Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson?

There's an old saying that 'if you give a man
enough rope, he will hang himself.'

But then, that's the name of the game of running
for President. You have to say something even
if it's the wrong thing. You can always correct
it later on in the day.

An AP story by David Bauder today has Mitt Romney
criticizing an ABC story about the CIA doing its
job of manipulating intelligence. For the CIA to
just sit on its hands during the war would probably
also draw criticism from Romney.
Still, its because ABC has made public what can
be read in hundreds of books about the nature of
the CIA that he takes issue with. H-m-m-m-m-m.

The CIA is trying to affect Iran through propaganda
broadcasts, newspaper articles that may be misleading
and possibly playing around with their bank transactions
and their currency. OK. And during wartime, we expect
the job of the Central Iintelligence Agency to be .....
what, exactly?

You see, the problem is, Mitt Romney is another war
candidate that doesn't grasp exactly how war can
also endangers lives. It doesn't connect in his world.
War is an abstract term that 'happens there,' not
here, not in this household, not at this funeral
home, not at this gravesite, not to this family,
this brother, this son, this daughter. It's an
event that can he can focus on whenever there is
nothing else to do in his busy schedule of running,
running, running for office.

For Mitt Romney, it is the media who has the
responsibility to police itself, not America.

For Mitt Romney, public reports of CIA doings in
foreign countries jeopardizes national security,
invading a foreign country and promoting a civil
war doesn't.

For Mitt Romney, public reports of CIA doings in
foreign countrys endangers lives, war doesn't.

Is this really Mitt Romney or that other guy who
can't decide which theater it is he wants to star in?

GAS PRICES! What kind of Capitalism is this?

YAHOO News, May 25, 2007

Traffic up on gasoline price Web sites

By ROBERT WELLER, Associated Press Writer Fri May 25, 1:19 AM ET

DENVER - The higher gasoline prices go, the more money business
Web entrepreneur Jason Toews makes.

He started an Internet site, GasBuddy.com, in 2000 to track daily
gasoline prices using volunteers to e-mail what they find. "Hardly
anybody ever used it," Toews, of Brooklyn Park, Minn., recalled.

By 2004, 1 million people were visiting the site daily, although
the numbers dropped when prices went down.

But at the pace hits were being recorded Thursday, the site was
likely to break its record of 4 million visitors, Toews said. As
gasoline prices have risen, so have the hits on his site and another,
GasPriceWatch.com.

"We have had to buy more servers and it looks like we will need
more," he said.

GasBuddy.com offers information from 180 locations in the U.S. and
Canada, including every major city. The site said the average price
nationally in the U.S. was $3.22 for unleaded Thursday afternoon,
compared with $2.86 a year ago.

Brad Proctor, founder of GasPriceWatch.com in Centerville, Ohio,
said his site has added prices for ethanol, biodiesel, truck diesel
and ultra-low-sulfur diesel. Hits on his site have doubled. As many
eight people log in every second during peak periods, he said.

[-And here's the really IMPORTANT revelation: ]

Dan Gilligan, president of the Arlington, Va.-based Petroleum
Marketers Association of America, said the system is a good idea
but warned consumers to remember that if they drive more than 10
miles to save a nickel, they are losing money. He also said there's
no guarantee the price will be the same when they arrive.

"Many retailers are getting price increases twice a day. You may
have a price increase within six hours," he said.

(emphasis mine)
[-did you get that? "TWICE A DAY!" -]

Other businesses are also tying technology to drivers' increasing
efforts to find a deal.

Toews' company, GasBuddy Organization Inc., claims to monitor
900,000 stations with several hundred thousand registered
volunteers. GasPriceWatch.com says it tracks 170,000 stations.

People can send a message to gas(at)gasbuddy.com with a ZIP code
in the text area, and the site will reply with the cheapest nearby
stations.

The Web site also has a national map for those planning trips.
_____________________

Commentary:

How many trips to the supermarket do you make in a weeks
time? How many Department Stores do you visit each week?

When you're looking over the tomatoes or the cans of
soups in the grocery store, does some clerk run up and
change the price on the can, or the posted price? And
do they do this perhaps TWICE while you are shopping?

Of course they don't.

And why don't they?

Because apparently unlike the oil industry, the owners
of farms, manufacturing plants and other service industrys
know what their costs are and know how much they need to
sell of a particular product in order to make a profit.
They pay humans to project these figures and make sure
that expenses are covered no matter what happens.

