Fire Hydrant of Freedom

 bit outdated but Gertz On NK - still producing nukes - gee - what a surprise.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070424-104648-6053r.htm

I have trouble of thinking of any Presidential candidate with the strength and clear track record to prove that he can stand up to these foreign threats - except for Gingrich.  Let's hope he runs IMO.

McCain maybe, but enough leadership skills.  Romeny maybe - but not proven.

I can't think of a single Dem who I feel would not sell the US out for expediency.

Blankley points out the Cans prospects look bleak for 2008.  All the Cans are slipping in the polls including Guliani and McCain.  Depending on how things look in September many Cans may break ranks with W.  Of course our enemies know this as well,and will work diligently towards that goal.  Can any serious thinker believe that radical Muslims, nad Iranians would not rather deal with the dovish Crats than Can hawks?

I couldn't agree more with Tony's (and Cheney's) hardline stance.  But I am now apparantly in the minority.   For fun:  my predictive guess.   We will get Hillary.  The slight majority will adore her gifts *stolen* (IMO- according to George Will we pay more in gasoline tax than the oil companies make in profits- you won't hear that from the Hill)  from those who make more and this will continue till we get another exogenous threat.  Maybe then Newt will have a shot in 2012 or even 2016?  As always time will tell.   Two cents for other thoughts:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/tblankley.htm

Most likely stolen.  Most likely inside job.  Most likely bribery.  Don't believe the excuses.  Don't believe that anyone can know if a hard drive is copied.  They can be copied with no trace.   It just goes to show the incompetence and potential corruption of information that is supposed to be secure.  Did anyone see the Fox report on Sandy Berger repeatedly going to ther National Archives and stealing documents?  Outrageous.  And he gets off with a slap on the wrist!  Why did a Bush Justice Department allow this to get swept under the rug?

While I can't *prove* it, I know bribery happens at the US Copyright Office.  Things have disappeared.  It seems to be less known that it happens there.  The Patent Office was notorious for documents getting "lost".

***TSA Loses Hard Drive With Personal Info
 Email this Story

May 4, 10:03 PM (ET)

By MATT APUZZO

(AP) Transportation Security Administration chief Kip Hawley is shown in this 2006 file photo. The TSA...
Full Image

Google sponsored links
Homeland Security Career - Degree: Criminal Justice System, Border Patrol, Crime Scene, more
www.lincolntech-usa.com
 
Security X-Ray Systems - Fixed-Mobile & Desk Top Sale, Rent, Lease full warranty
www.dnjsecurity.com
 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Transportation Security Administration has lost a computer hard drive containing Social Security numbers, bank data and payroll information for about 100,000 employees.

Authorities realized Thursday the hard drive was missing from a controlled area at TSA headquarters. TSA Administrator Kip Hawley sent a letter to employees Friday apologizing for the lost data and promising to pay for one year of credit monitoring services.

"TSA has no evidence that an unauthorized individual is using your personal information, but we bring this incident to your attention so that you can be alert to signs of any possible misuse of your identity," Hawley wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press. "We profoundly apologize for any inconvenience and concern that this incident has caused you."

The agency said it did not know whether the device is still within headquarters or was stolen.

TSA said it has asked the FBI and Secret Service to investigate and said it would fire anyone discovered to have violated the agency's data-protection policies.

In a statement released Friday night, the agency said the external - or portable - hard drive contained information on employees who worked for the Homeland Security agency from January 2002 until August 2005.

TSA, a division of the Homeland Security Department, employs about 50,000 people and is responsible for security of the nation's transportation systems, including airports and train stations.

"It's seems like there's a problem with security inside Homeland Security and that makes no sense," said James Slade, a TSA screener and the executive vice president of the National Treasury Employees Union chapter at John F. Kennedy International Airport. "That's scary. That's my identity. And now who has a hold of it? So many things go on in your mind."

The agency added a section to its Web site Friday night addressing the data security breach and directing people to information about identity theft.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, whose Homeland Security subcommittee oversees the TSA, promised to hold hearings on the security breach. She said Homeland Security buildings are part of the critical infrastructure the agency is charged with protecting.

"We should expect it to be secure," she said.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson, D-Miss., called the security breach "a terrible and unfortunate blow" for an agency he said already suffered from low morale.

