Life in OUR America, Volume 5, the Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

And from gas ....

To environmental issues ....

"Red flag raised for region's fire danger - Residents in more than 20 counties warned against open burning as dry, gusty weather accelerates risk"

Staff and wire reports, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Thursday, April 20, 2006

The recent spell of dry weather and wind gusts led the National Weather Service in Albany to issue a critical fire warning Wednesday, the area's first in at least five years.

The warning remains in effect until Friday.

The service raises the red flag alert when conditions are dry, wind gusts exceed 25 mph and the relative humidity drops below 30 percent.

"We call it a potential critical fire danger stage," said Hugh Johnson, meteorologist with the weather service.

"We extremely discourage any outside burning during a red flag."

Meteorologist Ray O'Keefe said the risk is expected to subside throughout the next two days as winds die down.

The weekend forecast is for rainfall continuing into early next week.

Forecasters warned that dry, windy conditions over much of eastern New York will increase the risk from outdoor fires for several days.

Residents are asked not to conduct any open burning within the next few days.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation warned that campfires and brush fires may quickly get out of control.

Once the grass starts to get greener and the trees grow their leaves, said O'Keefe, the fire risk will decrease significantly.

The red flag warnings were issued for the following counties: Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Warren, Columbia, Fulton, Greene, Montgomery, Washington, Bronx, Dutchess, Kings, Nassau, New York, Orange, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk and Ulster.

In the Capital Region, a brush fire smoldered for two hours across the road from the Hess fuel tank farm at the Port of Rensselaer.

The fire was first reported about 11:30 a.m. in grasses and low brush between the sprawling Hess terminal and the Amtrak railroad tracks adjacent Route 9J.

"We got some rough terrain back in there but it wasn't a big fire, it is just labor-intensive to put out all the hot spots," said Rensselaer Fire Chief Jay Corcoran.

Amtrak train service was halted for a short time.

The fire was officially declared out at 1:30 p.m.

Its cause was not known.

In Westerlo, two brush fires, including one on Woodstock Road that consumed more than four acres, required three fire companies.

Moments after firefighters had finished with that brush fire, another broke out along Sherwood Road.

That one was quickly extinguished.

In Wilton, four fire companies helped to battle a large blaze along Northern Pine Road near Ballard Road.

Associated Press contributed to this story.

[Livyjr]

And some more environmental news ...

Last year ....

Up here ....

The caterpillers did a real number on the trees ....

Eating the leaves back to nothing ....

And where I am ....

You indeed could hear them chewing .....

What an eerie sound it was .....

"Expect a few million over for dinner - Soon, record numbers of hungry caterpillars will start munching on the trees in your yard and elsewhere"

By COLIN McDONALD, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Monday, April 17, 2006

In about four weeks, record numbers of caterpillars in the Capital Region and the Hudson Valley will spring to life from eggs.

They will strip trees bare of leaves and cover everything underneath the branches with sticky goo.

On quiet nights, it might even be possible to hear them chewing.

The evidence of the coming blight: thousands of gypsy moth and eastern tent caterpillar egg masses already stuck on trees, lawn furniture and the sides of houses.

The only question: whether human efforts and the caterpillars' predators will be able to put a crimp in the critters' population boom.

However futile it may be, experts say the best time to act is now.

"I think it's a little early to say, but it's looking like we are headed towards some major defoliation," said Paul Weston, a researcher at Cornell who specializes in ornamental trees and shrubs.

During May and June for the last two years, both the Albany Cooperative Extension Office in Voorheesville and local tree service companies have been inundated with calls from homeowners concerned about their trees.

This year, the population is expected to be even bigger.

Weston said variables affecting the population cycles of gypsy moths and tent caterpillars are not completely understood.

But the numbers of both species are peaking at the same time.

Last year, phone calls about the infestation seemed to come in from all parts of Rensselaer County, Clifton Park and from Voorheesville, said Sue Pezzola, an educator at the extension, who spent much of her time last spring fielding the calls.

"Because we are expecting the population to grow, it will be interesting to see if it spreads out," she said.

No place is assured safety.

Even the extension office is not safe.

The eggs are on the pin oaks lining the driveway and the crab apples along the parking lot and under the picnic benches in the middle of the garden.

For Charles Schmitt, the nursery specialist at the extension office, there is little that can be done.

On the towering oaks, the lower globes can be scraped off.

But many of the clusters are up high and out of reach.

Even if all the branches could be scraped clean, more caterpillars would just move in, carried via the wind and their silken threads.

Spraying the trees would be too expensive and may only temporarily help the tree.

The tent caterpillars already have hatched on crab apples, timing their release with the first leaf buds.

He could spray and trim the most infested branches, but again caterpillars would move in from surrounding trees.

While it's unsightly, the trees won't die if they lose their leaves and will have most of the summer to store up energy for the winter.

Still, he will go out and scrape away with his Swiss Army knife.

Each egg mass is home to several hundred eggs, and in a matter of minutes he can gather thousands of them, crush them between his fingers or put them in the garbage.

"At least it makes you feel better," he said.

Colin McDonald can be reached at 454-5441 or by e-mail at cmcdonald@timesunion.com.

Yard defense tips

What you can do to protect your trees:

Now, before the caterpillars hatch: Scrape the egg masses off the trees and into bags or a container with mild detergent.

Put them in the garbage.

After the caterpillars hatch: The biological insecticide bacillus thuringiensis (BT) is a bacterial spray harmless to humans, pets and plants.

The spray is applied to the leaves of the trees and then eaten by the caterpillars.

Once ingested, the bacteria shuts down the caterpilllars' digestive tracts and they starve to death.

Eastern tent caterpillars make silk tents that they sleep in at night.

If removed at night or early in the morning, the silken bundles will contain hundreds of caterpillars.

Mature gypsy moth caterpillars crawl down the trunk of trees in the daytime to escape the sun and will hide under burlap sacks tied to the trunk of a tree.

Once gathered under the burlap, the caterpillars can be removed and killed.

The alternative: Let the caterpillars be.

Eastern tent caterpillars are a native species and part of the natural cycle.

Gypsy moths have been in the North America for more than 130 years after being introduced via a failed silkworm breeding experiment and have become established across the state.

Most trees will not die because of an infestation and will be able to grow new leaves in July, after the caterpillars become moths, lay their eggs and die.

More information: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dlf/privland/forprot/ health/ caterpillar/index.html or call the Albany county master gardener hot line line at 765-3500 between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m.

You can also send an e-mail to albanymastergardener@cornell.edu

Source: DEC Web site, Albany Cooperative Extension Office

[Livyjr]

And then ....

Of course ....

There are the REPUBLICANS ....

The PARTY OF GOD ....

Here ....

In OUR America ....

At least ....

According to them it is ....

And so ....

"Conservatives pre-empting GOP - Early convention puts party in place to oppose Republican Weld"

By MARC HUMBERT, Associated Press
First published: Wednesday, April 12, 2006

ALBANY -- The head of New York's Conservative Party threw a monkey wrench Tuesday into state GOP Chairman Stephen Minarik's plan to make former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld governor of his native New York.

