Sen. Clinton holds online conversation

By CHUCK RAASCH
WASHINGTON BUREAU
(Original publication: January 23, 2007)

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday that she had learned from mistakes she made in pushing national health care as first lady in 1993 and 1994 and told listeners on a Web chat that she would make health care a centerpiece of her presidential campaign.

In a half-hour video Web cast dubbed "The Conversation Begins," the New York Democrat answered a smattering of soft-edged and broadly framed questions about health care, energy independence, terrorism, the United States' relationship with other countries, and hurricane relief. It was the first of three nights of Web chats Clinton plans to have on her campaign's Internet site.

Clinton announced over the weekend that she was running for president and has since engaged in a multiple-platform media rollout. As she was chatting live online, the cable network MSNBC was promoting a Clinton interview with NBC anchor Brian Williams to be shown later yesterday.

Not surprisingly, Clinton's Web chat was more "Oprah" than "Hardball." Those who clicked in heard Clinton say she had plans to address the nation's energy, health care and foreign policy challenges, but few details. Clinton did say she was considering a proposal to allow uninsured people over age 55 to buy into Medicare or other government health insurance plans.

Clinton said she was convinced that the country was reaching a critical point on the need for health-care reform, largely because high costs and the growing number of uninsured Americans was hurting the U.S. competitively in global markets.

"Some people might say, 'Well, you know, senator, didn't you try that before, back in 1993 and 1994?' " Clinton said of her attempts to nationalize health care, which many think contributed to the Democrats' 1994 electoral defeats.

"I did. I worked at my husband's request to see if we could do what was necessary to create a system that everybody could be a part of. And we were not successful, and we made a bunch of mistakes. And I have learned from all of that, and I have the scars to show from what I went through."

Some Democrats are also wary of Clinton because of her 2002 vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Clinton told an e-mail questioner that if the nation had known then what it knows now, she believes President Bush would not have asked for the vote, nor would she have voted the way she did.

Clinton told another questioner worried about the United States' standing in the world that she did not understand why Bush did not engage in more diplomacy with leaders he did not agree with.

The U.S. wants "to lead the world, but we want to do it through cooperation, building alliances, making more friends than enemies," said Clinton, who sat on a sofa in front of bookshelves. "We cannot kill ... or jail all of the bad guys who wish us ill, but we sure can surround them, we can deter them, we can defeat them, if we have people rooting for us."

The medium of the Internet is increasingly becoming the message for presidential candidates. Many '08 contenders have chosen the Internet to declare their intentions and to prove their bona fides as modern communicators. In both style and substance, they are attempting to join the universe of politicos who are forming Web-based alliances and engaging in debates on blogs and chat rooms.

Fellow Democrat John Edwards launched his campaign last month with an Internet video feed from New Orleans produced by the video blog site Rocketboom and posted on YouTube. Over the weekend, another Democrat, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, issued his own Internet video saying he was running. But Clinton's Web presence overshadowed Richardson's.

Clinton launched her candidacy with a video on her Web site Saturday, which showed her sitting, relaxed, on a couch and inviting Americans for "a chat ... a dialogue about your ideas and mine." It seemed designed both to emulate her successful "listening tour" that helped launch her Senate career more than seven years ago and to address the persistent image that she is cool and detached.

Contact Chuck Raasch at craasch@gns.gannett.com


Powered by:

Want Free Web Traffic? blog, video, videos, humor, humour, news, politics, internet, culture, funny, entertainment, youtube, YouTube, Senator, Democratic, Clinton, Hillary

36.9 Million Viewers For Fox's Idol

An estimated 36.9 million people watched the two-hour special on Fox Wednesday night, only slightly down from the 37.3 million who tuned in for Tuesday's two-hour season premiere, according to Nielsen Media Research.

They were the two biggest nights of prime-time entertainment on Fox since it came onto the air nearly two decades ago.

"We're fortunate it's on our air and we take good care of it and it rewards us with good ratings," said Preston Beckman, Fox's executive vice president for strategic planning.

The audience for what host Ryan Seacrest dubbed "the weirdest turnout in history" on Wednesday was 17 percent bigger than the corresponding night a year ago, Nielsen said.