It's the latest mishap for the government involving computer data. Last year, a laptop with information for more than 26.5 million military personnel, was stolen from a Veterans Affairs Department employee's home. Law enforcement officials recovered the laptop, and the FBI said Social Security numbers and other personal data had not been copied.***

***TSA has no evidence that an unauthorized individual is using your personal information***

This is the line we always hear.  Yet it has also been stated that approximately 40% Of illegal aliens are using phoney social security numbers.  What a joke.  The laugh is on the honest tax paying law abiding citizens.  Although sadly most of them would glady take a bribe too.

---

Well, I recall George Will pointing out around 1990 or so how George Herbert Bush's seeking the World's approval before forcing Hussain out of Kuait was a dangerous precendent that would forever leave the US impotent to act without the tacit approval of the"World". 

So now the US is not supposed to act without the UN's approval.  We can thank Bush senior for that precedent which was gloriously promoted for the next eight years by the greatest con artist of our generation.  Even our enemies welcomed this. Gee, I wonder why that would be.

As for SB's second question I have not read about any alternative posed by anyone that is satisfactory. 

This all said I am not sure WW3 is going to be West vs radical Islam anyway, and not West vs. China.

     

Stringer is reported to be writing a book.

Imus should get a big cut for all the attention he brought her and her team.

I wonder where he got that phrase from anyway.

Over twenty five years ago I took a class in forensic psychiatry.  We took a tour of St Elizabeth hospital for the crimnally insane.

I still remember many of the stories the psychiatrist told us.  I also remember him distinctly saying that most of the patients *appeared* dangerous, but were not.   Most of them, if released, would cause no harm.  The problem was being able to predict or figure out which ones would go out and harm others.   He said this was often impossible.   Thus, many of the inmates/patients would spend their lives there - because the psychiatrists coud not predict the harmless from the dangerous.   It is always easier in retrospect.  In my experience  in evaluating patients for mental hosptial commitment the psychiatrist simply interviews the patient to determine potential harm to him/herself and if they don't find clear evidence of delusions or hallucinations, and if the patient simply denies suicidal or homicidal intent then the patient is released.   

Of course now we'll hear how the "system" failed, the college president should be fired, the teachers should have been more proactive, it's bush's fault, it's the NRA's fault, it is our decadant culture, and on and on and on for weeks or months,  Time and Newsweek will come out with their version of the *real* truth behind the headlines, Geraldo, O'Reilly will have more to blab about ad nauseam on Fox, CNN will interview the Dems candidates side of the story giving them a platform describing how we need them to protect "our children" - all this and more - until we get new headlines.

Of course I can just turn off the news for a while or come here and chat and read up on other topics 

http://www.ibtimes.com/photonews_new2.htm?image=72474

I was recently wondering when Abraham lived.  Looking online the best estimates suggested he lived sometime between 1600 to 2100 BC.   Of course who really knows if he even really existed.   I mean he is supposed to have lived to 175 years old.

Here is one site:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/abraham.html

I perused through Bell Curve some years back.  With regard to intelligence the Asians were thought to have the curve at the highest end followed by whites than blacks.   The authors pointed out that there is mostly overlap though.

I wonder how much of Jewish "success" is cultural rather than some innate superior intellect.  I mean hasn't it been standard for hundreds of years for Jewish parents to push their kids to get educated.   You didn't see other groups doing this to the same degree as far as I know.   

I notice a lot of Asians who come here encourage their kids into educational endeavors.   But both Jews and now others seem to know education is one path to financial success, and not necessarily the means to solving the mysteries of the universe.

Just thinking "out loud".

SB_Mig,

It sounds like we are mostly on the same page.   You take issue with a minor point on my part and ignore the main point of my post that is that Pelosi's trip plays right into the hands of our enemies.

I think you know full well the Demorcrats lead en mass (except for a few like Lieberman) in conveying to our enemies our weaknesses.
So a few cans went there as well.  Why you harp on this beats me.  Does this make you feel superior?  Wise guy.

***Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the willingness by some lawmakers to talk with Syria "is proof of the importance of the resistance against the U.S."***

This says it all.  It verifies exactly what W. says, and that is that Pelosi and the crats undermine us all.  You won't see this statement on the clinton news network!  Maybe on Fox.  But you will hear them quote W. as though he is an idiot.

I know. Our freedom of speech and diversity makes us strong.

While we talk - they build nuclear bombs.

Well I guess learning how to salute is going to win over the military and erase decades of disdain for the people in uniform.  It would be like Jane Fonda saluting for the cameras.  Hypocracy for the ages.  Yet she may win the election with promises of gifts to every group of constuents that she needs to win.

 The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

March 27, 2007
Mindful of Past, Clinton Cultivates the Military
By PATRICK HEALY

Of all the early problems Bill Clinton faced as president, few stand out to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as more frustrating and avoidable than his rocky relationship with the military, her advisers say.

During his 1992 campaign, Mr. Clinton was attacked for avoiding the Vietnam draft and organizing antiwar marches in the 1960s. After taking office, his early focus on gay men and lesbians in the military drew sharp criticism from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin L. Powell, and other officers. Even his ability to salute properly was called into question.

Mrs. Clinton, to use a phrase, has been practicing her salute. As a senator and now as a presidential candidate, she has cultivated relationships with generals and admirals, prepped herself on wartime needs and strategy, and traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I think eight years in the White House, traveling the world and seeing the United States military doing the nation’s business, and now her time in the Senate, has given her a significant appreciation of the military that maybe her husband didn’t have before the White House,” said Jack Keane, the retired general and former Army vice chief of staff who has become close to the senator.

For Mrs. Clinton, exhibiting a command of military matters is not just about learning from her husband’s experience. It could be vital to her, as a woman seeking to become a wartime commander in chief, to show the public that she is comfortable with military policy and culture — and with the weight of responsibility that accompanies life-and-death decisions.

It is also part of an effort to shed the image some voters hold of her as an antimilitary liberal, defined by her opposition to the Vietnam War and, now, by her criticism of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq.

A Time magazine poll in July asked adults to assess whether Mrs. Clinton would keep the military strong. Asked how much that description fit Mrs. Clinton, 33 percent said a lot, 25 percent said a little, 15 percent said not much, 18 percent said not at all and 10 percent had no answer.

Some uniformed officers, too, said that the Clintons were more associated with a ’60s culture than a military one, and that only time would tell if Mrs. Clinton’s appreciation of the military would go beyond niceties and expressions of concern.

Donald L. Kerrick, a retired general and former deputy national security adviser to President Clinton, acknowledged that some people inside and outside the military were skeptical of Mrs. Clinton’s intentions and wary that she would shift federal dollars to domestic programs like health care.

General Kerrick, who is close to Mrs. Clinton, said he believed that her appreciation of the military was genuine, but that it would take time and effort for that to come across.

“If, as president, she treats commanders and troops the same way she does now, she will quickly gain their support and respect,” General Kerrick said. “Military people are very loyal to the chain of command, and to people who understand them.”

In the Senate, Mrs. Clinton has supported expanding medical benefits for National Guard members and reservists and providing aid to those with traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. She has also defied liberals in her own party at times, endorsing the expansion of the Army, supporting financing for missile defense, and refusing to support a total ban on land mines.

But just as she has encountered some hostility from the left for not being a critic of the Iraq war earlier and for not renouncing her vote in 2002 to authorize it, Mrs. Clinton could also risk coming off as too hawkish to some Democratic voters for her vociferous support of military initiatives.

Some on the left ask if she is engaging again in the Clinton strategy of political triangulation: reaching out to military leaders while also trying to appease the left with her criticism of the war in Iraq. During her Senate re-election race last year, some liberals criticized her as currying favor with pro-military conservatives and independents by fiercely supporting Israel and taking a tough line against Al Qaeda and Iranian operatives in Iraq, similar to what her husband did during his presidency on social issues like welfare.

“Some days she sounds like a total hawk, and other days she’s saying, ‘I’m against the war and it’s been mismanaged,’ ” said Jonathan Tasini, who ran against Mrs. Clinton for the Senate Democratic nomination last year on an antiwar platform.

“But I don’t see how this helps her in the primaries,” Mr. Tasini continued. “So many people have turned against the war.”