Michael Long said the Conservative Party will pre-empt the Republican Party by holding its state convention to choose nominees for governor and U.S. Senate before the GOP meets.

The move could have dramatic consequences because Long and Minarik disagree about who should run for governor.

No Republican running statewide in New York has won without Conservative Party backing since 1974.

Long said the convention's selection for governor would "overwhelmingly" be former state Assembly Republican Minority Leader John Faso while the U.S. Senate choice to take on Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would be former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer.

Spencer is being challenged by former Reagan-era Pentagon official Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland and a tax attorney from Sullivan County, William Brenner, for the GOP Senate nomination.

While Minarik also favors Spencer, the GOP leader supports Weld for governor.

The Conservative Party's selection of Faso could aid him in his bid to obtain the 25 percent of the weighted vote at the GOP convention he needs to force Weld into a September primary.

Failing that, Faso would have to collect the signatures of at least 15,000 Republicans statewide to force a GOP primary.

Faso, who narrowly lost the state comptroller's race in 2002, said he was pleased with Long's decision.

Weld campaign spokeswoman Andrea Tantaros said, "Every party chairman has the right to pick the date for his or her convention."

Long said the Conservative Party would convene on May 23 in New York City.

The GOP convention is May 31-June 1 on Long Island.

"He's the chairman, he can do what he wants to do," Minarik said.

[Livyjr]

And then ....

Of course ....

There are the REPUBLICANS ....

The PARTY OF GOD ....

Here ....

In OUR America ....

At least ....

According to them it is ....

And so ....

"Poll: GOP faces image problem - Survey of state voters finds many don't know who's running against Clinton"

By MARC HUMBERT, Associated Press
First published: Tuesday, April 18, 2006

ALBANY -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's potential Republican challengers continue to battle anonymity in their race for this year's GOP Senate nomination, with more than 60 percent of Republican voters not sure who to support, a statewide poll reported Monday.

Among Republican voters surveyed by Siena College's Research Institute, Reagan-era Pentagon official Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland was favored by 20 percent, while former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer was the choice of 18 percent.

Sixty-three percent of GOP voters said they didn't know whom to support.

When asked whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of each, 79 percent of GOP voters said they didn't know enough about the two to have an opinion.

The telephone poll of 413 likely Republican primary voters was conducted from March 29 to April 3 and has a sampling margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The new Siena poll did not have a matchup between the incumbent Democrat and her potential Republican rivals, although previous Siena polls and other independent surveys have found the former first lady with large leads in such races.

The anonymity factor was also evident for Republicans seeking to run for governor of New York this year with GOP incumbent George Pataki having decided not to seek a fourth term.

He is eyeing a 2008 run for president.

Seventy-eight percent of GOP voters said they didn't know enough about former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, running now in his native New York, to form a favorable or unfavorable opinion about him.

Seventy-five percent of GOP voters said that about former state Assembly Minority Leader John Faso even though he narrowly lost a race for state comptroller in 2002.

[Livyjr]

"Poll: GOP faces image problem - Survey of state voters finds many don't know who's running against Clinton" 
 
By MARC HUMBERT, Associated Press
First published: Tuesday, April 18, 2006

The anonymity factor was also evident for Republicans seeking to run for governor of New York this year with GOP incumbent George Pataki having decided not to seek a fourth term.

He is eyeing a 2008 run for president.

And speaking of Pataki ....

And his bid to be the next president of the United States of America ....

Because it has a lot more money in its treasury than New York State does ...

Or did anyway ....

"Pataki's federal PAC fund adds up"

By MARC HUMBERT, Associated Press
First published: Wednesday, April 19, 2006

ALBANY -- Gov. George Pataki, a potential contender for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, has picked up the pace of fundraising for his federal political action committee, according to public records out Tuesday.

Documents with the Federal Election Commission show Pataki's 21st Century Freedom PAC-Federal raised $500,922 during the first three months of 2006.

Fundraising for that PAC was stepped up after the governor's announcement in July that he would not seek a fourth, four-year term as governor this year.

In the last half of 2005, the PAC raised $260,000.

It raised just $71,000 in the first half of last year.

While money from the federal PAC cannot be used for a direct Pataki presidential campaign, it can be used before such a campaign committee is created to pay for travel around the country, campaign aides and to support federal candidates.

According to the federal report, Pataki's PAC has about $647,000 on hand as of March 31.

The most recent PAC filing shows Pataki has used funds to pay for campaign consultants in Iowa, site of the caucuses that begin the presidential nominating process, and in New Hampshire, where the first presidential primary is traditionally staged.

Pataki has visited Iowa and New Hampshire in recent months.

The latest filing includes a $320 payment to cover a Jan. 7 stay at a hotel in Clive, Iowa.

[Livyjr]

And here is that Fukuyama dude ....

The NEW CON one that was one of the BUSHCO PRIME's greatest supporters .....

When the PRIME made his catestrophically successful invasion of IRAQINAM ....

He's one of the NEW CONS who have bailed out on the George .....

And the other NEW CONS, as well .....

I wonder why ....

So ...

Let's see what he has to say about ....

Being a TRAITER to the BUSHCO CAUSE, like he is ....

And all ....

And so ....

"Under attack - War's facts change way of thinking"

By FRANCIS FUKUYAMA
First published: Sunday, April 16, 2006

Seven weeks ago, I published my case against the Iraq war.

I wrote that although I had originally advocated military intervention in Iraq, and had even signed a letter to that effect shortly after the 9/11 attacks, I had since changed my mind.

But apparently this kind of honest acknowledgment is verboten.

In the weeks since my book came out, I've been challenged, attacked and vilified from both ends of the ideological spectrum.

From the right, columnist Charles Krauthammer has accused me of being an opportunistic traitor to the neoconservative cause -- and a coward to boot.

From the left, I've been told that I have "blood on my hands" for having initially favored toppling Saddam Hussein and that my "apology" won't be accepted.

In our ever-more-polarized political debate, it appears that it is now wrong to ever change your mind, even if empirical evidence from the real world suggests you ought to.

I find this a strange and disturbing conclusion.

For the record, I did change my mind, but in the year preceding the war -- not after the invasion.

In 2002, I told the London Times that "the use of military power to push (Iraqi democracy) forward is a big roll of the dice."

"We may not win on this one."

On the first anniversary of 9/11, I argued in The Washington Post that we should invade Iraq only with approval from the U.N. Security Council, and in December of that year, I wrote a piece for The Wall Street Journal warning that the project of democratizing Iraq and the Mideast might come to look like empire and that it violated the conservative principle of prudence.

But when my political shift occurred is not important: Even if it had come a year or two later, it would still not have represented a cowardly retreat or an apologia, but a realistic, intellectually honest willingness to face the new facts of the situation.

In my view, no one should be required to apologize for having supported intervention in Iraq before the war.

There were important competing moral goods on both sides of the argument, something that many on the left still refuse to recognize.

The United Nations in 1999 declared that all nations have a positive "duty to protect, promote and implement" human rights, arguing in effect that the world's powerful countries are complicit in human rights abuses if they don't use their power to correct injustices.