Powered by:

Want Free Web Traffic? blog, video, videos, humor, humour, news, politics, internet, culture, funny, entertainment, youtube, YouTube, Fox, American Idol, Ryna Seacrest, Paula Abdul, Simon Cowel

Why the iPhone is a rip off

By Lucas Mearian

I love whiz-bang technology. I love it so much that when MP3 players first came out, I bought one as a voice recorder for business interviews when all my reporter counterparts were still buying reel-to-reel mini recorders or digital recorders with a one-tenth the memory and no file-manipulation capabilities. And, I love my cell phone because I can send and receive messages in a meeting, take photos on the fly, shop on it and perform Google searches no matter where I am -- and it was free with my cellular service plan. So why would I ever pay $500 for a cell phone? I don't think I'm alone here.

Market research firm Isuppli Corp. today released a research report stating that the iPhone will generate more than a 50% gross margin for Apple -- nothing unusual for them. That basically means that Apple is pocketing $250 for every iPhone it sells. Compare that with the average gross margin of 10% to 20% for handsets and you'll see where Apple is really relying on fan loyalty to gouge.

In a recent interview, Steve Ballmer chortled when asked about the iPhone. Not that I would normally take anything seriously that a Microsoft executive would say about an Apple product, but in this interview posted on YouTube, he makes two very good points: 1) $500 for a phone is outrageous when you can get the same features on another cell phone for less than $100; 2) The iPhone has no keypad, so it's not business/text-message friendly.

Then you have to consider iPhone's competition. In 2007, it's estimated that there will be 835 models of music-enabled phones introduced by various Apple competitors. iSuppli estimates that 14 phones already shipping -- from Nokia, Motorola Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and LG -- have features comparable to what the Apple iPhone will have when it ships in June.

But Jagdish Rebello, a PhD, and director and principal analyst with iSuppli, says Apple knows its market and is good at displacing competitors.

People just love the iPod. Why, I don't know. There are plenty of cheaper MP3 players with the same functionality on the market, but hey, it's Apple. Apple equals anti-establishment, and therefore, it's cool. So I have no doubt that Apple will sell the 8 million iPhones it's aiming for this year. And, with a total of 1 billion handsets being sold every year, those 8 million iPhones are only a fraction of the marketplace. So why the rant?

It's the principle. It's like Boston Red Sox tickets. The team wins one World Series, and they go about gouging their fans. Apple gets a big win with its iPod and it believes it can gouge the consumer on a follow-on product.

It's very likely that when Cingular begins selling the iPhone, it will subsidize a portion of the cost -- so the consumer won't have to foot the full $500 bill -- at least that's the hope. But until I see it, I won't be running out to buy it.

The iPhone is cool technology -- you can't help but ogle the interface -- but like PS3, you'd have to be out of your gourd to pay that kind of money for something that's basically whiz-bang with no more substance than other cheaper, comparable products.

Powered by:

Want Free Web Traffic? blog, video, videos, humor, humour, news, politics, internet, culture, funny, entertainment, youtube, YouTube, iPhone, Apple, Mac, Microsoft, Isuppli, Steve Ballmer

Obama for ....hmmmm....

Wire Services

SPRINGFIELD (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may have a lot of explaining to do.

He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on.

With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes.

Obama - who filed papers this week creating an exploratory committee to seek the 2008 Democratic nomination - may also find himself fielding questions about his actions outside public office, from his acknowledgment of cocaine use in his youth to a more recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business.

Obama was known in the Illinois Capitol as a consistently liberal senator who reflected the views of voters in his Chicago district. He helped reform the state death penalty system and create tax breaks for the poor while developing a reputation as someone who would work with critics to build consensus.

He had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives.

One vote that especially riled abortion opponents involved restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives, occasionally for hours. The restrictions, which never became law, included requiring the presence of a second doctor to care for the fetus.

"Everyone's going to use this and pound him over the head with it," said Daniel McConchie, vice president and chief of staff for Americans United for Life.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said voters will be able to judge distorted accounts of his votes against his legislative career in general.

"I don't doubt that if you take a series of votes and twist them and kind of squint, you can write a narrative the way you want to write it," Gibbs said. "I think what people understand is that (what matters) is taking the full measure of his career and the full measure of his legislative efforts."

Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.

Obama - who joined several other Democrats in voting "present" in 2001 and "no" the next year - argued the legislation was worded in a way that unconstitutionally threatened a woman's right to abortion by defining the fetus as a child.

"It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute," Obama said in the Senate's debate in March 2001.

During his 2004 run for U.S. Senate, Obama said he supported similar federal legislation that included language clarifying that the measure did not interfere with abortion rights.

Such hot-button issues were the exception in a legislative career that focused more on building consensus to improve the justice system and aid the poor.

Gibbs noted Obama's leadership on legislation requiring police to videotape interrogations in murder cases. It started out as a controversial idea but ended up passing the Senate unanimously.

Allies and opponents alike say he listened to those who disagreed, cooperated with Republicans and incorporated other people's suggestions for improving legislation.

"He was looked upon by members of both parties as someone whose view we listened carefully to," said Republican state Sen. Kirk Dillard from Hinsdale, Ill.

Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.

Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.

Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.

"It's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment come election time," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "It will certainly be talked about. You can take that to the bank."

On the other hand, Obama parted company with gun control advocates when he backed a measure to let retired police officers and military police carry concealed weapons.

Obama occasionally supported higher taxes, joining other Democrats in pushing to raise more than 300 taxes and fees on businesses in 2004 to help solve a budget deficit. The increases passed the Senate 30-28.

That's one reason Illinois business groups gave Obama a low rating, while labor groups praised him. But even Obama's allies say he refused to become a rubber stamp for their legislation.

"He always wants to understand an issue and think it through," said Roberta Lynch, deputy director for Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "You have to make your case no matter who you are."

For six years, Obama served in a Republican-controlled Senate, so he and fellow Democrats only got a fraction of their bills signed into law.

During his last two years, Democrats controlled the chamber and he was the go-to guy on a variety of issues. He helped pass legislation overhauling Illinois' troubled capital punishment system and was a key figure in requiring a massive statewide study of traffic stops to look for signs of racial profiling. Although police groups opposed the legislation, they say Obama listened to their concerns and accepted some of their suggestions to improve the bill.

Even when he was in the political minority, Obama sometimes played a critical role. He helped write one of the rare ethics laws in a state known for government corruption and worked on welfare reform with Republicans.

He sponsored legislation to bar job and housing discrimination against gays, and he helped create a state version of the earned income tax credit for the poor. Obama also led efforts to reject federal rules that would have put workers' overtime checks in jeopardy.

A look at the senator's record

Some of the key issues U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat poised to a run for president, sponsored or voted on during his eight years as a state senator:

Budget & Taxes

Voted to raise the minimum wage in Illinois from $5.15 an hour to $6.50 an hour over two years. (2003)

Helped pass a 5 percent earned-income tax credit for low-income working families in 2000; made the credit permanent in 2003.

Voted to end $300 million worth of tax breaks for businesses. (2004)

Voted against making permanent the repeal of the state's 5 percent sales tax on gasoline. (2000)

Health Care

Voted for having Illinois endorse embryonic stem cell research. (2004)

Successfully sponsored the Health Care Justice Act, a study of ways to implement a universal health care system statewide. (2004)

Voted against restrictions on public funding of abortion. (2000)

Successfully co-sponsored a prescription drug discount buying club program for seniors and the disabled. (2003)

Crime & Gun Control

Voted against letting people argue self-defense in court if charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. (2004)

Voted to let retired police and military police carry concealed weapons. (2004)

Successfully sponsored requirement that law enforcement videotape interrogations of suspects in some serious crimes. (2003)

Successfully sponsored law enforcement study of the race of people pulled over for traffic tickets. (2003)

Helped pass an overhaul of the state's troubled death penalty system. (2003)

Unsuccessfully sponsored measure to expunge some criminal records and create an employment grant program for ex-criminals. (2002)

Unsuccessfully sponsored limit of one handgun purchase per month. (2000)

Voted against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang. (2001)

Miscellaneous

Unsuccessfully co-sponsored ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. The measure became law after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. (2003)

Successfully sponsored move to shield Illinois workers from federal rules that threatened overtime pay for some employees.

Successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform called the Gift Ban Act. (1998)

n Voted against giving tax credits to parents who send their children to private school. (1999)

On the Net:

Illinois General Assembly Web site: www.ilga.gov

© Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Powered by:

Want Free Web Traffic? blog, video, videos, humor, humour, news, politics, internet, culture, funny, entertainment, youtube, YouTube, Democratic, presidential, candidate, Barack, Obama

Big Brother and Little Foxy

Times of India
Wednesday, January 17, 2007

By Rashmee Roshan Lall

London --- The controversy over alleged racism towards Shilpa Shetty by fellow-contestants of a British reality TV show escalated on Wednesday with Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Indian government weighing in, albeit with cautious platitudes and a further 10,000 complaints flooding into the television regulatory authority and Channel 4.

The total number of complaints now stands at 16,400, making Shetty's ordeal the most complained-about television show in history.

Angry members of the 1.3-million strong British Indian community told this paper they were mobilizing furiously to keep up the pressure on the authorities to take action over the "degrading and demeaning" behaviour towards Shetty just because "she's Indian, young, beautiful, successful and well-educated".

While a passionate internet campaign to "save Shilpa" gathered pace, cynical TV pundits said the Bollywood star's unexpected first-name recognition in Britain may actually pay her huge celebrity dividends once her ordeal ends.

Though C4 largely remained mum about the issue, it backed away from its previous belittling description of Shetty's bullying at the hands of three other women contestants as "girlie rivalry".

The channel continues to insist Shetty was not called a "Paki" by one of the male contestants.

Police in the English county of Hertfordshire, locale of the Big Brother house, confirmed they are to investigate e mails sent to Channel 4 containing threats against Celebrity Big Brother housemates. Police also confirmed receipt of a complaint about racist behaviour in the house.

Pressure was mounting on C4 to "do something" about the programme, which has two weeks still to run, with the show's sponsor Carphone Warehouse reconsidering its three-million-pound largesse on issues of taste and decency.

In an unprecedented development for a show that is consistently seen to be as successful as it is shallow and sexually-degraded, bookmakers said on Wednesday that they had cut the odds of Celebrity Big Brother not lasting its scheduled run from 20/1 to 5/2.

British television channels added an interview with Sunanda, Shetty's mother, in their wall-to-wall coverage of the story. Sunanda, who said Shetty had agreed not to do "any lip-to-lip kissing with male or females on the show...to cook or eat beef", added that her daughter was "secure inside".

Meanwhile, in a sign of spiralling interest across two continents in the shenanigans of Shetty's Big Brother housemates, Goan-origin Labour MP asked Blair in parliament to condemn the outright "racism and xenophobia" on the show. Vaz also pointedly asked Blair to remind broadcasters such as C4 of their duty not "to publish any such prejudices" to millions.

Blair responded by admitting he had not seen the programme in question but unreservedly condemned racism in any form.

British establishment interest in Shetty's woes came as hundreds of South Asians here started to speak out in sympathy for the actress, with the additional biting rider that her racial harassment was a harrowing reminder of the situation they faced in the UK.

Speaking for many British Indians, actress, comedian and writer Meera Syal lambasted C4's "bland" response to days of racially-charged bullying of Shetty. Syal said the show had slipped into "vile spectacle" and "there is a very thin line between what is entertainment and a vile spectacle and I think we are in that area now." She said, "What this treatment of Shilpa has done is remind a lot of Asian people in Britain of the type of uncomfortable treatment they've received themselves over the years. This is bullying."

She added, "I certainly wouldn't have taken as much as Shilpa has taken. I'm just wondering if on their (C4's) last series (of Big Brother), for example, the Tourette's sufferer had been called a 'spaz' (or a spastic) on a regular basis, whether they would have let that continue".

Vaz, whose Leicester East constituency has a heavy concentration of East African Indians, admitted he had been moved to employ political dark arts such as parliamentary early day motions because his appalled constituents had set up a clamour. Vaz's motion read: "This House views with concern the comments made about Big Brother contestant Shilpa Shetty by other housemates; believes that Big Brother has a role to play in preventing racist behaviour in the Big Brother house; regrets that these comments have been made; and calls on the programme to take urgent action to remind housemates that racist behaviour is unacceptable."