Of the other main Democratic presidential candidates, only Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut has served in the military, as an Army reservist. Like Mrs. Clinton, most of the candidates rely on their service on Senate committees for their foreign policy credentials. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois serves on the Foreign Relations and Veterans Affairs Committees; former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina served on the intelligence committee; Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Mr. Dodd is a member of that committee.

Essential to Mrs. Clinton’s courtship of the military was winning a seat in 2002 on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which she had vigorously sought. In that role, she regularly meets with military officers, has traveled three times to Iraq and has attended hearings on global conflicts and the needs of the armed services.

Privately, two current military leaders who have testified before the Armed Services committee, and who by custom do not comment publicly on political figures, said they both found Mrs. Clinton conversant about the military and thoughtful in her questions.

Active-duty generals have sought her out, and she has reached out to them. Among those with whom she has built relationships are Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and Adm. William J. Fallon, the new head of Central Command. Recently, too, James T. Conway, the commandant of the Marines, invited her to be his guest of honor at the “Sunset Parade” at the Marine Corps War Memorial in Washington, a high-profile tradition. (She has accepted.)

Some military analysts said that building ties with generals was only part of building a leadership image on military issues. Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, the libertarian research group, said Mrs. Clinton’s political shift to opposing the war in Iraq — combined with some voters’ skepticism about the Clintons and the military — posed a challenge for her, especially when she needs to prove that a woman is tough enough to be commander in chief.

“By surrounding herself with military brass, it reinforces an image of her as strong and hawkish,” Mr. Carpenter said. “But is that an authentic image? Would she really give dollars to the Pentagon instead of to cherished domestic programs?”

The Republican National Committee’s research staff members have already compiled a series of examples that they say show Mrs. Clinton at odds with military interests, including her Iraq war positioning and her opposition to sending additional troops there.

General Keane — whose support for sending more troops to Iraq is at odds with Mrs. Clinton’s view — and other admirers of hers see these skeptical or critical portrayals of her as playing into false stereotypes. He recalled how his own initial impression of her changed after their first meeting: It was supposed to last 15 minutes, but continued for a half hour longer as they talked about West Point and moved onto global hot spots.

John Batiste, a retired major general and former commander of the First Infantry Division, who also consults with Mrs. Clinton, said, “Very, very few politicians have any military experience, and they’re naïve — they don’t understand what it takes to develop a big picture, unified strategy to take a country to war.

“She’s the kind of person who would listen to sound military advice,” General Batiste said, “and not dismiss it or discard it. And I’m a lifelong Republican.“

Home

    * World
    * U.S.
    * N.Y. / Region
    * Business
    * Technology
    * Science
    * Health
    * Sports
    * Opinion
    * Arts
    * Style
    * Travel
    * Jobs
    * Real Estate
    * Automobiles
    * Back to Top

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

    * Privacy Policy
    * Search
    * Corrections
    * RSS
    * First Look
    * Help
    * Contact Us
    * Work for Us
    * Site Map

***Messiah Complex***

I always thought Bill Clinton had this notion that he was going to save humanity from itself.  The great man who would fix everything.

Gore more pompous.  Clinton more narcissistic.  Hillary is both.

To Rogt,

No your not being nitpicky. But...  I don't think Hannity or Limbaugh have called for Jihad against the resident citizens, immigrants, and  illegals of the United States or other Western countries.

I am also under the impression, as I suggested, that the ACLU would stop law enforcement's investigation of those enemies of the US who choose to out themselves. Yes I do think they can lawyer us to powerlessness, to inaction, to not defending ourselves.  IMO posting calls for Jihad *is more* than just words.  It *is* a call to arms.  It *is* communicating with potential armies of combatants.  It *is* a plan.  It *is* a conspiracy to commit crimes.

To_Mig,

I am not sure I could come up with a Supreme Court Justice's level of clarity and specificity in formulating a definition of what should be considered treason using legally acceptedl parameters.  To ask me to come up with a broader definition skirts my point that calling for jihad on the internet is clearly a conspiracy to incite violent acts against us. On the other hand, I do admit that I broadened the argument myself by attacking unlimited free speech. Perhaps I took on too difficult a task but my overall hunch on this stands (in my mind).  Also (and frankly), I am not a legal genius  .  So who should dictate who gets censored - perhaps the nine the Supreme Court Justices.