The debate over the war shouldn't have been whether it was morally right to topple Hussein (which it clearly was), but whether it was prudent to do so given the possible costs and potential consequences of intervention and whether it was legitimate for the United States to invade in the unilateral way that it did.

It was perfectly honorable to agonize over the wisdom of the war, and in many ways admirable that people on the left, such as Christopher Hitchens, George Packer, Michael Ignatieff and Jacob Weisberg, supported intervention.

That position was much easier to defend in early 2003, however, before we found absolutely no stocks of chemical or biological weapons and no evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program.

(I know that many on the left believe that the prewar estimates about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were all a deliberate fraud by the Bush administration, but if so, it was one in which the U.N. weapons inspectors and French intelligence were also complicit.)

It was also easier to support the war before we knew the full dimensions of the vicious insurgency that would emerge and the ease with which the insurgents could disrupt the building of a democratic state.

But in the years since then, it is the right that has failed to come to terms with these uncomfortable facts.

The failure to find weapons and to make a quick transition to a stable democracy --as well as the prisoner abuse and the inevitable bad press that emerges from any prolonged occupation -- have done enormous damage to America's credibility and standing in the world.

These intangible costs have to be added to the balance sheet together with the huge direct human and monetary costs of the war.\

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently admitted that the United States made numerous tactical errors in Iraq, but she insisted that the basic strategic decision to go to war was still as valid as ever because we foreclosed once and for all the possibility that Iraq would break out of sanctions and restart its weapons programs.

But we now know a lot that throws that fundamental strategic rationale into question.

The Iraq Survey Group and the U.S. military have released hundreds of pages of documents on Iraq's prewar weapons programs showing that, at times, Saddam believed he possessed biological weapons that didn't exist and that, at other times, he led his most senior commanders to believe he had weapons capabilities that he knew were entirely fictitious.

His government was so corrupt, incompetent and compartmentalized that it is far from certain that he would have succeeded in building a nuclear program even if sanctions had been lifted.

Nor is it clear that a breakdown of the sanctions regime was inevitable, given an energized United States and the very different political climate that existed after 9/11.

The logic of my prewar shift on invading Iraq has now been doubly confirmed.

I believe that the neoconservative movement, with which I was associated, has become indelibly associated with a failed policy, and that unilateralism and coercive regime change cannot be the basis for an effective American foreign policy.

I changed my mind as part of a necessary adjustment to reality.

What has infuriated many people is President Bush's unwillingness to admit that he made any mistakes whatsoever in the whole Iraq adventure.

On the other hand, critics who assert that they knew with certainty before the war that it would be a disaster are, for the most part, speaking with a retrospective wisdom to which they are not entitled.

Many people have noted the ever-increasing polarization of American politics, reflected in news channels and talk shows that cater to narrowly ideological audiences, and in a House of Representatives that has redistricted itself into homogeneous constituencies in which few members have to appeal to voters with diverse opinions.

This polarization has been vastly amplified by Iraq: Much of the left now considers the war not a tragic policy mistake but a deliberate criminal conspiracy, and the right attacks the patriotism of those who question the war.

This kind of polarization affects a range of other complex issues as well: You can't be a good Republican if you think there may be something to global warming, or a good Democrat if you support school choice or private Social Security accounts.

Political debate has become a spectator sport in which people root for their team and cheer when it scores points, without asking whether they chose the right side.

Instead of trying to defend sharply polarized positions taken more than three years ago, it would be far better if people could actually take aboard new information and think about how their earlier commitments, honestly undertaken, actually jibe with reality -- even if this does on occasion require changing your mind.

Fukuyama is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and the author of "America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy."

This article first appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

[Livyjr]

And here is another backer of the REPUBLICANS ....

Who seems to have some problems with them ...

And so ....

I wonder if they will consider him a TRAITER as well ....

"The day GOP's downfall began"

Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Sunday, April 16, 2006

WASHINGTON -- If Republicans lose control of the House of Representatives in November, April 5 should be remembered as the day they demonstrated that they earned defeat.

Traducing the Constitution and disgracing conservatism, they used their power for their only remaining purpose -- to cling to power.

Their vote to restrict freedom of speech came just as the GOP's conservative base is coming to the conclusion that House Republicans are not worth working for in October or venturing out to vote for in November.

The "problem" Republicans addressed is that in 2004 Democrats were more successful than Republicans in using what are known as 527 organizations -- advocacy groups named after the tax code provision governing them.

In 2002, McCain-Feingold banned large "soft money" contributions for parties -- money for issue-advocacy and organizational activities, not for candidates.

In 2004, to the surprise of no sensible person and most McCain-Feingold supporters, much of the money -- especially huge contributions from rich liberals --was diverted to 527s.

So on April 5, House Republicans, easily shedding what little remains of their ballast of belief in freedom and limited government, voted to severely limit the amounts that can be given to 527s.

Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., explained, sort of.

He said he voted against McCain-Feingold because "dictating who could give how much to whom" violated the First Amendment, but now he favors dictating to 527 contributors because McCain-Feingold is not violating the First Amendment enough: It is not "working as it was intended."

That is, it is not sufficiently restricting the money financing political advocacy.

Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., said that restricting 527s would combat "nauseating ugliness, negativity and hyperpartisanship."

Oh, so that is what the First Amendment means: Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech unless speech annoys politicians.

Improving the tone of politics, leveling the playing field, fulfilling the intent of McCain-Feingold -- the reasons for expanding the restrictions on political advocacy multiply.

McCain-Feingold restrictions on the amount, timing and content of political speech were ratified by the Supreme Court, which embraces this perverse idea: Because elected officials are experts about politics, they deserve vast deference when they write rules governing speech about, and campaigns against, elected officials.

When the court gave its imprimatur to McCain-Feingold's premise that big government should have big power to regulate speech about itself -- it guaranteed that what happened April 5 will happen incessantly:

The First Amendment is now permanently in play, its protections to be truncated whenever congressional majorities envision short-term partisan advantages.

The Washington Post, exemplifying the media's hostility to speech rights other than their own, eagerly anticipates the next fiddling.

As it crouches behind its media exemption from the restrictions it favors for rival sources of political speech, the Post eggs on the speech regulators and hopes for "future legislation" if money diverted from 527s flows, as surely it will, into other political uses.

And so the regulatory regime metastasizes, nibbling away at what McCain-Feingold enthusiasts evidently consider the ultimate "loophole" -- the First Amendment.

Fortunately, the measure the House passed on April 5 will not become law this year.

Not because Republican senators are too principled to pass it, or because Democrats have a truly principled opposition to it, but because Senate Democrats will have 41 votes, enough to block action on it.

The Democrats, who favored McCain-Feingold and now are as cynical as Republicans about defending free speech only when it serves their competitive interests, will someday win control of Congress.

Then they can wrap their anti-constitutionalism in the Republicans' April 5 rhetoric.

They can say:

"In 2006, you Republicans said that because Democrats have done better than Republicans with 527s, the 527s should be restricted in order to 'level the playing field.'"

"Now we will level the playing field by restoring the 'fairness doctrine' to broadcasting, thereby eliminating conservatives' unfair domination of talk radio."

The 211 Republicans who voted for big government regulation of speech will have no principled objection.

