54% Back Military Tribunals for Terrorists over U.S. Courts

Most Americans believe suspected terrorists should be tried by military tribunals rather than in U.S. courts, as the first such trial began this week at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba.

Seventy-one percent (71%) say the suspects should not be given the rights U.S. citizens have in court, while only 18% think they should, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national survey.

While some politicians, foreign officials and non-government groups like Amnesty International argue that the Bush administration is acting outside of the law in its treatment of these terrorist suspects, just 30% of Americans believe they should have access to U.S. courts, as opposed to 54% who favor the special military trials.

Nearly six out of 10 Americans (59%) also say the special prison camp for terrorists at Guantanamo, where the United States now detains 280 inmates, should not be closed. Twenty-six percent (26%) believe it should be.

Republicans tend to strongly support the status quo, while Democrats are more divided or unsure. Unaffiliated voters generally fall in between.

In a separate survey Rasmussen Reports finds that voters trust Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama more than John McCain on most issues, but the Republican candidate has a solid lead in voters' minds on national security issues.

Americans in record numbers also are becoming increasingly confident that the United States and its allies are winning the war on terror.

The trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who was purportedly Osama bin Laden's driver, began on Monday. Captured in Afghanistan in November 2001, he is accused of helping the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks escape capture several times and of transporting weapons for al Qaeda. He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted. Hamdan has pleaded not guilty.

Unlike trials in U.S. courts, the tribunals allow the use of some hearsay evidence and evidence forced from prisoners. The judge and jurors, not just lawyers, can question witnesses, and conviction can be obtained by a two-thirds vote of the six military officers on the tribunal, rather than requiring a unanimous jury as in a court trial.

Only 48% say they are following stories about the Hamdan trial, while 51% say they are not. Just over half (51%) correctly identified the defendant.

Both major presidential candidates promise to close the Guantanamo camp, saying it hurts America's relationships with other countries.

But when the U.S. Supreme Court last month gave terrorism suspects in the camp the right to sue in U.S. courts for their release, Obama praised the ruling while McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." The Bush administration is now prodding Congress to clear up some of the legal issues raised by the high court ruling.

Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans are opposed to closing the Guantanamo facility, a view shared by 42% of Democrats and 60% of unaffiliated voters. Nearly as many Democrats (39%) believe it should be closed, as do 9% of GOP voters and 25% of unaffiliateds.

McCain has no problem continuing the military tribunals for terrorists, while Obama's position remains unclear, despite repeated questions from the media.

Again, Republicans overwhelmingly support the military tribunals while Democrats are divided. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of GOP voters back the tribunals, along with 39% of Democrats and 52% of unaffiliated voters. Slightly more Democrats (43%) think the terrorist suspects should be tried in U.S. courts, but only 14% of Republicans and 29% of unaffiliateds concur.

Similarly, only 5% of Republicans think the suspects should be given the rights of U.S. citizens in court, as opposed to 30% of Democrats. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of GOP voters and 55% of Democrats disagree. Among unaffiliated voters, 12% favor treating them like U.S. citizens, but 75% are opposed.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows Obama and McCain remain in a competitive race for the White House.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it's free)… let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

This national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports July 22, 2008. The margin of sampling error for each survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

WAR ON TERROR: Soldiers engage in front-line diplomacy

Troops visit Iraq-Iran border, converse with Iranian security


American soldiers look at Iranian soldiers through a gate that divides the two countries at a border crossing near Khaniqin, Iraq.
KHANIQIN, Iraq — The soldiers with the 407th Civil Affairs Battalion and the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment had just planned a short little outing.

They were staying on a base near a border crossing between Iran and Iraq. The crossing is a heavily trafficked route for Iraqi oil going into Iran, and Iranian pilgrims going into Iraq. But crossing would be unthinkable for the Americans. After all, the two countries aren’t talking.

That shouldn’t stop a little innocent tourism, though. The Americans removed their names and ranks. Those wearing hats with the rank took them off. The soldiers left their assault rifles behind. The few with handguns left them strapped to their legs, but everyone else went without a weapon. No one wore body armor.

The Americans checked in at the border office and then walked right up to a pair of closed gates — joking that, of course, the Iraqi gate was the ugly one. They smiled and took turns taking snapshots of one another a few steps from Iran. Occasionally, they waved to one of the dozens of Iranian soldiers watching about 100 meters away.

The Iranians outnumbered the Americans by a huge margin, and there was almost no Iraqi security on the border. Yet the Iranians warily eyed the Americans for several minutes. Gradually, one of them worked up the courage to approach the gate. The others followed.

They stared through the gate at the Americans. The Americans stared back.

Then one of the Iraqi security guards broke the ice by talking with his Iranian counterpart. An Iraqi interpreter with the soldiers spoke a bit of a Persian dialect and soon he was translating small talk between the Americans and the Iranians. The atmosphere was stiff at first — but more like mingling at a stranger’s party than parleying with an enemy.

Both sides soon warmed up to the conversation. Getting into the spirit of the exchange, one of the soldiers offered a patch to an Iranian soldier as a gift. The Iranian soldier’s leader told him he couldn’t accept it, but he was gracious anyway. Eventually, an Iranian soldier decided to address the conversation directly.