In a clear indication tensions within the Big Brother house were running as high as outside, one of Shetty's chief tormentors and fellow contestants branded the actress "pathetic, fake and a liar" in a ridiculously petty row over stock cubes.

As pressure built up on the programme, a spokesman for bookmakers William Hill said Channel 4 could easily pull the programme "for any number of reasons, and despite the fact that Big Brother is one of their success stories, we will not be offering such generous odds in the future."

Powered by:

Want Free Web Traffic? blog, video, videos, humor, humour, news, politics, internet, culture, funny, entertainment, youtube, YouTube, Rashmee Roshan Lall, Shilpa, Shetty, Shilpa Shetty, British, racism, Prime Minister, Tony Blair, Big Brother

I'm not a big fan if Hannity and Colmes, but they tear this moron a new ass. The moron thinks that the military men and women are overpaid, and that wounded soldiers are leeches. He is truly not worth the time, but the interview is.



Powered by:

Want Free Web Traffic? blog, video, videos, humor, humour, news, politics, internet, culture, funny, entertainment, youtube, YouTube, Hannity, Colmes, Iraq, military, interview

Somalia Attacks Bad For Islamists, But Good For You

as·sas·si·nate (ə-sās'ə-nāt')
tr.v. as·sas·si·nat·ed, as·sas·si·nat·ing, as·sas·si·nates

1. To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.
2. To destroy or injure treacherously: assassinate a rival's character.


as·sas'si·na'tion n., as·sas'si·na'tive adj., as·sas'si·na'tor n.

In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign-intelligence activities. In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford concisely but explicitly outlawed political assassination:

5(g) Prohibition on Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford’s prohibition on assassinations. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination:

In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition:

2.11 No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

U.S. aircraft launch 2nd wave of Somalia attacks
L.A. Times, By Edmund Sanders and Abukar Albadri, Special to the Times
12:11 PM PST, January 9, 2007

MOGADISHU, Somalia — U.S. helicopter gunships resumed attacks today against suspected terrorist holdouts in southern Somalia following airstrikes over the past two days, Somali officials said.

The attacks against suspected Al Qaeda members believed to be hiding in Somalia marked the first overt American military intervention in the Horn of Africa nation since the U.S. withdrew its troops from a peacekeeping operation in 1994 after the deaths of 18 American servicemen.

A Pentagon spokesman would only confirm today that U.S. forces were involved in an attack early this week after receiving "credible intelligence." State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined to comment on details about the strikes, but defended the U.S. interest for intervening in Somalia's conflict.

"Very clearly, the U.S. government has had a concern that there are terrorists and Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists that were in Somalia," he said. "We have a great interest in seeing that those individuals not be able to flee to other locations."

Acting on information that suspects from the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania might be among the Islamic fighters, a U.S. Air Force Special Operations gunship struck at least one target early this week.

Somali officials and witnesses said at least five villages in southern Somalia have been targeted in strikes spanning the past three days. One village, Afmadow, was reportedly struck a second time today.

Details about damage and casualties remained unclear, due in large part to the lack of communications in the remote region near the Kenyan border, where cell phone service is not available.

According to estimates by local officials and witness accounts aired over radio stations, the death toll ranged from 15 to more than 50. There were several reports of civilians being killed or injured, including six members of one family and guests at a wedding ceremony.

Somali military officials said today they received advance warning about the U.S. airstrikes and were standing by to capture fleeing suspects. Officials said they have apprehended 28 people, who were being held for questioning.

Twin US aims in Somalia
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

It wants to intervene decisively on the side of the transitional government now back in Mogadishu and to get at three al-Qaeda suspects linked to bombings of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and attacks on an Israeli-owned hotel and airliner in Kenya in 2002.

The air strikes were carried out by a huge AC-130 gunship in the south of the country where supporters of the Union of Islamic Courts have retreated under attack from the Ethiopian army and soldiers of the transitional government.

From their special forces base in nearby Djibouti, the US has been watching three al-Qaeda suspects in particular who took refuge in Somalia. It seems that they were among the targets of this operation.