How many principled Republicans remain?

Only 18.

The following, who voted against restricting 527s:

Roscoe Bartlett (Maryland), Chris Chocola (Indiana), Jeff Flake (Arizona), Vito Fossella (New York), Trent Franks (Arizona), Scott Garrett (New Jersey), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Ernest Istook (Oklahoma), Walter Jones (North Carolina), Steve King (Iowa), Connie Mack (Florida), Cathy McMorris (Washington), Randy Neugebauer (Texas), Ron Paul (Texas), Mike Pence (Indiana), John Shadegg (Arizona) and Lynn Westmoreland (Georgia).

On this remnant of libertarian, limited-government conservatism, a future House majority can be built.

The current majority forfeited its raison d'etre on April 5.

George Will's e-mail address is georgewill@washpost.com.

[Snuffysmith]

I'm The Decider: I am the Egg Head: (Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo)
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

===
John W. Dean: If Past Is Prologue

George Bush Is Becoming An Increasingly Dangerous President
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060421.html

===
The Worst President in History? :

One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush
http://tinyurl.com/s7lkm

[Livyjr]

The Worst President in History?

I would go for that, myself ....

And here is something else that I must agree with .....

As a combat veteran myself ....

Who wishes that AMERICA had gotten off its *** to end the Viet Nam war ....

A lot sooner than it did .....

So that all those innocents over there ....

Would not have had to die ...

For the good ...

Of the economy ....

Of a nation ....

That did not give one damn ...

For them ....

"Kerry: Opposing Iraq war is patriotic"

By MARK PRATT, Associated Press
Last updated: 6:06 p.m., Saturday, April 22, 2006

BOSTON -- Those who disagree with the Bush administration's policies in Iraq face the same scornful charges that they are unpatriotic as Sen. John Kerry did 35 years ago when he spoke out against the Vietnam War, the Massachusetts Democrat said Saturday.

"I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong."

"And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a president who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation," Kerry said to a standing ovation Saturday at Boston's historic Faneuil Hall.

Kerry's speech came 35 years to the day after he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to call for an end to the Vietnam war.

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Kerry said in 1971, a line that helped propel the decorated Navy combat veteran and Yale graduate onto the national stage.

The same question applies today as Americans wrestle with the mounting death toll in Iraq, Kerry said, speaking before about 500 supporters who punctuated his speech at least 20 times with ovations.

"Lives have been lost to bad decisions," Kerry said.

"Not decisions that could have gone either way, but decisions that constitute basic negligence and incompetence."

"And lives continue to be lost because of stubbornness and pride."

Kerry also blasted those who question the motivation of retired generals who have recently called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"That is cheap and shameful," he said.

"How dare those who never wore the uniform in battle attack those who wore it all their lives."

A few scattered chants of "run" and "2008" were heard both before and after the speech.

Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee for president, has not announced whether he would run in 2008.

In response to Kerry's speech Saturday, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee denied the party questioned anyone's patriotism.

"While we have never questioned Democrats' patriotism, we do question John Kerry's motives, considering his eagerness to engage in political theatrics as he ponders a presidential run," Tracey Schmitt said.

Kerry reiterated his position that American troops should be withdrawn by the end of the year, saying that Iraqi politicians only respond to deadlines.

Kerry said while Iraq is different from Vietnam, there are some critical parallels.

"We are in the same place as we were when I came home from Vietnam and spoke out against the civilian leaders who were willing to sacrifice America's best in the interest of political self-preservation," he said.

end quotes

And there is something else I must agree with, as well ....

[Livyjr]

"Kerry: Opposing Iraq war is patriotic" 
 
By MARK PRATT, Associated Press
Last updated: 6:06 p.m., Saturday, April 22, 2006

BOSTON -- Those who disagree with the Bush administration's policies in Iraq face the same scornful charges that they are unpatriotic as Sen. John Kerry did 35 years ago when he spoke out against the Vietnam War, the Massachusetts Democrat said Saturday.

Kerry also blasted those who question the motivation of retired generals who have recently called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"That is cheap and shameful," he said.

"How dare those who never wore the uniform in battle attack those who wore it all their lives."

And here is one more thing ....

That is worthy ....

Of consideration ....

And so ....

"Sen. Clinton wants anti-Rumsfeld generals to testify"

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press
Last updated: 6:36 p.m., Friday, April 21, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton weighed in Friday on the growing effort to oust Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying the generals who have recently called for his removal should testify before the Senate.

Clinton, D-N.Y., who walks a political tightrope within her own party on the issue of the Iraq war, did not call for Rumsfeld to go, saying instead it is more important to find out what did or did not go wrong in planning the war.

The Senate Armed Services Committee should hear from "these retired generals, as well as retired generals with differing views and administration officials," Clinton said in a letter to committee chairman John Warner.

The senator, who sits on the committee and also is a member of a military transformation advisory group, argued such a hearing "can help ensure we learn from past experiences and better shape future operations."

Clinton's position on the Iraq war could greatly complicate a bid for the White House in 2008.

The senator is up for re-election in New York this year and insists she is not thinking about 2008.

But some in her party have criticized her for voting for the war and not doing more now to bring the troops home quickly.

At times, she has angrily criticized the decisions made in executing the war, but she has steered clear of calls coming from other Democrats to immediately end the entire operation.

She insists it is President Bush's choice if Rumsfeld stays or goes.

"Regardless of who is serving as Secretary of Defense, public comments by several former senior officers involved in the planning or implementation of our presence in Iraq raise troubling questions about that process," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines.

Some generals have criticized Rumsfeld for what they say is an arrogant management style.

"The current secretary of defense is dismissive, contemptuous and arrogant," retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste said earlier this week.

"Many of us have worked for far tougher and more aggressive men, but those leaders understood leadership, the value of teamwork, and that respect is a two-way street."

As a result of those and other complaints, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has called for a Senate vote of confidence on Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld and the administration have acknowledged the criticism but say it doesn't change anything.

"There are always differences of opinion," Rumsfeld said.

"That's a healthy thing in this country."

"We ought to respect it and get about our business."

Bush issued a more forceful rebuke to critics, saying:

"I'm the decider, and I decide what's best."

"And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."

[Livyjr]

"Sen. Clinton wants anti-Rumsfeld generals to testify" 
 
By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press
Last updated: 6:36 p.m., Friday, April 21, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton weighed in Friday on the growing effort to oust Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying the generals who have recently called for his removal should testify before the Senate.

Bush issued a more forceful rebuke to critics, saying:

"I'm the decider, and I decide what's best."

"And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."

And what is a REBUKE from George W. Bush worth, I wonder ...

$.02?

$.03478?

Maybe a nickel?

NO ....

Not the nickel, anyway .....

As that would devalue the nickel .....

And as to George W. Bush deciding what's best for anything?

That act is real old now ...

Because George don't have the wits to know what is best for anything ...

Let alone a once free and democratic nation like America ....

He just don't have the competence for it ...

Or the vision ....

And so ....

George W. Bush is nothing but a has-been ....

Who we ...

And the world ...

Are stuck with ...

For two more years ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

Up here ....