"We are proud to be talking to the Americans," he said, then reminded them, "We Iranians are strong people."

The two sides continued talking for a little while longer — no more than a few minutes — before the Americans said their goodbyes and walked away, laughing about what they saw as the Iranians’ hubris and wondering what they’d think of American warplanes.

"We didn’t see them; maybe they will," the Iraqi interpreter said wryly.

But the group wasn’t in the mood to dwell on future wars. The politicians may still be debating whether to talk to Iran. But the soldiers had just done exactly that, and the talk had been pleasant. It would be something to tell their families when they called home.

Perhaps when the Iranian soldiers got home that night, the soldiers pondered, they, too, will tell their families how two countries started talking.

(Stars & Stripes)

Another Shillary Supporter for McCain!

HotAir: Democrat delegate “done with the Democratic Party”



More at Hotair!

What President W and Batman have in common!

I must admit, Batman reminded me a bit of GWB... how he keeps trying to do the right thing but is often hated and vilified for it.


A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .

Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W."

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

"The Dark Knight," then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year's "300," "The Dark Knight" is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.

Conversely, time after time, left-wing films about the war on terror -- films like "In The Valley of Elah," "Rendition" and "Redacted" -- which preach moral equivalence and advocate surrender, that disrespect the military and their mission, that seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism, have bombed more spectacularly than Operation Shock and Awe.

Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense -- values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right -- only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like "300," "Lord of the Rings," "Narnia," "Spiderman 3" and now "The Dark Knight"?

The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?

The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of "The Dark Knight" itself: Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.

Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They're wrong, of course, even on their own terms.

Left and right, all Americans know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry. We don't always know how we know these things, and yet mysteriously we know them nonetheless.

The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.

When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, "He has to run away -- because we have to chase him."

That's real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised -- then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.

Perhaps that's when Hollywood conservatives will be able to take off their masks and speak plainly in the light of day.

(WSJ)

BOOK OF THE WEEK: The 33 Strategies of War

I've read a lot of motivational books, such as The Purpose-Driven Life (I never got past the third chapter) and a bunch of other useless titles I no longer care to remember, but none were as effective and motivating as Robert Greene's The 33 Strategies of War! It is brutal and I love it! I mean, for sure, it's not going to make me charge into the sun with forty-four machine guns stashed in my pink Marti Ponti purse, ready to do battle against the Axis of Evil and the chick who stole my boyfriend, but it does inspire me to work harder! I'm probably not going to make history but I've never been that ambitious anyway. I just want to live life to the fullest and achieve my own success!
Anyway, the book mostly reflects on the history of foreign wars, as well as the failed and successful strategies of past generals and commanders, to create 33 strategies you can use in your daily life to get ahead and become an effective leader. But pop culture warriors are included as well, such as Alfred Hitchcock, Joan Crawford, and some Russian novelist. It's a little surprising how their stories of triumph somehow fit well with the rest of the book: Who would have thought that Vice Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson's heroic pounding of the Danish fleet- the risks he took to achieve victory, and Joan Crawford's risky departure from MGM, were somehow allied by nature? But of course, Joan Crawford is no Nelson.

From the book, a quote from Napoleon Bonaparte:

Death is nothing, but to live defeated is to die everyday.
Doesn't it make you want to rule the world? :)

WAR ON TERROR: 48% of Americans now believe we're WINNING.

Chest bump!
Nearly half of Americans (48%) now believe the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror, as opposed to 20% who give the nod to the terrorists, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national survey. These figures reflect a dramatic improvement from a year ago—in July 2007, only 36% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning. An equal number thought the terrorists held the advantage.

The 28-point difference is the most favorable margin recorded by Rasmussen Reports since tracking began in January 2004 and seems to reflect a growing confidence among adults that the tide is turning in Iraq and in the war on terror in general. The previous high was established on September 6, 2004 when 52% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning but 26% thought the terrorists were winning at that time for a 26-point favorable margin.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) now think the situation in Iraq will get better over the coming six months while only 25% expect it to get worse. A year ago, the assessment was far more pessimistic—just 23% said that things would get better while 49% offered the more pessimistic response. Another recent poll showed that 40% now believe it is possible for the U.S. to win the War in Iraq.

The new findings also show 45% now believe the United States is safer today than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, while 37% believe otherwise. Those figures are also the most optimistic on record.

The findings come as Democratic candidate Barack Obama reemphasized his opposition to the war in Iraq in a major policy speech Tuesday. “As should have been apparent to President Bush and Sen. [John] McCain, the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was,” he said, adding that his strategy will be “taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

His Republican opponent, Sen. McCain, quickly criticized Obama both for the substance of his remarks and the timing of them. “Sen. Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan,' said McCain. 'And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to Gen. [David] Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time.'

McCain has been a consistent supporter of the war in Iraq and was one of the earliest proponents of the so-called surge of additional U.S.troops into the country which is credited with the growing stabilitythere. Obama has long opposed the war and has criticized the surge, but his campaign now stands accused of purging criticism of the surge from its website.

Forty-four percent (44%) of voters say that they trust Obama more when it comes to Iraq, 43% say they trust McCain more. McCain has an advantage on the broader topic of national security issues.