And are you actually telling me the cacaphony of views in this country has *not* resulted in inaction on numerous issues?  How can anything get accomplished with so much hot air out there?   This country is more or less evenly divided.  A house divided against itself cannot stand.  (A. Lincoln: circa ~1856)  Are you also suggesting Iran is not hell bent on becoming a military power?   And China as well?

BTW, I got a kick at your pointing out Hillary is running for "re-election". 

To Crafty and all,

I will try to read more on the legal doctrine as suggested.  Many thanks.   

 "Lawyers" don't bring someone up on charges, district attorneys do.

2) Do you know what the legal definition of "assault" is?

3)  "Inciting a riot" requires the imminent possibility of a riot.  Is that present here?

4) Please explain what you mean by this:  "Our brave men and women troops are fighting for the right of free speech including the right to kill all the people they are risking their lives for!"

5) "Let me here (sic) how this freedom is exactly what makes our country great.  IMO it is exactly this that is going to make our country eventually fall apart."

Hey Crafty,

Thanks for the input - I expected some disagreement and that is what I am looking for.

Well, are there no laws that protect our citizens from those in this country who are calling for war against us?  Perhaps treason?

If so then why should not a DA bring this guy up on charges.  If this guy made threats against the President he would be investigated by Secret Service.  If he makes statements that are essentially asking his radical muslim buddies to bring arms against us and kill Americans the threat may not mean iminent danger but the threat is still a threat of harm.  I see no difference.

As to number four it was a typo.   It makes no sense to me that our brave men and women should risk their life and limb let alone place their and their families lives on hold for someone to be able to exercise free speech which includes the right to call for enemies to kill the same people they are fighting for.

Please correct me if I am wrong but you've posted you are a Libertarian.   Is/are there any limits to free speech in your view?

Our enemies seem to be doing a fine job exploiting our free speech and endless dissenting views.  I just don't see how limitless free speech makes us stronger.


 

***Thirty-seven percent of British Muslims between the ages of 16-24 would rather live under Shari'a law than under British Common Law; 36 percent think Muslims should be killed if they convert to another religion; 13 percent admire al-Qaida and similar terror groups; and a whopping 74 percent of young British Muslims believe women should wear veils***

Astounding isn't it?

Yet these same people have no problem living in Britain and taking advantage of a better life than they could ever hopefor in their own Muslim countries.

I wonder if any such polls were done here.   Everytime I meet a Muslin I wonder if he/she would be happy to see me dead because I am an American... and a Jew.  I guess I get the wrong end of a double barrel shotgun on that question.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070214-120013-3871r.htm

***this woman gets a pass***

Look at Ann Smith, Paris Hilton.

The "press" is making a fortune off them all so they will not go after them with criticism.

I guess it is also a function of what the liberal press sees as wrong.  Sex, affairs, extramarital, drugs, drunkeness is never a problem.  But make a politically incorrect statement and lookout - for example, Hardaway's anti-gay comments. 

With regards to Hilton we have "heard" nothing but silence since her anti-black comments:  "we're like a couple of n......"  The press won't go after her.  They make too much money off her.

My conclusion is it is a function of:

1)  If the behavior is politically(liberally) incorrect vs. conservatively incorrect.  If it offends conservatives who cares; if it offends liberals - a different story althogether.

2)  There are financial interests in being critical or simply ignoring.

Hardaway is free to speak - unless he offends - the liberal media - plus they do not make money following his every move so they are happy to go after him.

With Spears they ove the gossip because it sells.  So they just report it and leave the criticism out.

Hilton's racist comments probably offend them but they love how she makes them all money so they just ignore what she said.

Now that the idea is out we will probably start seeing a lot of this.  Hey prizes could include a dictatorship on your own island, or a nuclear bomb.  Maybe the US gov could sponser one with prizes like immigration visas or citizenships to whole families.  The politicians always love another source of income.  It kind of almost makes me want to consider socialism or communism.  Oh well, I guess I'll get used to it - like anything else.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=SYOPXYVBEKUHNQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/10/nlotto10.xml

***I would not consider Lebanon or Iran representative democracies, so I'm not sure if they can be considered democratic failures***

I thought the Hamas and Hezbollah have members who were elected to representative government?  I thought Ahmadinajad was elected?