The three are Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, Abu Talha al-Sudani and Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan.

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, from the Comoro Islands, was indicted by a US court in New York for conspiracy to bomb the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

Abu Talha al-Sudani, a Sudanese, was accused by the office of the US Director of National Intelligence recently of leading an al-Qaeda cell in East Africa.

Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, a Kenyan, is on an FBI wanted poster in connection with the bombing of an Israeli-owned hotel and an attempted missile attack on an Israeli airliner in Kenya in 2002.

The US sees the break-up of the Union of Islamic Courts as a good opportunity to try to remove what it regards as a serious threat from al-Qaeda in the region.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this assassination?

American Psychological Association (APA):
assassinate. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved January 09, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assassinate
Modern Language Association (MLA):
"assassinate." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 09 Jan. 2007.
Chicago Manual Style (CMS):
assassinate. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assassinate (accessed: January 09, 2007).

Powered by:

Want Free Web Traffic? blog, video, videos, humor, humour, news, politics, internet, culture, funny, entertainment, youtube, YouTube, Somalia, Mogadishu, assassin, assassination, air strikes, Islamists, Islamic Courts, Ethiopia, Ethiopians, al-Qaeda, AC-130, Tanzania, Kenya, Pentagon, helicopter, gunship, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Horn of Africa

Last Throes of the Lying Charlatans? Quagmire of the Vanities

By Brian Cloughley: "It depends", said Bill Clinton, "on what the meaning of 'is' is" ; and he was promptly pilloried by scandalized commentators and shocked - shocked - legislators whose morals and motives were of course impeccable. But there is curious silence on the part of these paragons of semantics and virtue now that there is disagreement about the meaning of words used by two pathetic crackpots who occupy posts in the present US administration.


Washington's charlatan-in-chief, Cheney, has boasted he stands by his statement that Iraq's insurgents are in "their last throes", because it all depends on what the meaning of 'throes' is. He decided to order some deep thinking, and his researchers told him to say "If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period".

The vain and arrogant draft-dodging Cheney should know all about that. When the war in Vietnam was in its last throes, and he was obtaining deferment after deferment because he said he had "other priorities", the conflict was indeed violent. And the violence ended when the US was forced out of the country.

It is obvious that when Cheney first used the phrase "last throes" he was convinced the insurgents were in their final shuddering spasms before collapsing. He meant he was sure that the insurgents were indulging in last desperate efforts and that the débâcle would soon end in victory for the Washington warmongers. And if there were a few hundred more US troops killed in the process that wouldn't matter because, in the words of Bush, the "Mission Accomplished" president, "I'm not giving up on the mission. We're doing the right thing."

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on June 23, General John Abizaid, commander Central Command, didn't seem too keen on Cheney's smart comment. He admitted there are just as many insurgents now as there were six months ago, but when asked if they were in their "last throes" he could say only that "There's a lot of work to be done against the insurgency . . . . I'm sure you'll forgive me from criticizing the vice president." I'm not sure what that means except for one thing : if he had agreed with Cheney that the insurgency was in its last throes, he would have said so in a very loud voice. But he lacked the moral courage to answer the question.

Then there is the matter of the word 'quagmire' that so excites Rumsfeld. Webster defines 'quagmire' quite simply : "Marshy ground that gives way under the foot; a difficult situation". Oxford says it's "A hazardous or awkward situation." The sense comes through. Quagmires are nasty.

In his anxiety to portray Iraq as a non-quagmire the equally vain and foolish Rumsfeld told the Committee that the insurgents "in recent months have suffered significant losses and casualties, been denied havens and suffered weakened popular support." Nobody pointed out that in recent months US occupation troops "have suffered significant losses and casualties, been denied havens and suffered weakened popular support." In March to May there were 168 American soldiers killed and 534 wounded in Iraq. But it isn't a quagmire, of course.

Senator Ted Kennedy asked a question about quagmires and "Rumsfeld, flanked by top US commanders, responded : 'First let me say that there isn't a person at this table who agrees with you that we're in a quagmire and that there's no end in sight'." So there must, conversely, actually be an end in sight to the counter-insurgency war.