The price of tomatoes do not rise twice daily just because
some government official is out in the field and notices
that one plant has a dead leaf or another sees storm
clouds on the horizon.

That coat you are looking at doesn't rise in price, as
you try it own, because that incoming shipment from
Nebraska is stalled out on Interstate 55 or it is
reported that the next shipment of coats sank in the
Gulf of Mexico due to a hurricane or the cotton field
in Guadalahela had an increase of employee layoffs due
to a virus going around the town.

Yet, these are the types of reasons being given to justify
price rises as often as TWICE DAILY at the pumps, only
substituting electronic and technological words instead
of saying it in words that reveal its whimsical causes!
One is just as valid a reason as any other. A refinery
goes down for a couple of hours, the price at the pump
goes up. A Futures bidder in New York suddenly thinks
that the swarm of locusts in Pixapan Chile may, just may,
affect that amount of oil that will be produced and
exported next year and so he bids accordingly, driving
the price of an imported barrel of oil into the
stratoshpere, and the price at the pump goes up.
But wait, there's more.

The refineries in Texas accept more and more oil from
the Arab emirates and less and less of American oil.
With less and less American crude oil being processed
there is less and less gasoline at the pumps (because its
being exported). But of course this is hidden in charts
and tables that jump around and back and forth from
thousands of BARRELS per MONTH being imported
and exported to millions of GALLONS per DAY of
refined gasoline getting to market. That's the same
as a reading a book that compares apples to pancakes
or listening to that joke that ends; 'I guess you had
to be there.'

This is not Capitalism.

And how does it work? Ask your Congressmen. It is all
compliments of your government. It is your government
that gives special concessions to the oil industry.
They are not driven by markets (regular Capitalism)
but by congressional special privileges and concessions.

Let President Bush turn all of those vacant military
compounds, posts and reserves that have been shut down
over the past 15-20 years into oil refineries. Let the
Arabs, the REALLY rich people in the world, build their
own refineries. Let the Arabs and the Oil Industry lay
in the bed they have so craftily built. Let the Queens
of Industry know that there is competition out there and
they had better get their ship in shape .... or ship
out.
Make them answer .... to you.

WHERE IS THE MUSLIM OUTCRY?

Day after day, factions of Muslims are killing people.
It doesn't seem to really matter if the people they
kill are other Muslims, if they don't like you then
you might as well paint a target on your forehead.

So, being Muslims, even though they are called by
various names such as militants or extremists
or whatever, exactly what is in the teachings of such
a religion that it is ok with non-members of the
various factions to kill other members of the very group
from which they broke off?

And what is in the teachings of the peaceful Muslims
that says that whatever someone else does in their name
is ok as long as it isn't them they want to kill or they
aren't working their neighborhood?

Are the Muslims actually jealous, deep down inside,
of the Jews because what they are doing is sort of
what the Jews did in Germany when the Nazi's began
dragging people from their homes and throwing them
in jails. The ones who didn't get arrested just sort
of shook their heads and figured that the arrested
man or family must have really done something bad.
Right.

So-called 'Peace loving' Muslims all around the world
are just turning their eyes and attention away from
the fact that Muslims are killing Muslims. But I guess
they too are ok with killing because none of them are
crying out for anything to change, for it to stop, are
they?

The Muslims may outnumber Christians in this world, but
it seems that both Christians and non-Christians are
more concerned with the Muslims killing each other than
are the Muslims! Go figure.

I'm well aware that there are other issues involved
but that doesn't absolve Muslims from tolerating Muslims
killing each other as though life is of no value.

Peace

A "big mistake" compounded

YAHOO News.
Iraq vote key for Clinton, Obama
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
Tue May 15, 4:43 AM ET


"In November, 2005, Clinton [Hillary] said an immediate U.S.
withdrawal from Iraq would be a "big mistake," and added, "I think
that would cause more problems for us in America."

In January, 2006, she said she was not advocating a "date certain"
for a troop withdrawal, and as recently as March, spoke against a
hard deadline."

__________________________

So, what is wrong with this approach?
Most likely the Senator is referring to both terrorism being exported
to the United States and to some interruption in the flow of oil due
to the say-so of the Arab Emirates or whoever.

Obviously, we do not want terrorism becoming a way of life in this
country. And just as obviously we don't want our way of life
interrupted by a lack of gas to put in our much needed street humvees.