Rasmussen Reports will continue polling weekly on this topic through the election and then resume monthly tracking. Weekly updates are posted on the Obama-McCain: By the Numbers page. During weekly tracking in Election 2004, confidence that the U.S. and its allies were winning ranged from a low of 45% to a high of 52% but the number who thought the terrorists were winning never fell below 25%. The current findings that only 20% believe the terrorists are winning matches the most optimistic assessment yet recorded.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans think the U.S. and its allies are winning, up from 68% last week. There is little change among Democrats, only 27% of whom agree. But 43% of unaffiliated voters, who will be key to the fall election, now think the U.S. is winning, up from 36% a week ago.
Both men (54% now, up from 49% last week) and women (43%, up from 37%) also are more confident that the U.S. and its allies are winning in Iraq.

A plurality of voters (44%) still believe the war in Iraq will go down in history as a failure, although that number, too, has fallen six percentage points in a week with most going into the ranks of the undecided. Thirty-three percent (33%) say it will be considered a success, up a single percentage point from a week ago.

President Bush’s handling of Iraq gets marginally better marks this week, too, with 27% rating it good or excellent, and 49% judging it as poor. His overall job approval ratings continue to set record lows.
During the 2004 election cycle, the War on Terror was the number one issue for voters. Since then voters have identified economic issues as their number one concern.

THE AUDACITY: Obama ignores the foreign press

One of his campaign advisers told me recently: "Why should we take the time for foreign media, since there is Obamania around the world?"

Snubbed by Obama
By Christoph von Marschall
Sunday, July 20, 2008; Page B07

Barack Obama is on his way to Europe, where an adoring public awaits. But I wonder if the reception would be quite so enthusiastic if Obama's fans across the Atlantic knew a dirty little secret of his remarkable presidential campaign: Although Obama portrays himself as the best candidate to engage the rest of the world and restore America's image abroad, and many Americans support him for that reason, so far he has almost completely refused to answer questions from foreign journalists. When the press plane leaves tonight for his trip, there will be, as far as I know, no foreign media aboard. The Obama campaign has refused multiple requests from international reporters to travel with the candidate.

As a German correspondent in Washington, I am accustomed to the fact that American politicians spare little of their limited time for reporters from abroad. This is understandable: Our readers, viewers and listeners cannot vote in U.S. elections. Even so, Obama's opponents have managed to make at least a small amount of time for international journalists. John McCain has given many interviews. Hillary Clinton gave a few. President Bush regularly holds round-table interviews with media from the countries to which he travels. Only Obama dismisses us so consistently.

This spring Obama allowed at least one foreign reporter on trips to Ohio and Texas. But as the campaign has progressed, access has become more difficult for foreign correspondents. E-mail inquiries get no reply, phone calls are not returned. My colleagues and I know: We are last in line. We don't matter.

In September 2007, I gave a lecture in Iowa titled "The U.S. in the World: How They See Us." People in the audience asked me about the working conditions of foreign journalists and were surprised to learn how little access Obama had given us. Several Iowans wrote to his campaign to protest. In contrast to me, they did hear back: In a letter dated Nov. 24, the campaign assured one of these people that Obama cares about the foreign media and wants to increase openness. The letter even said that my contact information had been forwarded to the campaign's communications department.

There was no follow-up.

Since I followed the Obama campaign in its early stages and published a sympathetic (and widely read) book in German about the Illinois senator, I probably have more access than most. I know the Obama "policy advisers" in Washington think tanks and the like; sometimes I manage a fleeting encounter with the senator's press staff at campaign events. Yet I can only dream of an interview with the candidate. To my knowledge, no foreign journalist has had one. A reported interview in France's Politique Internationale last summer turned out to be a fake. In February, Obama gave Israel's Yediot Ahronot written answers to written questions about his views on Israel and the Middle East.

Perhaps Obama considers members of the foreign media a risk rather than an opportunity. His campaign learned the hard way how comments to foreigners can resonate at home -- recall adviser Austan Goolsbee's hints to a Canadian diplomat that Obama's critique of NAFTA was just campaign rhetoric, or former aide Samantha Power's "monster" remark about Hillary Clinton to the Scotsman. Or perhaps we're witnessing the arrogance that comes from being so close to power. One of his campaign advisers told me recently: "Why should we take the time for foreign media, since there is Obamania around the world?"

Obama is indeed popular in my country and elsewhere in Europe. But Europeans have the same questions about his experience and character that Americans do. Unlike U.S. citizens, we can't vote in the election; its results, though, will affect our lives, much as it will affect theirs. Surely a man who has said he would talk with U.S. adversaries such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can spend a few moments with journalists from friendlier countries.

The writer is Washington bureau chief of Der Tagesspiegel, a Berlin-based daily newspaper.

POLITICS: AP wonders if media coverage is "fair" (duh?)

Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?

NEW YORK - Television news' royalty will fly in to meet Barack Obama during this week's overseas trip: CBS chief anchor Katie Couric in Jordan on Tuesday, ABC's Charles Gibson in Israel on Wednesday and NBC's Brian Williams in Germany on Thursday.

The anchor blessing defines the trip as a Major Event and — much like a "Saturday Night Live" skit in February that depicted a press corps fawning over Obama — raises anew the issue of fairness in campaign coverage.