In the cold country ...

Where life is simple ...

And the people relatively unsophisticated .....

As people in big cities go ....

We call the first war against Saddam Hussein "Big Bush's War" .....

To distinguish it from the war we have now ...

Which people call "The Boy's War" ......

Like in "You know, Big Bush's boy, that Bush" .....

And so .....

Because we live in the hinterlands of civilization ....

In a state with a corrupt government ...

In a nation with an incompetent one ....

Where people are still somewhat responsible for their own actions ....

Excepting those who can hire a professional liar, or lawyer, as they call them mouthpieces in the city .....

To cover over for them being not responsible ....

And because we have to live seasonally ...

Putting in seeds at the right time in the spring ....

So that at the necessary time during the summer and fall ...

There is food to eat ...

Well ...

I think that gives us attention spans somewhat longer than the American NATIONAL AVERAGE of .8395627 nano-seconds .....

And so ...

Up here ...

We can actually remember back to BIG BUSH'S WAR .....

Where the same players as are playing now ...

Or were ....

In the case of Colin Powell ....

Who squandered his own reputation ....

And credibility ...

To be a BUSHCO ....

DID NOT INVADE IRAQINAM ....

To replace Saddam Hussein ...

BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T .....

And then ...

After they couldn't ...

In BIG BUSH'S WAR .....

They came back ...

And said they could ...

In the BOY'S WAR ....

And so ...

TALK ABOUT FLIP-FLOPS .....

This crowd of BUSHCOS is the biggest FLIP-FLOPPING PACK of them all ...

And so ....

FIRST ....

They said they couldn't do it ...

And then ...

They said they could ....

And so ...

No wonder we are in a QUAGMIRE over there in IRAQINAM ....

WITH FLIP-FLOPPING REPUBLICANS IN CHARGE .....

Like a fish in a frying pan ...

They have flop-flopped us out of there ...

And into the fire ...

And so ....

VOTE REPUBLICAN, eh .....

If you love misery ...

And corruption ...

And incompetence ...

And a lot of lies ...

Because the REPUBLICANS are the PARTY OF THE SLICK LAWYERS ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

And speaking of the price for this REPUBLICAN FLIP-FLOPPING .....

Over there in IRAQINAM .....

Where first ...

They couldn't invade Iraq to replace Saddam Hussein ...

In BIG BUSH's WAR .....

Because they know the task was beyond them ....

And then they could ......

In THE BOY'S WAR ....

Because they forgot everything that they thought they knew the moment before ...

When it was BIG BUSH's turn ...

Before it was THE BOY's turn ....

And so ...

We have ....

As usual ....

More violence ..

And more deaths ...

And so ...

Another day in the life of the world after George W. Bush came on the scene ....

And really mucked things up ...

BIG TIME ..

Because that boy brought a Texas-sized STUPID with him ...

When he came to the White House in Washington, D.C. ...

And so ....

"3 GIs Killed by Roadside Bomb in Baghdad"

By The Associated Press

1 minute ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Three U.S. soldiers were killed Sunday when their vehicle hit a roadside bomb northwest of Baghdad, the U.S. command said.

That brought the number of American troops killed in the Iraqi capital area over the weekend to eight.

The latest deaths occurred about 11:30 a.m., the command, without giving further details.

Five Americans soldiers died Saturday in bombings in the southern area of the capital.

All eight were assigned to the Army's Multinational Brigade-Baghdad which is responsible for security in Baghdad and surrounding areas.

Three explosions just outside the heavily guarded Green Zone also killed seven Iraqi civilians and wounded eight Sunday, a U.S. official said.

The explosions, heard across the city, came a day after Iraq's parliament met inside the Green Zone to elect top government officials in a breakthrough in a long political standoff.

Iraqi police said earlier that three mortar rounds landed inside the zone, but the U.S. official said the explosions occurred just outside.

The blasts near Iraq's Defense Ministry, which is just inside the zone, and were caused by mortars or rockets, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the attacks happened outside the Green Zone where the U.S. Embassy is located.

Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammedawi, an Interior Ministry official, gave a lower casualty count, saying six Iraqis were killed and three wounded.

The casualty toll could not immediately be verified independently.

Three of the wounded were Defense Ministry employees, an official at the ministry said on condition of anonymity because the ministry planned to issue a statement later.

Police Lt. Maitham Abdul-Razzaq said it was hard to identify the dead because the powerful blasts and shrapnel severed their limbs and destroyed their identification cards.

Iraqi police said the three explosions were among 11 mortar rounds fired in central Baghdad at about 8 a.m.

No one was hurt in the other eight blasts, which fell on the east side of the Tigris River near Iraq's Interior Ministry and the Shaab sports stadium, said police Lt. Bilal Ali.

A building housing a municipal swimming pool was damaged.

On Saturday, the parliament elected a president, two vice presidents, a parliament speaker and two deputies.

The breakthrough gave Jawad al-Maliki, the prime minister-designate, 30 days to choose a Cabinet including Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish politicians.

[Livyjr]

And then ...

There is what people up here call ...

THE BOY'S OTHER WAR ....

Or maybe it really should be ONE OF THE BOY'S OTHER WARS .....

Because no one is really sure ...

Of how many he has going ...

At any given time ...

And so ....

How does that old adage go ...

If you can't handle one war ....

Get involved in five or six ....

Or something like that, anyway ....

"Fighting escalates in southern Afghanistan"

By NOOR KHAN, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:55 a.m., Sunday, April 23, 2006

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- Afghan security forces surrounded Taliban fighters hiding in a village in southern Afghanistan on Sunday, launching a gunbattle that killed at least three militants and a police officer.

Elsewhere in the region, Taliban militants attacked an Afghan construction company working for coalition forces, killing a security guard.

The fighting came as visiting British Defense Secretary John Reid said coalition troops must maintain their offensive against Taliban and al-Qaida militants to prevent their return to power.

"The greatest danger of all for the people of Afghanistan and the people of the United Kingdom would be if Afghanistan ever again came under the rule of a Taliban regime prepared to protect al-Qaida or terrorist groups," Reid told reporters in the capital, Kabul.

Afghan police and soldiers fought Taliban militants in the volatile Gelan district of southern Ghazni province about 75 miles southwest of Kabul, said provincial Gov. Haji Sher Alam.

Three Taliban fighters and a policeman were killed, he told The Associated Press.

The attack on the construction company occurred on the Uruzgan-Kandahar highway near a southern Kandahar village where four Canadian soldiers were killed in a suspected Taliban roadside bombing a day earlier.

A group of heavily armed militants waged a two-hour attack against the headquarters of the Thavazoo company in Shah Wali Kot district, about 25 miles north of Kandahar city, said Haji Mohammed Youssef, the company's director.

One guard was killed and two were wounded before the remaining security personnel fled, Youssef said.

The Taliban fighters then entered the compound, burned 14 trucks and bulldozers and stole equipment before escaping.

Youssef said coalition forces gave him a contract to build a 25-mile stretch of road.

"Coalition forces are giving us money to help rebuild our country, but the enemies of Afghanistan don't want us to succeed," he told The AP.