So, is there anything wrong in this approach?
Yes, there definitely is.

What is wrong is that even with the seemingly 'even handedness' of
such a stance, it still buys into and makes acceptable the idea that
it is all right for people to kill each other, that a life should be
given to the 'greater' good, that one country has the 'right' to
invade another country (regardless of the benevolent terms used to
justify such action), and that there is some inherent 'rightness' in
one form of governing as opposed to any and all others.

The United States of America was an experiment, a trial, an escape.
It was not "founded" on the principles that it later came to adopt.
It wasn't until it was determined that this particular plot of land
was able to sustain an influx of people from all over the globe that
those people realized that they enjoyed the advantage of being like
minded enough to establish their autonomy as a nation. And even then,
like peoples everywhere today, they mostly just wanted to have their
little plot of land to grow sufficient food for themselves and their
family and to be left alone.

Still, like the country they vacated, they brought with them the idea
that those with an overabundance of material goods were subject to
having those goods taken away by force. And so today we maintain and
re-inforce that same idea. 'What's mine is mine and what's yours is
debatable.' As long as we maintain beliefs that 'we are right' and
that someone else is wrong just because we don't like the way they
do something or because they believe differently than we, then we
will always side on the thinking that it (whatever) "would be a "big
mistake" if we allow it to continue. We will forever be locked into
that thought process that concludes that maybe, just maybe, two wrongs
will someday total up to one right.

Iraq, 'Let's wait and see,' ok? OK?

YAHOO News, May 10, 2007
Bush seeks compromise on Iraq benchmarks
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

The President, in this article, is quoted as saying
about the "pending compromise"-

"Why don't we wait and see what happens," the president
said. "Let's give this plan a chance to work. Let's stop
playing politics."

AAAaaarrrgggghhhh!

Will someone yank those rose tinted glasses off of his
face? Sure, Mr. President. We (here at home) have nothing
at stake, do we? Let THEM die. Keep it OVER THERE!

That is obviously why Mr. Bush is not seeing blood,
limbs, bodies, heads, and lives strewn over the streets
of Iraq. His glasses are painting an entirely different
picture for him than for the rest of us.

"WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS?"

We KNOW what is going to happen!

While the Big Boys talk, drink, smirk, posture and negotiate,
grunts die.
That's DIE, as in DEAD. Your neighbors, your friends, your
pals, your loved ones. DEAD. No more. Buried. No laughter,
no smiles, no hugs, no telephone calls. Thats whats going
to happen. And there are no Rules of War that says its going
to be someone else's son or daughter that is going to die.
It isn't written .... anywhere!

And when they finally do come home, if they are not in a
body bag, the Military-YOUR GOVERNMENT- yes, YOUR
GOVERNMENT-isn't going to help them ease back into society.
They're not as valuable as their counterparts, the Firemen
or Policemen, once they're spent. Their life is OVER! No unions
for them. No compensation if deemed a personality disorder!
They may even wind up OWING money to the Government!

But the Big Boys are OK,
and that's what counts.
Isn't it?

Fred Thompson.........again?

Fred Thompson, the visually venerable statesman who dabbles in
politics but isn't sure if this is exactly what he wants to do,
is b-a-a-a-c-k.

Having once tasted the power of politics, Mr. Thompson has now
decided once again that this may be his time in the sun on the
'real' stage of the bigger world. Perhaps Mr. Thompson now
believes he has something different to offer...this time around
...rather than just trying it on for size and then accepting a
better offer from a different theater.

And therein lies the "who" of the "what" that Mr. Thompson is
seeking.

As before, when Mr. Thompson's Senatorial campaign promised
much to his constituents and got him elected, Mr. Thompson
probably believes that no one remembers those promises on which,
once in office, he backtracked and did his particular brand
of 'flip-flopping.' Some do.

As Mr. Thompson can't seem to make up his mind about whether
politics is his best suit or whether acting is the better road
to fame and may be his best suit, it is considered by this person,
who voted for him once, that Mr. Thompson will also run the
country pretty much the same way,
"Well, we might should do this.
"On the other hand, maybe we should do this.
"Let's try this and if it doesn't work we can
always do it the other way."

Ahhh, the luxury of observing from a distance.

The Veto Statement - on an island

Following is the Statement President Bush gave upon announcing
his veto of the bill presented to him by Congress on troop funding.