The news media have devoted significantly more attention to the Democrat since Hillary Rodham Clinton suspended her campaign and left a two-person contest for the presidency between Obama and Republican John McCain, according to research conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

News executives say there are reasons for the disparity, such as the continuing story about whether Clinton's and Obama's supporters can reconcile. They even partly blame McCain. By criticizing Obama for a lack of foreign policy experience, McCain raised the stakes for Obama's trip, "especially if he winds up going into two war zones," said Paul Friedman, senior vice president of CBS News.

Obama has traveled to Afghanistan and is expected to go to Iraq. He is also scheduled to visit Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and England. Network anchors stayed home during McCain's recent foreign excursions.

"The question really needs to be posed: Is this type of coverage fair?" said Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va. "This is nothing but a political stunt."

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh said none of this should be a surprise.

"My prediction is that the coverage of Obama on this trip will be oriented toward countering the notion he has no idea what he is talking about on foreign policy and defense issues and instead will prop him up as a qualified statesman," Limbaugh told The Associated Press. "McCain, on the other hand, is a known quantity on these issues and his position does not excite nor fit the mainstream media's narrative on Iraq and Afghanistan, so they simply ignore it and him."

Along with newsworthiness, the question of fairness was discussed within ABC News before it was agreed Gibson would travel, said Jon Banner, executive producer of "World News." Also, if one network anchor decides to hit the road for a big event, chances are the others will follow.

"We have already been in discussions with the McCain campaign to try to afford them the same or a similar opportunity," Banner said. "We have gone to great lengths to be fair and provide equal time to both campaigns."

Shortly after Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, Gibson flew to Miami for a McCain interview, he said.

For each of the weeks between June 9 and July 13, Obama had a much more significant media presence. The Project for Excellence in Journalism evaluates more than 300 political stories each week in newspapers, magazines and television to measure whether each candidate is talked about in more than 25 percent of the stories.

Every week, Obama played an important role in more than two-thirds of the stories. For July 7-13, for example, Obama was a significant presence in 77 percent of the stories, while McCain was in 48 percent, the PEJ said.

Sure, there are some weeks Obama's going to make more news, said Tom Rosenstiel, the project's director.

But every week?

"No matter how understandable it is given the newness of the candidate and the historical nature of Obama's candidacy, in the end it's probably not fair to McCain," he said.

The Democrat has proven an attractive commodity; TV debates involving Democrats this campaign consistently drew more viewers than the Republicans. A Time magazine cover with Obama in 2006 was the second-best-selling of the year, and a Men's Vogue cover outsold every issue but the debut, according to circulation figures reported by Portfolio.com. Newsweek has done six covers with Obama over the past year, two with McCain. A Rolling Stone cover with Obama stopped just short of adding a halo.

If the attention gap continues, the campaign will essentially become a referendum on Obama, Rosenstiel said. While that may serve McCain's purpose — it beats a referendum on President Bush — it could leave the nation electing a president while the media are paying attention to someone else. Past press infatuations, like Howard Dean in 2004 and McCain in 2000, didn't turn into long-term affairs.

TV executives noted that Obama has courted attention, particularly for the overseas trip, more so than McCain. There's some danger involved, too. One Obama gaffe while overseas, or the appearance that he's not ready for an international spotlight, and the media's elite will be there to judge him, said Bob Zelnick, Boston University journalism professor.

Friedman cautioned against reading too much into things like PEJ's coverage index, noting that it's a long campaign. Yet it's an open question about whether Obama is simply a more interesting candidate at this point, partly because McCain has been on the scene longer.

While fairness is the goal, "what are we supposed to do, go gin up some story about McCain to get some rough equality of airtime?" he said. "I don't think so."

NBC News President Steve Capus said he finds it funny this is an issue, considering how much people have accused the press corps — and still do — of being too cozy with McCain. The Arizona senator had been a frequent guest of "Meet the Press."

"We're just trying to do our jobs," Capus said. "There's no question that there's great news value in Sen. Obama's trip overseas. That's why we are doing this.

The AUDACITY of Hope: Obama already planning re-election

Today on CBS's Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that "the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.

"And it's important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are."

The notion that Obama will be dealing with world leaders for eighjt-to-ten years, possibly up through July 2018, suggests that either (a) he believes that not only will he be elected and re-elected, but the 22nd amendment will be repealed and he will be elected for a third term, OR (b) he was speaking casually and just meant two terms.

(I'm guessing b.)

There is a term in chaos theory describing the how infinitesmal variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system.

Most of us are more familiar with the more common name for it: the butterfly effect.

The butterfly effect was introduced in Ray Bradbury's 1952 short story "A Sound of Thunder," when time travelers change the world beyond measure by accidentally killing a butterfly in prehistoric times.

Similarly, international diplomacy can be impacted by careless or glibly-chosen words. (Cue President Bush's "crusade" remarks.)

Some Democratic allies of Obama's are -- off the record -- concerned that the senator too often doesn't consider the potential butterfly effect of his diction.

Take his support for an "undivided Jerusalem," or his remarks about women seeking abortions when they're "feeling blue," which upset feminist leaders.

Or the media kerfuffle after his "refine my policies" presser.

On his press plane on July 5, after that incident, Obama said, "I’m surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured."

A reporter noted that that is precisely what happens with the president, he can change world affairs with one word, finely calibrating your words is what happens.