On Saturday, U.S. and Afghan soldiers arrested 16 Taliban members in two raids in the southern Zabul province, which neighbors Kandahar, local Afghan army commander Gen. Rahmattalluh Roufi said Sunday.

"The Americans are questioning them now to see if they are important Taliban members or not," Roufi told the AP.

It was unclear if the arrests or the Taliban attack on the construction company were linked to the killing of the four Canadian soldiers, the deadliest attack on that nation's troops since they deployed here in 2002.

Militants have stepped up attacks against coalition and Afghan forces, particularly across southern Afghanistan, in a bid to derail reconstruction efforts four years after a U.S.-led military force toppled the Taliban regime for harboring Osama bin Laden.

Rising violence is a growing concern for nations contributing troops to a force operating here under a NATO mandate.

The force is to rise from its current 10,000 soldiers to about 21,000 by November as it gradually assumes command of all international troops in Afghanistan.

Some 6,000 mainly British, Canadian and Dutch soldiers have started deploying in remote tribal-dominated southern region.

Britain's deployment coincides with its taking control of the NATO mission in May for three years.

------

Associated Press writer Rahim Faiez contributed to this report from Kabul.

[Livyjr]

And what is a REBUKE from George W. Bush worth, I wonder ...

$.02?

$.03478?

Maybe a nickel?

NO ....

Not the nickel, anyway .....

As that would devalue the nickel .....

And as to George W. Bush deciding what's best for anything?

That act is real old now ...

Because George don't have the wits to know what is best for anything ...

Let alone a once free and democratic nation like America ....

He just don't have the competence for it ...

Or the vision ....

And so ....

George W. Bush is nothing but a has-been ....

Who we ...

And the world ...

Are stuck with ...

For two more years ....

And so ....

"Report: Ex-CIA official blasts White House"

Associated Press
Last updated: 9:55 p.m., Saturday, April 22, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The former chief of the CIA's European operation is accusing the White House of ignoring the spy agency's doubts that Iraq had a budding nuclear program or weapons of mass destruction as the U.S. prepared for war.

"The policy was set."

"The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy," Tyler Drumheller told CBS' "60 Minutes" for an interview to be broadcast Sunday night.

The network released excerpts ahead of the airing.

The White House has denied that intelligence, while flawed, was exaggerated or manipulated in the months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Drumheller, who retired last year, said the White House ignored crucial information from a high and credible source who claimed that there were no active programs for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"60 Minutes" identified the source as Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, with whom U.S. spies had made a deal.

CIA Director George Tenet delivered the information to President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking officials in September 2002, according to Drumheller.

A few days later the administration said it was no longer interested.

Drumheller said he was told about the exchange that followed:

"And we said, 'Well, what about the intel?'"

"And they said, 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore.'"

"This is about regime change.'"

CIA spokesman Tom Crispell said Saturday that Drumheller's remarks do not reflect the views of the agency.

[Livyjr]

"Report: Ex-CIA official blasts White House" 
 
Associated Press
Last updated: 9:55 p.m., Saturday, April 22, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The former chief of the CIA's European operation is accusing the White House of ignoring the spy agency's doubts that Iraq had a budding nuclear program or weapons of mass destruction as the U.S. prepared for war.

"And they said, 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore.'"

"This is about regime change.'"

In November of this year ...

It is time ...

For REGIME CHANGE ...

Here in OUR America ...

And as this following story goes to show ...

Where George W. Bush is finally admitting ...

And conceding ...

That he needs IRAQINAMIS ....

To keep America safe ...

Because he ...

And the rest of the BUSHCOS are incapable of doing it ....

Keeping America safe, from anything ....

IT IS DEFINITELY TIME FOR REGIME CHANGE HERE IN OUR AMERICA .....

And so ...

"Bush: Iraqis to shoulder security burden"

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press
Last updated: 10:05 p.m., Saturday, April 22, 2006

WEST SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- President Bush said Saturday that the new political leadership in Iraq will shoulder the burden for securing the country, but he did not commit to a drawdown of American forces that now are playing the lead role.

"There's going to be more tough fighting ahead in Iraq and there'll be more days of sacrifice and struggle," Bush said.

"Yet, the enemies of freedom have suffered a real blow today, and we've taken a great stride on the march to victory.

"This historic achievement by determined Iraqis will make America more secure," he said.

Bush spoke hours after Iraq's president designated Jawad al-Maliki to form the new government.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called him a patriot and "somebody with whom we can work," even if he disagrees with the United States on certain issues.

The administration's quick and high-profile response to the weekend's political events in Iraq reflected the high stakes the situation poses for Bush.

The administration sees the establishment of a permanent government in Iraq as an important step toward stabilizing the country and allowing for the drawdown of U.S. forces there.

"Formation of a new Iraqi government is an opportunity for America to open a new chapter in our partnership with the Iraqi people," Bush said.

"The United States and our coalition partners will work with the new Iraqi government to reassess our tactics, adjust our methods and strengthen our mutual efforts to achieve victory in this central front in the war on terror."

Squabbling among Iraq's political factions more than four months after national elections in December had weakened public approval in the U.S. for the war and fed the rising sectarian violence.

Bush's approval rating is at the lowest point of his presidency, and the daily tide of bad news from Iraq -- beheadings and suicide bombings, attacks on U.S. soldiers -- is a chief reason.

Five U.S. soldiers were killed Saturday, including four whose vehicle hit a roadside bomb during a patrol in south Baghdad, the military said.

Nearly 2,400 members of the U.S. military have died since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

Bush did not discuss al-Maliki directly in a brief statement to reporters after his helicopter landed in West Sacramento during a four-day trip through California.

He said the agreement that led to al-Maliki's selection represented compromise, consensus and the will of the Iraqi people.

Unlike the transitional and interim governments that came before, he said the new leadership will "have the popular mandate to address Iraq's toughest long-term challenges."

"The new government has a responsibility to deploy the growing strength of the Iraqi security forces to defeat the terrorists and insurgents and establish control over the militias," Bush said.

"These are major challenges and the new Iraqi government will not face them alone."

"America is helping Iraq's young democracy move forward."

Al-Maliki, a consensus nominee for prime minister, opposed both Saddam Hussein and the invasion that toppled the dictator.

Shiite politicians chose al-Maliki to replace their previous nominee, interim Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a polarizing figure whom the United States opposed behind the scenes.

Al-Maliki has strong ties to al-Jaafari, and the support of the political group led by firebrand anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Al-Maliki has 30 days to present his Cabinet to parliament for approval.

"He's thought to be a strong figure, someone who is capable of getting things done," Rice said.

"He's also thought to be someone who is very much an Iraqi patriot -- very, very concerned about Iraq and Iraq's sovereignty."

Bush called Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, to discuss the developments in Iraq.

The president also offered condolences about the four Canadian soldiers killed Saturday by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan.

----

AP Diplomatic Writer Anne Gearan contributed to this story from Washington.

[Livyjr]

And one of the many beauties of this internet forum to me ....

An older American who lives out in the country ...

In a rural area ....

And so ....

Would largely be shut right out of the DIALOGUE here in OUR America ....

BUT FOR THIS FORUM ....