It is not so much my intention to deride the President as it is
to point out the inaccuracies of thinking that the President has
subscribed to and expects the American public to accept. I have
yet to see anyone or any article that has shown such a statement
for what it actually is, an error in judgement, en toto.



President Bush's veto statement

By The Associated Press Wed May 2, 3:12 AM ET

Text of
President Bush's statement Tuesday on his veto
of a bill to pull U.S. troops out of
Iraq, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions:


Good evening.

Twelve weeks ago I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave young men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need.

Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed the bill.

[ Mr. Bush has substituted his 'opinion of the politicians' who passed the bill for 'the purpose of the bill', not unlike Mr. Bush in substituting his 'intent' to settle not only a Civil War in another country but to demand a 'meeting of the minds' of various ideologies of those specific countries, (something he seems to have problems with in his country), with his "war on terrorism!" ]


Tonight, I will explain the reasons for this veto and my desire to work with Congress to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.


[ '...working with Congress..' is not the same as dictating terms to Congress. ]


We can begin tomorrow with a bipartisan meeting with the congressional leaders here at the White House.

Here's why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable.

First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq.


[ An interesting characterization. Presuming that the war continues and we "win" this undefined conflict, will not the President, through his Generals, begin dictating that American troops begin to withdraw? And as soon as possible? Possibly even by a specific date? Or maybe not. ]


That withdrawal could start as early as July 1, and it would have to start no later than Oct. 1, regardless of the situation on the ground.

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq.


[ This is probably one of the biggest fallacies that the President offers in his statement. And, it sounds so-o-o familiar.
The President has said time and time again that he will veto any measure with a
time line in it. Then, he projects that same stubborn view onto the Congress, that
they will require a withdrawal 'regardless of the situation on the ground.' As he
believes, so does he see.

-First, it assumes that nothing will be done, there will be no military action by the troops still in Iraq, between now and the time set for initiating withdrawal. It assumes that they begin immediately to start packing up their equipment and getting it ready to send back to American military bases scattered across the globe; and what conflicts do occur, will do so as a defensive measure in protecting those doing the packing. Well, the President IS the Commander In Chief and they will do what he tells
them, won't they?
-Secondly, it assumes, and probably correctly, that the 'enemy' has grown in number and in strategies since the arrival of American might, and that it will overwhelm what military structure does exist in Iraq upon the exit of American troops. (How did they get so strong?)
-Thirdly, it assumes, without evidence, that the Congress and the American people are unbendable in their perceptions of the conflict. In other words, that 'regardless of the situation on the ground' the Congress, like the President, dictates that the troops will continue their withdrawal as soon as possible, even if the Iraqi people overwhelmingly requested our troops to remain for a specific time and a specific reason. ]


I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments.

[ First, the "commitment" was yours, Mr. President.
Not mine. It would seem that the President's idea of 'commitment' is "indefinite," that we seem to "owe" some people in some areas of this country .... something. Of course, this totally ignores similar plights and pleas from other countries. ]

Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be
irresponsible.

[ Who's failure, Mr. President? After four years, a determination of success or failure should already be evident. Just how many years
are required in your ever-changing, ever-broadening war of liberation? ]

Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means America's commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C.

[ The bill does nothing of the sort. "impossible conditions" are not being thrust upon the commanders--tomorrow--after being decided--today. It isn't as if there has not been ample notice of intent with ample time to plan. It took the President, his cabinet and 'family' members how long to initiate the first action in Afghanistan after 9/11? And did they respond to only 9/11 or were other contingencies taken into account, long before they were needed?
This statement assumes that the military doesn't "plan" anything and merely reacts to
orders from above-the orders being whatever pops out of someones mouth further up the chain of command, even if that source is only two chain-links higher up.
If this is an accurate accounting of how our military is now operating, is it any wonder that we have only accomplished deposing one dictator in four years? ]

This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.

[ According to the Presidents assumptions of how the military operates, who it receives its commands from and what it does in response to those commands, it is operating in chaos and confusion irrespective of whether or not the bill is passed. The military is taking its directions from a politician 6,000 miles away even now, he is known as 'the Commander In Chief' and his orders are to 'keep on keeping on' and 'stay the course,' and other catch phrases that sound commanding.]

Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits, and not as a part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.

[ Ahh, the nature of the beast bites again! ]

The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach and that there are not enough votes to override the veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They've sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.