No?

I was just trying to make the point that when W. talks of spreading "Democracy" it sounds warm and fuzzy and has political and sound bite buzz but I am not clear it makes a lot of sense.   Perhaps he should be talking more in terms of "free" elections.   Perhaps he needs to define to us actually what it is he is exporting?

I think your point about the electoral college is consistent with what I am trying to say - that "democracy" or majority rule can be turned into many different versions of government.  Another example is that some could say that capatilism actually encourages the authority of the a wealthy minority over the less majority - which also is intermingled in our system of government (money talks).

I guess I should have paid more attention in political science class in college.  What a complicated task trying to get this to work in Iraq.   How could it not take decades?   

About ElBaradei co-winner of a Nobel Peace prize and head of the IAEA whose officials suggest Iran's goal may not be to develop the nuclear weapons just have all the components and the capability to be able to do so in weeks or months -  what the heck is that logic?  Sounds a lot like they are denying the obvious for reasons of which I cannot be clear from this armchair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei

***picture the pressures within Iran in the absence of oil money-- and how the absence of money might bring the nuke program to a halt***

It seems like one short term option - but has not worked till now.

The head of US intelligence thinks Iran is 4 to ten yrs away.   Others say less.  And who knows how much is speculation, how much is political, etc.  So far it seems Iran will continue to have alternate sources of money like China and Russia who seem quite happy to keep  the US bogged down with this.   Some (at least) in the military consider China, not Al Qaeda, no longer Russia  our biggest military threat.  While Clinton was cruising the world stage with handshakes, photo ops, exporting peace and love we were (probably still are) having military/space secrets stolen by Chinese, allowing Muslim radicals groups to grow, and expecting that if we just chat nice with the world they will love us.

Only time will tell.

 

Sorry, I don't know why the body of my post refused to get posted on the Iran thread below:

Hi Doug,

***In all this chaos - which will take years to settle - the United States needs to stick to its principles. Neither immediate military intervention nor dialogue with Iran is the answer. Instead, we must just keep up the pressure on the trash-talking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is far weaker than he lets on***

The only problem with this is that Iran's leadership is moving ahead with nuclear weapons.  They didn't build neafly nucler explosion proof bunkers for any other reason.

I am not so sure that recent criticsims of Ahmadenjad was that procuring nuclear weapons is crazy but only that telegraphing their intent to the world along with pubically announcing his supreme desire to destroy the Jews of Israel is crazy.  the wiseer policy would have been to quietly go about your intentions.

I still see absolutely no option other than the military one.  Once Iran's leadership gets the nucs the game is completely changed and even more dangerous in my arm chair, middle class opinion.   Exactly why do any of these people think waiting till Iran has the military capability to cause a second holocaust (3 nucs will suffice - as Gingrich points out - look at the map of Israel and one can easily see this) is *less* dangerous than taking action before to prevent precisely this?

Yes I know we risk losing Pakistan, and Sunni Arab countries but we are talking existential threat to Israel.   I still think Israel will either have to go it alone or before Hillary replaces Bush.  Once the Dems win the Whitehouse forget about it.  It will be Jimmy Carter all over again - unless it is a Dem like Joe Leiberman - one of the bravest most decent politicians I can think of.   I would vote for him in heartbeat if he ran.

They have already secured anitaircraft missles from Russia who along with China are probably delighted at our being bogged down with the radical Muslims.   I wonder what was behind the Israelis' letting it go public that they are conducting practice military exercises with Jet pilots to bomb Iran's nuc facilities with the idea they could soften the bunkers with one kiloton nuclear devices before unleashing a second wave of conventioinal bombs. Was it simply a leak of secret info. by a political dissident or bribes official.
Was this release of information supposed to be some sort of threat that it means business. Or was it really a measure designed to camoflouge the real military options such as the use of cruise missles, not jets.   I can't believe the Israeli military would be that stupid to telegraph their means.