Let's think back to 1967, to the quagmire in Vietnam. The US embassy in Saigon held a New Year's party to welcome 1968. The invitation read "Come see the light at the end of the tunnel". Exactly a month later, on the night of January 31, 1968, 19 Vietnamese guerrillas arrived at the embassy and blew their way in to its compound, killing four US soldiers. The Tet offensive had begun. And on February 6 Art Buchwald's column read :

"Dateline: Little Big Horn, Dakota. General George Armstrong Custer said today in an exclusive interview with this correspondent that the Battle of Little Big Horn had just turned the corner and he could now see light at the end of the tunnel. "We have the Sioux on the run", General Custer told me. "Of course we'll have some cleaning up to do, but the Redskins are hurting badly and it will only be a matter of time before they give in."

The Senate hearing was on Thursday June 23, and the world was told by Rumsfeld that there is an end in sight to his war in Iraq. But on June 26, on Fox News Sunday, Rumsfeld said "Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, ten, twelve years". So what happened in Cheney-Bush Washington between Thursday and Sunday?

One of the things that happened was a decision that Rumsfeld should get himself on the Sunday news shows to try to make up for his stumbling and embarrassing performance in front of the Committee. But his pathetic attempts to achieve credibility fell flat.

NBC's Tim Russert showed Rumsfeld a video clip of Cheney's silly claim that the US invaders would be "greeted as liberators" and was asked "Do you think this was a misjudgment?" There is only one honest answer to that question, because it was one of the most foolish misjudgments of the many made by the Cheney-Bush administration. But of course Rumsfeld couldn't give an honest answer. He got himself in deeper by avoiding the question and then claiming he had given Bush "a list of about 15 things that could go terribly, terribly wrong before the war started."

Rumsfeld declared that "oil fields could have been set aflame like they were in Kuwait, [and] we could have had mass refugees and dislocations and it didn't happen. The bridges could have been blown up. There could have been a fortress Baghdad where the moat around it with oil in it and people fighting to the death. So a great many of the bad things that could have happened did not happen." Certainly, "a great many of the bad things" didn't happen before the invasion. They happened later, as a direct result of the triumphal mindset and unthinking brutality of the conquerors.

There was no moat of oil around Baghdad. That was a ludicrous prediction. But as to the other main warnings Rumsfeld says he gave, it appears he doesn't read newspapers. It was his air force that destroyed bridges, and there have been scores of oil pipeline fires caused by guerrilla attacks since Iraq was "liberated".

Pipelines are much less risky to target than oil wells, as anyone could have told Rumsfeld if he had not been so vain and smug as to reject advice about his war. Such attacks have several effects : they deny oil, and thus national income ; the threat of interference ties up security forces ; and they demonstrate the impotence of occupation forces and the make-believe government in Baghdad. The day before Rumsfeld's talking parrot performances it was reported that guerrillas had blown up two pipelines : one in the far north, from Kirkuk to Turkey, and the other in the south, along the line from Basra to Baghdad. But Rumsfeld said Sunday that "solid progress is being made . . . economic progress is being made . . ." He must imagine that building more US prisons and military bases all over the country can be called economic progress.

Rumsfeld's alleged warning to Bush about refugees and relocations was not relevant at the time of their invasion. These disasters took place afterwards. Has he heard of Fallujah? It was his merry men who took Nazi-style reprisals on the city and reduced much of it to rubble, creating hatred of America that will last for generations. Rumsfeld doesn't want the world to know the extent of the destruction wrought by his merciless blitzes, but the State Department has revealed officially that "about 90,000 of Fallujah's 300,000 residents have recently returned to the city".

Where are the rest? -- They are despairing, bewildered, poverty-stricken, helpless, tent-dwelling refugees who have to be fed, after a fashion, by the UN and other charitable refugees' organizations. They are examples of Rumsfeld's "solid progress."

And in the north there is massive "relocation" taking place, because the Kurds are forcing out the Arab population at gunpoint, and US forces are doing nothing about it. They couldn't do anything even if they wanted to. They don't understand the problem and they haven't got the expertise or troop numbers to even begin to moderate the ethnic cleansing and slaughter that are taking place. "Solid progress"?