"Well, of course, no, I understand," Obama said. "But for me to say that I’m going to refine my policies, you know, I don’t think in anyway is inconsistent with prior statements and doesn’t change my strategic view that this war has to end and that I am going to end it as president."

This week Obama will have his words picked apart like never before, and it will be an international audience of not just opponents but actual enemies.

They will be watching and waiting to see if he kills any butterflies.

(ABC NEWS, POLITICAL PUNCH)

hussein news:
Wall Street Journal: Who Obama Should See in Iraq

Clueless Obambi should read this article!

POLITICS: Lay off George W. Bush

Sometimes the hatred for President GWB from those in the far-left and those in the far-right are indistinguishable. I know many Libtards and Conservatives hate the President with equal passion, either because he's too conservative for them or just not conservative enough. I mean, wtf, right? When President Bush sent a top US diplomat to sit down with some Iranian guy, along with representatives from the EU and a bunch of other countries I don't care to remember, many hawks howled with indignation. He's becoming "softer" on the War On Terror, they say. And yet we're talking about the man who invaded two countries (to topple tyrants), forced North Korea to slowly disarm itself, and pissed-off Leftists all over the globe! And yet people on the right say he is "softening" his stance. Well as much as I want to see the terrorists in Iran bombed to extinction, if there is another way to win the nuke enrichment argument with Iran without firing a single shot (a la Ronald Reagan vs. the Soviet Union), then that's fine. If there's anyone in this world who doesn't need to prove himself as being tough on terrorism and socialism, it's George W. Bush. Mention his name to a bunch of jihadists like, say, Hamas, or al-Qaeda in Wherever, and they'll burst into flames with hate and anger. On the other hand, when you say Hussein Obama...

From the American Thinker:


The hollow "victory" of Hezb'allah in southern Lebanon ultimately became a pointless exercise except to awaken Israelis to the need to recommit to strengthening their military. Iran tested President Bush in nearly every way possible over the last five years. President Bush won.
Word in recent days of planned talks between the Iranian government and high level State Department officials has provoked calls of flip-flops from the left and hoots from hawks on the right. There's not much to worry about in the cutesy political carping coming from the left, but the right's reaction is disturbing. How many countries does President Bush have to invade or strike before he gets some "street cred" for being tough on terrorists and despots? Can we take a moment to consider that he is making this move for a good reason? Maybe even for reasons he can't share publicly?

President Bush has consistently held a tough-line with the Iranians. He has criticized those who would offer presidential-level talks to the Iranians with no preconditions (taken personally by the media as a slap at their guy Obama). His requirement for high level negotiations could be summed up as: stop the program to build a nuclear bomb and we can talk.

At the end of 2007, President Bush got a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that said Iran had stopped development as far as we could tell. Therefore, he is acting according to the best information he has available, and I dare say I trust it more than the judgment of talk show hosts and TV pundits no matter how much I enjoy their shows.

Our intelligence services are not perfect, but at some point we have to start trusting them again; even if there findings go against our instincts. It's difficult to believe that a regime like the one in Iran might change its course toward acquiring a weapon that would alter the balance of power in the world. But let's not forget, that is exactly what happened in Libya. President Bush made that happen: thank you Mr. President.

It might help here to examine Iran's motivation for a nuclear weapon in the first place. Remember that in the 1980's there was an arms race and a war between Iran and Iraq. Although that war ended in '88, Saddam's nuclear weapons program was revealed as part of the inspections process after the Gulf War in ‘91. The specter of a nuclear Saddam set the Iranians on a renewed pursuit for a nuclear weapon in the 90's.

According to the December 2007 NIE, Iran stopped its' nuclear weapons development program in 2003. Why? The NIE said that Iran was reacting to international pressure. But the removal of Saddam, and thus the threat of a nuclear madman, that year and the audacity of President Bush and our military likely had more to do with it than international diplomacy, thank you Mr. President.

Iran apparently abandoned its' nuclear weapons program deciding instead to focus on terrorism as the primary means of pursuing its' goals. That course was successful for a time as the militias in Iraq nearly gained the upper hand in destabilizing the fledgling Iraqi government and turning it into an Iranian puppet as the American political left, and some on the right, went weak in the knees. However, Bush's surge strategy once again frustrated Iranian (and American leftist) ambitions, thank you Mr. President.

Although Iran gained some advantage in Lebanon via its' proxy terror groups, during the 06' Israeli conflict, it still mostly just rules the south, not all Beirut as it surely wanted. Although that conflict was all-in-all a victory for them, it was a hollow one bringing no real change in the balance of power other than rubbing off some of the sheen from the vaunted Israeli military.

In a matter of weeks after hostilities ceased the Hezb'allah supporters in southern Lebanon began expressing buyer's remorse as the Israeli incursion had devastated their homes and livelihoods while bringing no tangible reward. Both the Lebanese and the Israeli government were rushed US military equipment which ended up frustrating Iranian ambitions once again, thank you Mr. President.

As it stands today Iran has lost much of its ability to strike with proxies in Iraq. The Syrian army was run out of Lebanon by US support to the Lebanese government, an act that weakened Iranian influence. The hollow "victory" of Hezb'allah in southern Lebanon ultimately became a pointless exercise except to awaken Israelis to the need to recommit to strengthening their military. Iran tested President Bush in nearly every way possible over the last five years. President Bush won.