As a result ....

Is that by being linked to a multitude of other internet resources .....

As this forum is ....

Specifically ....

Other search engines .....

This FORUM allows a common American like me ...

To be a part of something ...

That is unprecedented here in OUR America ...

Which is to me ...

A final true ENFRANCHISING ....

OF US ....

The common people here in OUR America ...

Those of us who do not wish to have to join some faction ...

To have OUR voices heard ....

Or to have some FACTION doing our thinking for us ....

Or making our decisions for us .....

Or monopolizing the DIALOGUE, here in OUR America ....

Shutting us out, as a result ....

Of the debate ..

Over the direction OUR NATION .....

OUR REPUBLIC ....

Will take in the future ....

If we are not one of their CARD-CARRYING MEMBERS ...

Where ENFRANCHISEMENT is taken to mean:

"investiture with privileges OR CAPACITIES OF FREEDOM, or municipal or POLITICAL LIBERTY ...."

And so ....

[Livyjr]

And here is that Fukuyama dude ....

The NEW CON one that was one of the BUSHCO PRIME's greatest supporters .....

When the PRIME made his catestrophically successful invasion of IRAQINAM ....

He's one of the NEW CONS who have bailed out on the George .....

And the other NEW CONS, as well .....

I wonder why ....

So ...

Let's see what he has to say about ....

Being a TRAITER to the BUSHCO CAUSE, like he is ....

And all ....

And so ....

"Under attack - War's facts change way of thinking" 
 
By FRANCIS FUKUYAMA
First published: Sunday, April 16, 2006

I believe ....

That the neoconservative movement ....

With which I was associated ....

Has become indelibly associated .....

With a failed policy .....

And that unilateralism and coercive regime change ....

Cannot be the basis .....

For an effective American foreign policy.

Fukuyama is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and the author of "America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy."

And speaking of the linked power of this internet forum ....

And the FAILED POLICIES ....

Of this NEW CON CROWD ....

That have got America .....

In a QUAGMIRE ....

Over there in IRAQINAM .....

Thanks to the ignorance and naivete ....

Of the NEW CONS ...

Of whom ...

"CON-JOB CONNIE" Rice ...

Is a LEADING ONE ....

And the BEGINNINGS ...

Of the CON JOB ...

By the NEW CONS ...

That sucked this Francis Fukuyama ...

Right on in .....

With its siren song ...

OF LIES ....

We have ....

"Stanford Provost Calls It Quits - Rice to seek job in international affairs, business"

Bill Workman, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, December 9, 1998

STANFORD -- Stanford University Provost Condoleezza Rice, a national security adviser in the Bush administration, will leave the university's No. 2 academic post in June.

Rice, 44, said in an interview yesterday that she will pursue a career in the corporate world that will enable her to return to a prominent role in international affairs.

One possibility being whispered in political circles is that Rice will advise Texas Governor George W. Bush in his expected run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.

"I decided it was time to step down,'' said Rice, who advised trustees of her decision yesterday.

After more than five years as Stanford's chief budget officer, she said she felt a need to return to "my passion'' for international politics.

Rice is one of the nation's top- ranking black women in higher education and an expert on the former Soviet Union and international security policy.

She will take a leave of absence from the Stanford faculty, where she has been a political science professor since 1981.

A political source said Rice's pending departure is rumored to be a prelude to her joining the campaign staff of Bush as his foreign affairs adviser.

Rice last worked in the White House for Bush's father.

Rice did not rule out that possibility in an interview at her campus office.

She acknowledged that she had talked about foreign affairs with the Texas governor when both were vacationing this year in Kennebunkport, Maine, where the Bush family makes its summer home.

But, she said, "there was nothing formal.''

Rice described herself as a moderate Republican like the governor, "one of those all-over-the-map Republicans that drive people crazy.''

Rice said she had no immediate plans but had been discussing a number of possible opportunities with friends in corporate and business circles.

Rice is already a trustee on the boards of several major corporations, including Chevron and Transamerica.

Stanford President Gerhard Casper, who appointed Rice to the provost's office in 1993, said in a prepared statement:

"Condi is the best collaborator I have ever had."

". . . Together we have tackled everything from undergraduate education reform to teaching and research at Stanford.''

Casper remarked at the ease with which the two worked together, "given our seeming cultural differences'' as a "black woman from segregated Birmingham, Alabama, and a white man from war-torn Hamburg, Germany.''

Rice praised Casper and said she had been discussing her possible departure as provost with him for more than a year, trying to determine when would be the best time to leave.

Almost from the moment she was named provost, Rice had been viewed as a future university president.

She disclosed yesterday that she had been asked by several schools to be a candidate for their top job, including chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley when that post opened up last year.

However, after turning down so many offers, she decided she no longer wanted to be in an administrative post in higher education and worried that she might be falling behind in her field of international politics.

"You have to make the judgment of how long you can stay out of your field before you become a dinosaur in it,'' she said, smiling.

"I know right now I want to be someplace where I can be involved in practical issues and political reform.''

Citing the collapse of the Asian and Russian economies in recent months, Rice, who speaks Russian, said that the threat of "retreat from globalization is real'' unless troubled emerging nations can attract sufficient investment to ensure long-term economic growth.

"I think the private sector is kind of unrecognized, unappreciated actor in international politics,'' she said.

Rice worked in the White House from 1989 to 1991 as special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Soviet affairs for the National Security Council.

She accompanied President George Bush to the three U.S.-Soviet summits and helped guide the political reform of the new Polish democracy.

Michael Armacost of the Brookings Institution, who served as undersecretary of state in the Reagan administration, said Rice has a "tremendous reputation'' as an expert on Russia and one of the top Republican foreign policy advisers.

Among her accomplishments, he said, was the key role she played in the negotiations with the then-Soviet Union leading to the reunification of Germany.

She came to Stanford after earning a bachelor's degree and doctorate from the University of Denver and a master's degree from Notre Dame University.

An avid sports fan, Rice has frequently told acquaintances one job she would not mind having would be National Football League commissioner.

"I've had season tickets to Stanford Cardinal football since I came here in 1981,'' she boasted.

[Livyjr]

And speaking of the linked power of this internet forum ....

And the FAILED POLICIES ....

Of this NEW CON CROWD ....

That have got America .....

In a QUAGMIRE ....

Over there in IRAQINAM .....

Thanks to the ignorance and naivete ....

Of the NEW CONS ...

Of whom ...

"CON-JOB CONNIE" Rice ...

Is a LEADING ONE ....

And the BEGINNINGS ...

Of the CON JOB ...

By the NEW CONS ...

That sucked this Francis Fukuyama ...

Right on in .....

With its siren song ...

OF LIES ....

We have ....

"Stanford Provost Calls It Quits - Rice to seek job in international affairs, business"

Bill Workman, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, December 9, 1998

STANFORD -- Stanford University Provost Condoleezza Rice, a national security adviser in the Bush administration, will leave the university's No. 2 academic post in June.

Rice, 44, said in an interview yesterday that she will pursue a career in the corporate world that will enable her to return to a prominent role in international affairs.

One possibility being whispered in political circles is that Rice will advise Texas Governor George W. Bush in his expected run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.