Hi Doug,

***In all this chaos - which will take years to settle - the United States needs to stick to its principles. Neither immediate military intervention nor dialogue with Iran is the answer. Instead, we must just keep up the pressure on the trash-talking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is far weaker than he lets on***

The only problem with this is that Iran's leadership is moving ahead with nuclear weapons.  They didn't build neafly nucler explosion proof bunkers for any other reason.

I am not so sure that recent criticsims of Ahmadenjad was that procuring nuclear weapons is crazy but only that telegraphing their intent to the world along with pubically announcing his supreme desire to destroy the Jews of Israel is crazy.  the wiseer policy would have been to quietly go about your intentions.

I still see absolutely no option other than the military one.  Once Iran's leadership gets the nucs the game is completely changed and even more dangerous in my arm chair, middle class opinion.   Exactly why do any of these people think waiting till Iran has the military capability to cause a second holocaust (3 nucs will suffice - as Gingrich points out - look at the map of Israel and one can easily see this) is *less* dangerous than taking action before to prevent precisely this?

Yes I know we risk losing Pakistan, and Sunni Arab countries but we are talking existential threat to Israel.   I still think Israel will either have to go it alone or before Hillary replaces Bush.  Once the Dems win the Whitehouse forget about it.  It will be Jimmy Carter all over again - unless it is a Dem like Joe Leiberman - one of the bravest most decent politicians I can think of.   I would vote for him in heartbeat if he ran.

They have already secured anitaircraft missles from Russia who along with China are probably delighted at our being bogged down with the radical Muslims.   I wonder what was behind the Israelis' letting it go public that they are conducting practice military exercises with Jet pilots to bomb Iran's nuc facilities with the idea they could soften the bunkers with one kiloton nuclear devices before unleashing a second wave of conventioinal bombs. Was it simply a leak of secret info. by a political dissident or bribes official.
Was this release of information supposed to be some sort of threat that it means business. Or was it really a measure designed to camoflouge the real military options such as the use of cruise missles, not jets.   I can't believe the Israeli military would be that stupid to telegraph their means.

Well Hillary, do you think America "is ready for a woman president."  This was the first question asked at a "town hall" extravaganza for the Hill.  Oh I get it, lets get that out of the way.  and surely most people are supposed to sit there blindly and think, "well I could vote for a woman".   We know the media is drooling all over this.

BTW, weren't most Presidents fathers?

This is such a rehearsed planned question.  Please, anybody but another Clinton.  As one who generally votes Republican I'll take Biden, Obama who I don't know, Richardson, etc.  But Clintons I know (despite the never ending *we really don't know Hillary*).   I'm not even sure I wouldn't rather have Jimmy Carter come back then *them* again.  And I'm old enough to remember Carter.  Can't we just get rid of both the Bushes and the Clintons?    Come on Dems lets make a bargain.   Remember, we could always bring in Jeb just to piss ya off.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/16566417.htm

I like this board having come from Ourpiazza.  I am disappointed I don't (appear) to see others from there as well.

One difference is that the posts on this board are very long.  Many are posts of long pieces or lectures. They are extremely informative but take a long time to read.  I wonder if some of the old posters from ourpiazza miss the more succinct posts there.

Nonetheless, I find it educational to read many of the posts here and appreciate the opportunity.

Interesting read.

Funny aspirin is praised but statins demonized.  Aspirin can be a very dangerous drug.   It can cause gout, allergic reactions, trigger asthma and, of course, life threatening gastrointestinal bleeds.  I remember going to a chiropracter who made me sit through a video describing in detail how MDs are murdering patients with drugs like motrin and aspirin which are responsible for many hospitalizations and deaths.

It just goes to show how one can manipulate science to say whatever they want.

Funny one of the writers discusses the increase in fat intake in diet from 1959 to present in Japan yet cardiovascular death has gone down during the same period.

Well Americans are much heavier now then they were in the 50's and deaths from cardiovascular disease has gone down.
I suppose drugs have nothing to do with it?

If my bad cholesterol is 200 I am taking a statin to get it down.

And to say low cholesterol or saturated fat diets do not work is misleading.  I know peolple who changed their diets to avoid just these substances and their cholesterols have plummetted (even without weight loss).  This doesn't occur with everyone but there is clearly a subset of individuals who respond extremely well to this kind of diet manipulation.