With no more nuclear threat from Saddam, against a US government that has raised the stakes on Iranian attempts to hide nuclear development, and faced with an international community that largely agrees with our president that Iran must not get nuclear weapons, it is possible that Iran has run out of options and might actually be looking for a peaceful way out. Because of Iran's recent history trust is out of the question. But there is no reason not to find out what they have to say. That's not weakness. It's negotiating from a position of strength.

I'm not saying give peace a chance. I'm saying give president Bush a chance with the Iranians. He has earned it.

(American Thinker)

POLITICS: The Audacity Continues

’ve seen this angry, loose cannon on a few talk shows and I predict she’ll be the next, at some point, to be thrown under the campaign gaffe bus. It’s just a matter of time….

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph on the eve of Mr Obama’s week-long trip to Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe, Susan Rice emphasised that the election of Mr Obama would mark a decision by Americans to “turn the page” on President George W Bush.

Barack Obama has yet to receive his party’s nomination.

But the former Rhodes Scholar, who took her Master’s degree and doctorate in international relations at New College, Oxford, made clear that an Obama administration would also challenge Europe to do more after a Democratic victory in November’s election.

Barack Obama has yet to win the presidency.

“It would signal a return to the more pragmatic and bi-partisan traditions of American foreign policy, which have been lost to ideology in the Bush years,” she said. “He will not proceed through an ideological frame and seek to impose that frame on every challenge.

Some Eurpoean countries have elected leaders more center-right and are kind of on the same page as President Bush. Maybe an “Obama administration” will be out of touch with Europe…?

“There is some truth to the notion that some of the animus at the popular level towards the Bush administration may have made it easier for some of our European partners to avoid taking steps that we may want them to take and that perhaps they ought to take,” she said.

“That has, in some respects, perhaps on some issues, given them an easy out. Barack Obama will lead from a position of strength and seek progress, and he will want to work with Europe in very strong partnership.

“It means we in the United States will have to do our part; but Europe will have to do its part too. There can be no free riders if this is going to be an effective partnership.”

Obviously Ms. Rice has forgotten the European tradition of sitting out conflicts until they arrive at their doorstep.

But this is yet another example of a campaign that’s so absorbed with it’s own biased, fawning press, that an aide (one of hundreds) believes she, on behalf of a nation she does not yet represent, dictate terms to a dozen nations prior to a campaign tour they invited themselves to.

The audacity continues.

(Bob Parks)

POLITICS: Obama visits the troops!

Here are some photos from Hussein's global campaign. The troops are lookin' good! :) Hussein... eh, not so much.









I couldn't find pictures of Obama shooting hoops with the troops. I don't like Obama at all, but they looked like they were having fun!

WAR ON TERROR: Sunnis rejoin Iraqi Government!

PatDollard.Com: Reconciliation Despite Democrats’ Promise Surge Wouldn’t Bring It: Sunnis Rejoin Government


BAGHDAD - Iraq’s largest Sunni Arab political bloc returned to the government fold Saturday after calling off a nearly one-year boycott of the Shiite-dominated leadership—another critical stride toward healing sectarian rifts.

The return of the National Accordance Front does more than politically reunite some of Iraq’s main centers of power.

It was seen as a deeply significant advance toward reconciliation and efforts to cement security cooperation between Shiite-led forces and armed Sunni groups that rose up against al-Qaida in Iraq.

The United States has pressured Iraq’s government to work toward settling the sectarian feuds, which brought daily bloodshed until recent months. The hope is that more parties staked in the future of Iraq could mean a quicker exit for U.S. and other foreign forces.

Iraq’s sharply improved security situation is already bringing plans for a pared-down British force.

On a visit to Baghdad, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said plans are being made to scale back troops in Iraq, but refused to consider an “artificial timetable” for withdrawing Britain’s remaining 4,000 soldiers.

Britain’s moves come about four months after Iraqi opened a major offensive in Basra to root out Shiite militias with suspected links to Iran.

The campaign reclaimed wide control over Iraq’s second-largest city and key oil center.

Brown’s visit came on the eve of an expected stop by presidential candidate Barack Obama on the second leg of a tour of the Pentagon’s war zones. Obama spent Saturday in Afghanistan and is later expected to hold talks around the Middle East and Europe.

The break in the Iraqi political impasse came after parliament unanimously backed Sunni candidates to fill the post of deputy prime minister and head five midlevel ministries, including higher education and communications. Four other Cabinet posts were filled by Shiites.

The Front pulled its members from the 39-member Cabinet last August, complaining it was sidelined in important decisions. The political rift left al-Maliki’s government without partners in bids to find common ground with Sunni leaders.

Sunni Arabs, who represent about 20 percent of the country, were highly favored under Saddam Hussein but the tables turned after his ouster when Iraq’s majority Shiites held sway. The rivalries spilled over into a wave of sectarian killings and al-Qaida bombings apparently aimed at triggering civil war.

But Sunni sheiks last year began to organize militias—which came to be known as Awakening Councils—against insurgents. Their role has been considered key in undercutting al-Qaida and helping reduce violence to its lowest levels in four years.

“What happened today is a national step forward to boost the government’s role and take the national reconciliation ahead,” said the bloc’s spokesman, Saleem Abdullah.

Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, hailed the political pact as “a very important step forward.”

(AP)

LOVE THA DRESS!

 

XOXO Leighton Meester- you are my favorite Gossip Girl!

POLITICS: McCain's love for townhalls

My daddy is the coolest. Whenever I have a problem with something, he's always there for me. When I don't feel like going to work, he gives me a pep talk and drags me off to work. Life can be rather difficult, but my dad and my sister and my puppies remind me of what life is truly about- it's about sharing good times and bad times with the people you love the most. It's about overcoming obstacles and-

Why on earth am I yakking about life?

Let's talk about John McCain!

For better or worse, McCain wedded to town halls


DENVER - John McCain was in his favorite campaign setting, a town hall meeting, when he spotted a promising target. "I'd love to recognize you first, sir," the Republican presidential candidate said to a man in a Vietnam War veteran's hat.

Instead of a softball opening question from a fellow vet, however, McCain got a lengthy harangue, as the man insisted the senator had opposed better medical benefits for veterans.

McCain, who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war, politely said the man was mistaken. He finally broke it off, saying, "I'll be glad to examine what your version of my record is."

The July 7 episode in Denver underscored the iffy nature of a campaign strategy that McCain seems to adore. Town hall sessions — in which he makes opening remarks and takes questions for an hour or more — have become McCain's staple, and he constantly needles Democratic opponent Barack Obama for not joining him onstage.

But they are far from risk-free. They make it nearly impossible for McCain to focus attention on a daily message, and they have produced some of his most memorable gaffes.

At the Denver event, for example, McCain called Social Security's funding process "a disgrace." Hammered by critics who noted that Social Security has had essentially the same funding mechanism since it began, McCain later said the problem is that today's young workers may not receive the program's full benefits unless Congress revamps its structure.

Earlier at a New Hampshire town hall, McCain told an anti-war voter that the U.S. presence in Iraq could last "100 years." Obama pounced, although McCain indicated he was talking of a peacekeeping role similar to that still played by U.S. troops in South Korea rather than a century of combat.

As for trying to deliver a well-focused message in town halls, a recent article in The Gazette of Colorado Springs summed up the challenge. McCain "came to Denver to talk about the economy," the paper reported, "but ended up discussing everything from Social Security to articles of impeachment during a town hall meeting."

Despite such pitfalls, the question-and-answer forums serve McCain well in many ways. He appears confident, engaged and often witty. Audiences applaud him for fielding tough questions, and he almost never displays the quick temper he is known for. Allies and opponents agree that he certainly handles the exchanges more skillfully than he reads scripts from a podium.

With 15 weeks to go, McCain seems more devoted to the give-and-take sessions than ever.

"At town hall meetings," he told reporters, "when you respond for an hour to an hour-and-a-half to people's comments and hopes and dreams and aspirations, I'm sure that something I said today could be taken out of context." But audience members get to ask substantive questions, he said, and when they leave, they "know my plan for the future of America."

McCain's top advisers acknowledge the town halls are far from perfect. But they agree that the forums are best-suited for a candidate who cannot match Obama's oratory or fundraising clout.

"If John wins this, it will be because of the engagements he's had with the public," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who often travels with McCain. "It gives him a chance to show his strengths," he said, which include experience and a willingness to tell people unpleasant truths.

McCain takes the exchanges so seriously, Graham said, that after giving a South Carolina questioner an answer that seemed incomplete, "John followed the guy to his car."

Campaign aides portray McCain's town halls as no-holds-barred events in which the candidate urges friends and foes alike to take their best shots. And while he routinely takes more hostile questions than does Obama, McCain's events are not always as open as they appear.

Security officers ordered three women — identified as protesters because they were wearing pro-abortion-rights T-shirts — to leave a line of "overflow ticket" holders at a July 15 McCain town hall in Albuquerque, N.M. And Friday's "Employee Town Hall Meeting" for General Motors workers in Warren, Mich., was advertised as "not open to the general public."

But once a week, usually on Thursdays, McCain holds a town hall with undecided voters, who are identified by the campaign's pollsters at a cost of about $8,000 to $10,000 per event, said campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds. The Thursday forums began when McCain was trying to persuade Obama to join him in a series of events before neutral crowds.

In any given period, McCain usually takes more questions from voters than does Obama, either in town halls or other forums. This past week, for example, McCain fielded questions from two major ethnic organizations: the National Council of La Raza and the NAACP. Obama took no questions after his speeches to the groups.

Except for huge rallies, Obama's campaign events are usually "invitation only." Depending on the subject matter, tickets might be given to local volunteers and supporters; employees or members of a host group; or relevant professionals, such as doctors and nurses for a health care forum, said Obama campaign spokesman Nick Shapiro.

The campaign does not seek public events in which every attendee is an Obama backer, he said. "If you're only talking to your supporters," he said, "you're not getting any new votes."

McCain aides scoff.

"We're confident that we're letting in a greater assortment of questions and voter types than our opponent," Bounds said.

Other news

Rudy G. to make a comback?
Wasn't he just charming whenever he called those jihadists "Islamofascists" on t.v.?

WAR ON TERROR: AP Stringer Detained Over Filming of Two Murders, Questions Remain

Journalists are the most despicable people in the world. Read this article to know why!