[ Mr. President, may I be the first to let you in on a secret, the Congress is finally recognizing 'the will of the people' and are attempting to implement that will. They are giving you the money, which if it were up to me would be cut off completely right now, this instant, and the troops would begin packing today to come home. Please do not make the political mistake of separating 'the Democrats' from the people they represent. As it is, you have a chance to finally make a difference, but it is up to you, not the Congress. ]

Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander, Gen. David Petraeus. The goal of this new strategy is to help the Iraqis secure their capital so they can make progress toward reconciliation and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists and radicals and killers alongside the United States in this war on terror.

[ And here, Mr. President, you have presented the impossibility of your mission. It is all predicated on 'the war on terror,' a condition that has existed since the dawn of man and will exist to his extinction, unless man changes his attitude about his fellow man and what he has that you do not. It is a war of ideas and those ideas cannot be changed with the simple pointing of a gun.]


In January, Gen. Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate. In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements he requested.

Not all these reinforcements have arrived in Baghdad. And as Gen. Petraeus has said, it will be the end of the summer before we can assess the impact of this operation.

Congress ought to give Gen. Petraeus's plan a chance to work. In the month since our military has been implementing this plan, we've begun to see some important results.

For example, Iraqi and coalition forces have closed down an al-Qaida car bomb network. They've captured a Shia militia leader implicated in the kidnapping and killing of American soldiers.

They've broken up a death squad that had terrorized hundreds of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood.

[ Mr. President, this is all well and good. My only question is why were these objectives not accomplished with the troops that were already there? Why were these 'achieved objectives' done only with the addition of more bodies? Did it take the exact quantity of newly arrived troops to carry out and achieve those tasks? How many thousands of new troops does it take to break up a squad? How many thousands of new troops does it take to squelch a 'car bomb network?' How many thousands of new troops does it take to 'capture a Shia militia leader?' If anything, what this tells us is that the troops that are there are even now being mis-applied and directed even as they were being mis-directed prior to the surge.]

Last week, Gen. Petraeus was in Washington to brief me, and he briefed members of Congress on how the operation is unfolding.

He noted that one of the most important indicators of progress is the level of sectarian violence in Baghdad. And he reported that since January, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially.

Even as sectarian attacks have declined, we continue to see spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering. These attacks are largely the work of al-Qaida, the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting.

The objective of these al-Qaida attacks is to subvert our efforts by reigniting the sectarian violence in Baghdad and breaking support for the war here at home.

In Washington last week, Gen. Petraeus explained it this way: Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all al-Qaida's global campaign.

[ Mr. President, why are our troops capturing Shia militia leaders or going after car bomb networks or death squads if al-Qaida is the target? What progress is being made with al-Qaida as the objective? Where are the encouraging reports and successes on al-Qaida objectives? ]


Al-Qaida's role makes the conflict in Iraq far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis. It's true that not everyone taking innocent life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home. But many do.

Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, and wants to attack us here at home again.

We saw the death and destruction al-Qaida inflicted on our people when they were permitted a safe haven in Afghanistan. For the security of the American people, we must not allow al-Qaida to establish a new safe haven in Iraq.

We need to give our troops all the equipment and the training and protection they need to prevail. That means that Congress needs to pass an emergency war-spending bill quickly.

[ They did, Mr. President, you vetoed it. ]

I've invited leaders of both parties to come to the White House tomorrow and to discuss how we can get these vital funds to our troops.

[ Mr. President, the days of blank checks are over. The American public has spoken. ]

I'm confident that with good will on both sides we can agree on a bill that gets our troops the money and flexibility they need, as soon as possible.

The need to act is urgent. Without a war-funding bill, the military has to take money from some other account or training program so the troops in combat have what they need.

Without a war-funding bill, the armed forces will have to consider cutting back on buying new equipment or repairing existing equipment.

[ Or maybe stop buying $2000 toilet seats? ]

Without a war-funding bill, we add to the uncertainty felt by our military families. Our troops and their families deserve better, and their elected leaders can do better.

[ Yes, they can. And they have given you five years to do better, why haven't you? ]

Here in Washington, we have our differences on the way forward in Iraq, and we will debate them openly. Yet, whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay.

[ And they are also worthy of living to a ripe old age, without conflicts brought about by two old kids who want to beat up each other and show the world their muscles. ]

Thank you for listening.

May God bless our troops.

[ You cannot lie in the search for truth, and
you cannot kill in the search for peace.
May your soul fulfill its destiny. ]