After more than five years as Stanford's chief budget officer, she said she felt a need to return to "my passion'' for international politics.

An avid sports fan, Rice has frequently told acquaintances one job she would not mind having would be National Football League commissioner.

"I've had season tickets to Stanford Cardinal football since I came here in 1981,'' she boasted.

And as the fruits .....

Of Connie's CON JOB ....

Continue to ....

Ripen on the vine ....

"3 U.S. troops, 27 Iraqis killed in Iraq"

By LEE KEATH, Associated Press
Last updated: 4:05 p.m., Sunday, April 23, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Insurgents killed three American soldiers in the Baghdad area Sunday and fired mortars near the Defense Ministry in a spree of violence that killed at least 27 Iraqis as politicians began work on forming a new government.

The largest Sunni Arab party raised new allegations of sectarian killings -- one of the most urgent issues facing the new Iraqi leadership.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the next government must decommission sectarian militias and integrate them into the national armed forces, warning that the armed groups represent the "infrastructure for civil war."

Sunday's deaths raised to eight the number of U.S. troops killed the past two days.

At least 61 American service members have died in April, putting it on track to pass January -- with 62 -- as the deadliest month this year.

It represents a jump over March, which with 31 deaths was the lowest monthly toll for the Americans since February 2004.

The three solders were killed Sunday when their vehicle hit a roadside bomb northwest of capital, the U.S. command said.

Twenty-seven Iraqis also died in other violence Sunday, including seven killed when three mortars hit just outside the heavily guarded Green Zone in Baghdad, not far from Iraq's Defense Ministry.

Police Lt. Maitham Abdul-Razzaq said it was hard to identify the seven dead because the powerful blasts and shrapnel severed their limbs and destroyed their identification cards.

At least eight other mortars or rockets exploded at about the same time on the other side of the Tigris River in central Baghdad, without causing injuries, police said.

In the evening, another mortar hit a home in southern Baghdad, killing a man and wounding two of his relatives.

Drive-by shootings in a nearby district gunned down a schoolteacher outside her home and a car mechanic in his shop.

The violence underlined the challenge as prime minister-designate Jawad al-Maliki began on Sunday the tough task of assembling a Cabinet out of Iraq's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties.

Al-Maliki, a Shiite, has 30 days to do it, but the parties are under enormous pressure -- from Americans and even Shiite religious leaders -- to move quickly without the often intractable haggling over ministries.

The United States is hoping the new government will unify Iraq's bitterly divided factions behind a program aimed at reining in both the Sunni-led insurgency and the Shiite-Sunni killings that escalated during months without a stable government.

Khalilzad, a key player in tortuous political negotiations since Iraq's Dec. 15 elections, repeated his call for the quick creation of a Cabinet of "competent" ministers -- implying those chosen for their skills and not sectarian or political ties.

He also issued a strong warning Sunday against militias, calling them "a serious challenge to stability in Iraq to building a successful country based on rule of law."

"There is a need for a decommissioning, demobilization and reintegration plan for these unauthorized military formations," he told a press conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani in the northern city of Irbil.

He also issued a strong warning Sunday against militias, calling them "a serious challenge to stability in Iraq to building a successful country based on rule of law."

"There is a need for a decommissioning, demobilization and reintegration plan for these unauthorized military formations," he told a news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani in the northern city of Irbil.

Sunni Arabs say Shiite militias have infiltrated the Interior Ministry -- controlled by the biggest Shiite party -- and used death squads to kill Sunnis.

Sectarian violence has flared since the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra, north of Baghdad.

But the killings have gone both ways.

Police said the bodies of six Shiites were found Sunday in the mainly Sunni district of Azamiyah in Baghdad, their hands and legs bound and their bodies showing signs of torture.

Two more -- their identities unknown -- were found in a mixed district south of Baghdad.

The head of the Azamiyah district council, Sheik Hassan Sabri Salman, said relatives on Sunday identified the bodies of 14 Sunnis kidnapped last week.

The bodies, he said, were handcuffed with signs of torture.

Police did not confirm the deaths.

The Iraqi Islamic Party, the main Sunni faction in parliament and a likely participant in the next Cabinet, warned of "the repercussions of sectarian cleansing."

It urged the new government to stop "the criminal gangs" involved in the killings.

Control of the Interior Ministry will be a key question.

The Shiite Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq -- which currently holds it -- appeared to be under pressure to give it up.

SCIRI ran the feared Badr Brigade militia during Saddam Hussein's rule but insists the group has given up their arms, a claim many Sunnis reject.

One name touted for the post was Qassim Dawoud, an independent Shiite legislator who held a security positions in the administration of former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and is not connected to militias.

But uprooting militia power will be difficult for any government.

Al-Maliki has vowed to implement a law that would integrate them into the security forces, but there is little guarantee that the forces -- once in the army or police -- would then drop their loyalty to their former sectarian commanders.

Hadi al-Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the party that touts itself as the political successor of the Badr Brigade and is a member of the Shiite alliance in parliament, insisted his group is willing to cooperate with the incorporating of militias.

"We have said in the past that those who carry weapons want to join the armed forces and we are still prepared," he told the Arab news network Al-Jazeera.

The Sunni parties have said they can work with al-Maliki, but he must overcome a reputation as a hard-line Shiite partisan.

[Livyjr]

Gas up here has jumped up to about $3.20 a gallon for 89-octane .....

That's $.30 cents in a week ......

CLEAR CHANNELS WORLD WIDE had Senator Chuck Schumer on this morning ....

And he has gas up to FOUR DOLLARS a gallon .....

Likely by Memorial Day .....

"Gas up 24 cents to $2.91 over 2 weeks"

Associated Press
Last updated: 7:25 p.m., Sunday, April 23, 2006

CAMARILLO, Calif. -- Retail gas prices across the country jumped an average of nearly a quarter per gallon in the past two weeks, according to a survey released Sunday.

Self-serve regular averaged $2.91 a gallon, up from $2.67 two weeks ago, said Trilby Lundberg, who publishes the nationwide Lundberg Survey of 7,000 gas stations.

Also Sunday, OPEC President Edmund Maduabebe Daukoru predicted that oil prices would fall from their current high of just over $75 a barrel to stabilize in the "upper fifties to lower sixties."

Crude-oil prices hit a new record Friday, fueled by concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions and tight U.S. gasoline supplies.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries president said the solution to high prices lies in a calmer international environment and boosting refining capacity -- not increasing output which would only clog the market.

"If we do the right things by lowering international tensions, oil prices will definitely stabilize," said OPEC President Edmund Maduabebe Daukoru said in Doha, Qatar.

In the Lundberg Survey, mid-grade hit $3 a gallon, up from $2.76, while premium climbed to an average of $3.10, from $2.86 two weeks ago.

The survey covered the period from April 7 through April 21.

Among the stations surveyed, the lowest average price in the country for regular unleaded was in Boise, Idaho, at $2.54 a gallon.

Drivers in San Diego were paying the most for gas, at an average of $3.12 a gallon for regular.

------

On the Net:

Lundberg Survey: http://www.lundbergsurvey.com