SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (98761)5/23/2007 6:50:52 AM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
Democrats cave on Iraq.

They have stabbed their supporters in the back yet again.

Frankly I hate them even more than the Bushies.

Bush wins Iraq showdown with Congress


Democrats lack sufficient votes to override presidential veto, accept bill they deemed ‘weak’ earlier.


By Stephen Collinson – WASHINGTON

Anti-war Democrats Tuesday shelved their crusade to condition Iraq war funding on troop withdrawals, but denied handing President George W. Bush a multi-billion dollar victory.

Instead of homecoming soldiers, party leaders reluctantly accepted the first congressionally approved political and security benchmarks for the Iraqi government, a plan ridiculed just last week by a top Democrat as "weak."

They vowed to renew their battle to end US involvement in the war through defense bills looming in the next few months and claimed their weeks-long constitutional showdown had boxed Bush in as never before.

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi presented the outline of the new funding bill, worth around 100 billion dollars, to her restive party caucus Tuesday, billing it as "another stage in the sequencing of ending this war."

Pelosi said September was now the real "moment of truth for this war" as several spending bills come up as well as a report on the progress of Bush's troop surge strategy by top war general, David Petraeus.

Some top Republicans have already said they will either need to see progress by then, or sweeping changes in US strategy in the war, which has killed more than 3,400 US soldiers.

Bush has vowed never to accept timelines for withdrawal, billed by Republicans as "surrender dates" and vetoed a previous 124-billion-dollar spending bill because it included such mechanisms.

The House was to vote, probably on Thursday, on a war funding package and companion legislation containing extra domestic spending and including hurricane relief funding and other spending hikes, included to placate liberal Democrats.

The Senate would then be asked to vote on the package as a whole, said Democratic Representative David Obey, who has been locked in talks with Republicans, top senators and the White House on the funding package.

Democrats, who control both chambers of Congress but lack sufficient votes to override a presidential veto, dismissed the notion that their reluctant dropping of withdrawal timelines handed Bush a hard-won victory.

"I don't think there's any way you could stretch, saying whatever we decide to do in this legislation is a defeat," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

"For heaven's sakes, look where we've come. We have come a long, long ways."

Leaders said the budget language would mirror a Republican-backed amendment passed last week and accepted by the White House, which would require Bush to report to Congress on progress in Iraq in July and September.

The bill, framed by Republican Senator John Warner, also raises the prospect of the Iraqi government forfeiting non-military financial aid if it fails to reach a set of political and security benchmarks.

Though Reid ridiculed the bill last week as "weak," he said it would mark an important step toward ending the war.

"If that's all there is, it's a lot more than the president ever expected he'd have to agree to."

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell meanwhile said the chamber appeared ready to pass a bill "without a surrender date."

But there was immediate anger from the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party.

"I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and that allows the president to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history," said Democratic Senator Russ Feingold.

Democratic leaders upped the ante in talks with the White House on Friday, again insisting on the need for a date for troop withdrawals to begin -- though offering Bush the power to waive the requirement.

But all along, they said they would get a bill funding the troops until the end of September to the president's desk before leaving on a week-long recess on Friday.

There was no immediate reaction from the White House, which earlier cited the need to keep ongoing negotiations under wraps.

At least 15 US servicemen were reported killed this weekend in Iraq, and 76 so far this month, bringing total US losses since the invasion to 3,419, according to a count based on Pentagon figures.



To: American Spirit who wrote (98761)5/23/2007 6:55:35 AM
From: puborectalis  Respond to of 173976
 
May 23, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Pass the Clam Dip
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON

It’s no wonder Al Gore is a little touchy about his weight, what with everyone trying to read his fat cells like tea leaves to see if he’s going to run.

He was so determined to make his new book look weighty, in the this-treatise-belongs-on-the-shelf-between-Plato-and-Cato sense, rather than the double-chin-isn’t-quite-gone-yet sense, that he did something practically unheard of for a politician: He didn’t plaster his picture on the front.

“The Assault on Reason” looks more like the Beatles’ White Album than a screed against the tinny Texan who didn’t get as many votes in 2000.

The Goracle does concede a small author’s picture on the inside back flap, a chiseled profile that screams Profile in Courage and that also screams Really Old Picture. Indeed, if you read the small print next to the wallet-sized photo of Thin Gore looking out prophetically into the distance, it says it’s from his White House years.

A subliminal clue to his intentions, perhaps? He must be flattered that many demoralized leading Republicans and Bush insiders think a Gore-Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And he must be gratified that his rival Hillary has never cemented her inevitability, even with Bill Clinton’s lip-licking Web video pushing her.

But though he’s on a book tour clearly timed to build on his Oscar flash and Nobel buzz, and take advantage of the public’s curiosity about whether he’ll jump in the race, he almost seems to want to sigh and roll his eyes when he’s asked about it.

“I’m not a candidate,” he told Diane Sawyer on “Good Morning America.” “This book is not a political book. It’s not a candidate book at all.”

Of course, his protestation was lost given the fact that he was sitting in front of a screen blaring the message “The Race to ’08,” and above a crawl that asked “Will he run for the White House?”

He is so fixed on not seeming like a presidential flirt that he risks coming across as a bit of a righteous tease or a high-minded scold, which is exactly what his book is, a high-minded scolding. He upbraided Diane about the graphics for his segment, complaining about buzzwords and saying, “That’s not what this is about.”

Diane was not so easily put off as he turned up his nose at the horse race and the vast wasteland of TV, and bored in for the big question: “Donna Brazile, your former campaign manager, has said, ‘If he drops 25 to 30 pounds, he’s running.’ Lost any weight?”

