills innocent people and tries to rob women of their fundamental human right to control their reproductive lives, or deny people of the same sex their right to be married and have relationships—[applause]—and is judgmental and narrow-minded, and angry and vengeful. That is not the Jesus Christ that I believe in. And there's a lot of people like me out there. [applause] [cheers]
What? Fonda has reconstructed Christianity to feed her massive ego and fit her political agenda.
If she believes Jesus is pro-abortion, she is pathetically misguided.
It's hard to be angry at someone who is so messed up. I pity her.
Death By A Thousand Paper Cuts
Is this for real? Are we witnessing a U.S. Senate committee in action or something out of the Theatre of the Absurd?
Ex-employee alleges mistreatment by Bolton
Describes clash over US policy
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff April 24, 2005
WASHINGTON -- In a new allegation against President Bush's nominee for United Nations ambassador, a woman who worked under John Bolton in the early 1980s has complained that he tried to fire her after they clashed over US policy on infant formula in developing nations.
Lynne D. Finney, now a therapist in Utah, wrote to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Friday, saying Bolton mistreated her when they worked in the General Counsel's Office at the US Agency for International Development. Her accusation is the latest salvo in a pitched battle over Bolton's nomination.
...Yesterday, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, a Democrat on the committee, distributed Finney's letter to reporters. An aide to Boxer said Democrats will push to include Finney's allegations in the list of claims to be probed.
In the letter, Finney said she was an attorney-adviser in the General Counsel's Office working on policies involving the UN Development Program when Bolton called her into his office in late 1982 or early 1983. She wrote that Bolton asked her to persuade delegates from other countries to vote with the United States to weaken World Health Organization restrictions on marketing of infant formula in the developing world.
Finney said she refused because improper use of the formula can be deadly. For example, mothers in the developing world sometimes mix it with contaminated water or dilute it to make it last longer, humanitarian groups say.
Finney said that Bolton "shouted that Nestle was an important company and that he was giving me a direct order from President Reagan." The Swiss company is among the top makers of formula.
"He yelled that if I didn't obey him, he would fire me," she wrote. "I said I could not live with myself if even one baby died because of something I did. . . . He screamed that I was fired."
...Finney, a therapist who has written about "recovered memories" in childhood sex-abuse cases, said Bolton was not allowed to fire her, but he moved her to a basement office in retaliation. She said that the top USAID administrator at the time, Peter McPherson, came by after the clash to assure her that her career wasn't over.
McPherson, who is now head of the Washington-based Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa, could not be reached for comment about the letter. But in an interview Friday, before Finney's allegations surfaced, McPherson said he could not recall any negative incidents between Bolton and his staff.
"He's a man of strong views, but he listened to people that worked for him," McPherson said.
I can just picture Barbara Boxer distributing this latest "proof" that Bolton is a nutjob to reporters.
Who is really the nutjob here?
From Lynne Finney's website:
On Home Page:
New discoveries in quantum physics, psychology, and spirituality are revealing ways to create wonderful new realities. It's estimated that more than 14 million people have already become enlightened or Self-realized. Some are visible but most lead ordinary lives. Each time someone reaches Self-realization, it affects the collective Mind. Things are heating up. Like popcorn, we are all popping faster and are reaching enlightenment at a rapid rate. At times, it may be challenging to keep your faith and to realize that God/Love/Truth/Beauty/ Universe/Light/ Spirit/Energy/your true Self are in control and all is well. Go inside in silence and know that it is true. All the answers you need are inside you.
You are spirit, energy, light, consciousness, a divine creation, powerful beyond imagining, perfect, and part of all that is. I can only offer insights from my journey to help you remember what you already know. All answers and healing come from the infinite power of your own mind. My intention is to help you overcome limiting beliefs and discover who you really are - and have fun along the way.
On About Lynne:
Lynne spent many years clearing out limiting beliefs and self-defeating patterns from the past and learning forgiveness, compassion, connection with our inner power,and Self-realization. She discovered a life-changing truth: that everyone and everything in our lives is a gift designed to bring us to enlightenment. One of her main messages is that no matter what has been done to you or what you have done, you can heal. There are no exceptions. In fact, you are already pure, healed, and whole - a divine spirit. You are atoms and molecules, tiny particles spinning around, more space than matter, strings of energy. How can energy be sick or injured? Go inside and realize who you are. All the answers you need are inside.
...When she began recovering memories of having been abused by her father, Lynne went back to graduate school to earn a masters degree in clinical social work and became a psychotherapist, in order to heal herself and others. For many years, she studied the most effective psychological and spiritual techniques for overcoming challenges, such as trauma, illness and pain, and for healing and transformation.
During her recovery process, Lynne began to have spiritual experiences that opened her to new perceptions of reality. She studied the scriptures of many religions, explored the teachings of spiritual masters, and emerged from a world she perceived as hell into a world of miracles. She now works to help others out of suffering, into their true power, and to realization of their true Selves.
...Lynne is finishing a new self-help book, The Zen of Pain, about techniques for transcending pain and finding the gifts it brings. She is also writing a novel and children's book.
She still finds time to play in Utah's mountains.
_____________________________
Is the account of Lynne Finney, a New Age specialist in recovered memories, to be taken seriously?
Do you think Voinovich feels comfortable with Lynne "Like popcorn, we are all popping faster and are reaching enlightenment at a rapid rate" Finney? Does she pass his "kitchen test"?
It should be noted that Finney contacted the committee. Was Finney's memory of Bolton's allgeded abuse over twenty years ago conveniently recovered while she was playing in the Utah mountains, with hopes of shining the spotlight on herself?
Is Finney credible? I have no way of knowing whether her account is true and neither do the senators on the committee. That doesn't keep Boxer from scurrying to hand out the latest disparaging "facts" on John Bolton.