Then there was Rumsfeld's amazing nonsense about the full scale insurgency that has taken thousands of lives. Tim Russert wanted to know if the vain and arrogant secretary of defense had foreseen this, so asked him "Was a robust insurgency on your list that you gave the president?"

That was a very good question. In old-fashioned British military parlance (and to quote Evelyn Waugh), it was a 'swift one'. If Rumsfeld had told the truth and said "No", there would have been melt-down. If he had answered "Yes", he would have looked even more stupid. So he tap-danced round the point and said "I don't remember whether that was on there, but certainly it was discussed the possibility that you could have dead-enders who would fight."

It may be credible to some that the US secretary of defense does not remember if there was a factor as vital as post-invasion insurgency on the list of 15 likely problems he says he gave to his president. On the other hand, you could conclude that Rumsfeld is a liar.

Rumsfeld's tactics are eerily reminiscent of the Nixon era -- "Just say you don't remember". In fact the writer George Higgins summed up the Nixon presidency and was unknowingly prescient about the Cheney-Bush administration when he wrote in the Atlantic of November 1974 that "The Nixon School of Lying was erected on the premise that people will hear what they want to hear, and all you have to do is give them something." Last Sunday Rumsfeld gave the people of the United States of America the same sort of mendacious twaddle that Nixon and his people dished out about Watergate.

Rumsfeld said he didn't remember if he had mentioned the biggest single problem facing any military occupation force : the likelihood of an uprising by people who don't like their country being occupied and who do not take kindly to swaggering bullies blowing down their doors in the middle of the night, stealing their savings, humiliating men, terrifying women, torturing captives and in general behaving as barbarians. The army and marines acted and continue to act like a tribe of video-game hi-tech savages. Their conduct is a direct result of lack of training that was caused by lack of planning.

And the lack of planning was the direct result of inaction on the part of a vain, naïve and foolish man : Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense. He thought he knew it all. He thought he was infallible. Perfection personified in a priggish buffoon. But at the Senate hearing he was taken down a well-deserved peg by Senator Byrd who said "Mr. Secretary, I've watched you with a considerable amount of amusement . . . I don't think I've ever heard a secretary of defense who likes to lecture the committee as much as you. You may not like our questions, but we represent the people . . . We ask the questions that the people ask of us whether you like it or not . . . The problem is we didn't ask enough questions at the beginning of this war that we got into, Mr. Bush's war . . . I don't mean to be discourteous [but] I've just heard enough of your smart answers to these people here who are elected . . . So get off your high horse when you come up here." Rumsfeld could not summon up a reply. (This splendid piece of ego-deflation was not a feature in the main newspapers or any TV reportage.)

Rumsfeld might have been shaken by such a well-merited rebuke from someone whose boots he is not fit to polish, and his dumbfounded reaction certainly indicates this possibility. But he is so absurdly convinced of his righteousness that he and his soul-mate Cheney cannot understand that anyone who disagrees with them might actually have a reasonable point to make.

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush are so arrogant, ignorant and vain that they imagine they can never fail. But they have failed disastrously and in the course of their reckless self-deception they have disgraced their country. There is small comfort in the fact that hubris leads to nemesis, because countless human beings have been sacrificed to their bumptious pride. They don't yet realize it, but they are in the quagmire of their vanities.

Brian Cloughley writes on military and political affairs. He can be reached through his website www.briancloughley.com

Powered by:

Want Free Web Traffic? blog, video, videos, humor, humour, news, politics, internet, culture, funny, entertainment, youtube, YouTube, Brian Cloughley, Quagmire of the Vanities, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Russert, Iraq, warfare, Sunni, Shia, Clinton, America

Fire Poi

A video of a girl using fire poi. Pretty good if you ask me. Better than I could do at least. Just click on the picture.



Powered by:

Want Free Web Traffic? blog, video, videos, humor, humour, news, politics, internet, culture, funny, entertainment, youtube, YouTube, fire, dancing, poi, flame

Bellydancer Video - SFW

This is a video of a belly dancer taken at Hybrid in New York. SFW



Powered by:

Want Free Web Traffic? blog, video, videos, humor, humour, news, politics, internet, culture, funny, entertainment, youtube, YouTube, bellydaner, bellydancing, Hybrid, New York, dancer, dancing