Laughing obligingly, he replied: “I think, you know, millions of Americans are in the same struggle I am on that one. But look, listen to your questions. And you know, if the horse race, the cosmetic parts of this — and look, that’s all understandable and natural. But while we’re focused on, you know, Britney and KFed and Anna Nicole Smith and all this stuff, meanwhile, very quietly, our country has been making some very serious mistakes that could be avoided if we the people, including the news media, are involved in a full and vigorous discussion of what our choices are.”

He explained to James Traub of The New York Times Magazine that TV induces a sort of national trance because the brain’s fear center, the amygdala, receives only a fraction of electrical impulses from the neocortex, and couldn’t resist lecturing about the amygdala — “which as I’m sure you know comes from the Latin for ‘almond.’ ”

Mr. Traub said that, as he followed the ex-vice president around, the Goracle was “eating like a maniac: I watched him inhale the clam dip at a reception like a man who doesn’t know when his next meal will be coming.”

If Al Gore is really unplugged and uncensored, as Tipper and his fans say, then he is no longer bound by the opinions of gurus, mercenaries and focus groups. He can be himself, and inhale away and still run if he wants.

Barack Obama is as slender as an adolescent and exercises constantly, but he still sometimes seems strangely tired on the campaign trail. He blamed fatigue when he overstated the death toll of the Kansas tornadoes, saying it was 10,000 when it was 12.

Doug Brinkley, the presidential historian, said that even though the fashion now is for fit candidates, after the Civil War, there was a series of overweight presidents. “It showed you had a zest for life,” he said. (The excess baggage may make Bill Clinton and Bill Richardson look roguish, but unfortunately, too many cheeseburgers and ice cream sundaes make Mr. Gore look puffy and waxy.) “Maybe,” Mr. Brinkley suggested, “Gore can sit in Tennessee and do it via high-definition satellite — like McKinley, just eat and sit on the porch.”



To: American Spirit who wrote (98761)5/23/2007 6:56:39 AM
From: puborectalis  Respond to of 173976
 
May 23, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Laughing and Crying
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
First I had to laugh. Then I had to cry.

I took part in commencement this year at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, one of America’s great science and engineering schools, so I had a front-row seat as the first grads to receive their diplomas came on stage, all of them Ph.D. students. One by one the announcer read their names and each was handed their doctorate — in biotechnology, computing, physics and engineering — by the school’s president, Shirley Ann Jackson.

The reason I had to laugh was because it seemed like every one of the newly minted Ph.D.’s at Rensselaer was foreign born. For a moment, as the foreign names kept coming — “Hong Lu, Xu Xie, Tao Yuan, Fu Tang” — I thought that the entire class of doctoral students in physics were going to be Chinese, until “Paul Shane Morrow” saved the day. It was such a caricature of what President Jackson herself calls “the quiet crisis” in high-end science education in this country that you could only laugh.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m proud that our country continues to build universities and a culture of learning that attract the world’s best minds. My complaint — why I also wanted to cry — was that there wasn’t someone from the Immigration and Naturalization Service standing next to President Jackson stapling green cards to the diplomas of each of these foreign-born Ph.D.’s. I want them all to stay, become Americans and do their research and innovation here. If we can’t educate enough of our own kids to compete at this level, we’d better make sure we can import someone else’s, otherwise we will not maintain our standard of living.

It is pure idiocy that Congress will not open our borders — as wide as possible — to attract and keep the world’s first-round intellectual draft choices in an age when everyone increasingly has the same innovation tools and the key differentiator is human talent. I’m serious. I think any foreign student who gets a Ph.D. in our country — in any subject — should be offered citizenship. I want them. The idea that we actually make it difficult for them to stay is crazy.

Compete America, a coalition of technology companies, is pleading with Congress to boost both the number of H-1B visas available to companies that want to bring in skilled foreign workers and the number of employment-based green cards given to high-tech foreign workers who want to stay here. Give them all they want! Not only do our companies need them now, because we’re not training enough engineers, but they will, over time, start many more companies and create many more good jobs than they would possibly displace. Silicon Valley is living proof of that — and where innovation happens matters. It’s still where the best jobs will be located.

Folks, we can’t keep being stupid about these things. You can’t have a world where foreign-born students dominate your science graduate schools, research labs, journal publications and can now more easily than ever go back to their home countries to start companies — without it eventually impacting our standard of living — especially when we’re also slipping behind in high-speed Internet penetration per capita. America has fallen from fourth in the world in 2001 to 15th today.

My hat is off to Andrew Rasiej and Micah Sifry, co-founders of the Personal Democracy Forum. They are trying to make this an issue in the presidential campaign by creating a movement to demand that candidates focus on our digital deficits and divides. (See: techpresident.com.) Mr. Rasiej, who unsuccessfully ran for public advocate of New York City in 2005 on a platform calling for low-cost wireless access everywhere, notes that “only half of America has broadband access to the Internet.” We need to go from “No Child Left Behind,” he says, to “Every Child Connected.”

Here’s the sad truth: 9/11, and the failing Iraq war, have sucked up almost all the oxygen in this country — oxygen needed to discuss seriously education, health care, climate change and competitiveness, notes Garrett Graff, an editor at Washingtonian Magazine and author of the upcoming book “The First Campaign,” which deals with this theme. So right now, it’s mostly governors talking about these issues, noted Mr. Graff, but there is only so much they can do without Washington being focused and leading.

Which is why we’ve got to bring our occupation of Iraq to an end in the quickest, least bad way possible — otherwise we are going to lose Iraq and America. It’s coming down to that choice.



To: American Spirit who wrote (98761)5/23/2007 8:04:29 AM
From: JeffA  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
Idiot