The Dems' "death by a thousand cuts" strategy might work. They are hoping the stories of Melody Townsel and Lynne Finney will cut deep enough to damage Bolton.
In my opinion, these are superficial paper cuts.
Republicans need to boost their blood platelets and coagulate to support President Bush's nomination--NOW!
Ex-employee alleges mistreatment by Bolton
Describes clash over US policy
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff April 24, 2005
WASHINGTON -- In a new allegation against President Bush's nominee for United Nations ambassador, a woman who worked under John Bolton in the early 1980s has complained that he tried to fire her after they clashed over US policy on infant formula in developing nations.
Lynne D. Finney, now a therapist in Utah, wrote to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Friday, saying Bolton mistreated her when they worked in the General Counsel's Office at the US Agency for International Development. Her accusation is the latest salvo in a pitched battle over Bolton's nomination.
...Yesterday, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, a Democrat on the committee, distributed Finney's letter to reporters. An aide to Boxer said Democrats will push to include Finney's allegations in the list of claims to be probed.
In the letter, Finney said she was an attorney-adviser in the General Counsel's Office working on policies involving the UN Development Program when Bolton called her into his office in late 1982 or early 1983. She wrote that Bolton asked her to persuade delegates from other countries to vote with the United States to weaken World Health Organization restrictions on marketing of infant formula in the developing world.
Finney said she refused because improper use of the formula can be deadly. For example, mothers in the developing world sometimes mix it with contaminated water or dilute it to make it last longer, humanitarian groups say.
Finney said that Bolton "shouted that Nestle was an important company and that he was giving me a direct order from President Reagan." The Swiss company is among the top makers of formula.
"He yelled that if I didn't obey him, he would fire me," she wrote. "I said I could not live with myself if even one baby died because of something I did. . . . He screamed that I was fired."
...Finney, a therapist who has written about "recovered memories" in childhood sex-abuse cases, said Bolton was not allowed to fire her, but he moved her to a basement office in retaliation. She said that the top USAID administrator at the time, Peter McPherson, came by after the clash to assure her that her career wasn't over.
McPherson, who is now head of the Washington-based Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa, could not be reached for comment about the letter. But in an interview Friday, before Finney's allegations surfaced, McPherson said he could not recall any negative incidents between Bolton and his staff.
"He's a man of strong views, but he listened to people that worked for him," McPherson said.
I can just picture Barbara Boxer distributing this latest "proof" that Bolton is a nutjob to reporters.
Who is really the nutjob here?
From Lynne Finney's website:
On Home Page:
New discoveries in quantum physics, psychology, and spirituality are revealing ways to create wonderful new realities. It's estimated that more than 14 million people have already become enlightened or Self-realized. Some are visible but most lead ordinary lives. Each time someone reaches Self-realization, it affects the collective Mind. Things are heating up. Like popcorn, we are all popping faster and are reaching enlightenment at a rapid rate. At times, it may be challenging to keep your faith and to realize that God/Love/Truth/Beauty/ Universe/Light/ Spirit/Energy/your true Self are in control and all is well. Go inside in silence and know that it is true. All the answers you need are inside you.
You are spirit, energy, light, consciousness, a divine creation, powerful beyond imagining, perfect, and part of all that is. I can only offer insights from my journey to help you remember what you already know. All answers and healing come from the infinite power of your own mind. My intention is to help you overcome limiting beliefs and discover who you really are - and have fun along the way.
On About Lynne:
Lynne spent many years clearing out limiting beliefs and self-defeating patterns from the past and learning forgiveness, compassion, connection with our inner power,and Self-realization. She discovered a life-changing truth: that everyone and everything in our lives is a gift designed to bring us to enlightenment. One of her main messages is that no matter what has been done to you or what you have done, you can heal. There are no exceptions. In fact, you are already pure, healed, and whole - a divine spirit. You are atoms and molecules, tiny particles spinning around, more space than matter, strings of energy. How can energy be sick or injured? Go inside and realize who you are. All the answers you need are inside.
...When she began recovering memories of having been abused by her father, Lynne went back to graduate school to earn a masters degree in clinical social work and became a psychotherapist, in order to heal herself and others. For many years, she studied the most effective psychological and spiritual techniques for overcoming challenges, such as trauma, illness and pain, and for healing and transformation.
During her recovery process, Lynne began to have spiritual experiences that opened her to new perceptions of reality. She studied the scriptures of many religions, explored the teachings of spiritual masters, and emerged from a world she perceived as hell into a world of miracles. She now works to help others out of suffering, into their true power, and to realization of their true Selves.
...Lynne is finishing a new self-help book, The Zen of Pain, about techniques for transcending pain and finding the gifts it brings. She is also writing a novel and children's book.
She still finds time to play in Utah's mountains.
_____________________________
Is the account of Lynne Finney, a New Age specialist in recovered memories, to be taken seriously?
Do you think Voinovich feels comfortable with Lynne "Like popcorn, we are all popping faster and are reaching enlightenment at a rapid rate" Finney? Does she pass his "kitchen test"?
It should be noted that Finney contacted the committee. Was Finney's memory of Bolton's allgeded abuse over twenty years ago conveniently recovered while she was playing in the Utah mountains, with hopes of shining the spotlight on herself?
Is Finney credible? I have no way of knowing whether her account is true and neither do the senators on the committee. That doesn't keep Boxer from scurrying to hand out the latest disparaging "facts" on John Bolton.
The Dems' "death by a thousand cuts" strategy might work. They are hoping the stories of Melody Townsel and Lynne Finney will cut deep enough to damage Bolton.
In my opinion, these are superficial paper cuts.
Republicans need to boost their blood platelets and coagulate to support President Bush's nomination--NOW!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)