From The Jawa Report
Two unidentified Afghan Women chat with each other a few minutes before they were executed by Taliban in Ghazni province, Afghanistan, on late Saturday, July 12, 2008.
(AP Photo/Rahmatullah Naikzad)
It looks like our story got some attention in Afghanistan. AP stringer Rahmatullah Naikzad was detained for two days after he filmed the brutal murder of two women by the Taliban accused of prostitution. The incident was first noted by us here and, as Fox News reports (hey, you guys don't know how to link?), "the AP has been following this case closely with some concern," after we raised several questions about Naikzad's relationship with the Taliban.

It's good to see that Naikzad is now helping local Afghan authorities track down those responsible for the murders. However, Naikzad's version of events still raise some serious questions about journalistic ethics.

Naikzad claims he has no connection to the Taliban. And says:

the Taliban issued a press statement calling all media outlets in the province of Ghazni, which has a large Taliban presence, to cover them “carrying out the Shariah” on a few burglars in their custody. Naikzad said he believed the Taliban would be cutting off the limbs of their prisoners, according to strict Islamic law.

Okay, so according to his own version of events Naikzad knew beforehand that the Taliban planned to administer extra judicial punishment on what he presumed were thieves. He also believed that he would be a witness to the cutting off of these alleged thieves hands?

So, Naikzad knows that a crime-- and what probably would be considered a war crime--- is about to be committed by an internationally recognized terrorist group. Further, he knows the location of the terrorists and the location where the war crime is about to be committed.

What does the AP stringer do? Does he call up the local authorities? Does he notify the closest NATO outpost or headquarters? No.

After a member of the Taliban personally called him up and assured Naikzad of his safety if he would come to watch the crimes committed, he then checks with his bosses at the AP:

He said he checked with the Kabul office of the Associated Press, for which he works as a stringer, and then set off around sunset on his motorbike to a village on the outskirts of Ghazni City, only to find that no other journalist was there.

Here is an even more important question about the AP's involvement. The AP is an American company. The organization, according to Naikzad, had prior knowledge about the location of a group of enemies of the US. The organization also had prior knowledge that a crime was about to be committed.

Did the Associated Press notify NATO forces with this information? The article makes no mention of this. What it does imply is that the AP gave Naikzad the green light to be a witness to a war crime.

Do journalists and news corporations have a moral responsibility to try to prevent such crimes? I believe they do. Becoming a journalist does not give one a free pass from the normal moral obligations required of human beings.

We'll return to this later.

After Naikzad met with the Taliban he learned that it was not thieves who were to have their limbs amputated, but women who were to be "executed".

Not so incidentally, Naikzad spent some of these daylight hours between the time that he first meets up with the Taliban and later that night when the two women were murdered snapping photos and making video of the Taliban marching and posing for him. Some of the poses show the Taliban in attack exercises.

If you read the Fox News story they also use the troubling word "execute" to describe the cold blooded murder of two women. That is, they allow the Taliban to choose the words to describe their own heinous crime. This is one of the main objections I raised when I first noted the AP's involvement in the murders.

The use of neutral terminology to describe what is clearly a crime is simply unacceptable. Perhaps "execution style murder" would be the only description other than "murder" which would be apt.

Moral equivocation has been all the rage in our institutions of higher learning since the 1960s, but it is perhaps seen clearest in the way reporters and editors are taught that "ethics" require strict neutrality: even when that neutrality is clearly immoral.

Neutrality between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats are one thing. But neutrality between our country and the enemies we fight is not.

Let's get back to Naikzad's story. As the women are about to be "executed" he claims:

“I told one of the Taliban, ‘These are women, they are harmless. Why would you want to kill them?’ But they didn’t listen to me.”

If true, good for you Naikzad. This is an important piece of context to the story. A journalist with some balls!

But, isn't it troubling that Naikzad went to the meeting with the Taliban fully expecting to film/photograph limb amputations? Which the phrase, by the way, makes sound quite clinical. I've seen the way the Taliban "amputate" limbs. They don't take their victims to some hospital. They tend to use common knives, there is a great deal of blood, and horrible screaming.

Again, it's even more troubling that the Associated Press sent him.

One of the things we pointed out in our criticism of the AP and of Naikzad was that the organization had been used by the Taliban to produce a propaganda snuff film for them. I claimed that the AP was worse than al Jazeera because at least al Jazeera only played these types of videos while the AP had now been reduced to producing them.

Naikzad, though, claims that the Taliban told him not to video tape the "execution":

He said the Taliban turned him down, but his camera was already rolling and he kept it on when he placed it on the seat of his bike.

It's interesting to note that Fox's reporter seems skeptical of the claim owing to the fact that the video seems to follow the Taliban murderers after they kill the two women. How is it possible that if he had set the camera down on his motorcycle's seat so that the Taliban wouldn't notice he was filming them that the camera seems to follow their movements?

Naikzad claims:

“I was standing near the bike, so my body may have touched the camera,” Naikzad said, explaining the movement of the camera. He stumbled slightly and added, “I myself nudged the camera a little bit.”

Ookay. Right. I guess it's possible if not entirely plausible.

Here's where we get back to the equivocation:

“If I have photographed Taliban casualties, I have also photographed American casualties. I have been balanced in my journalism,” he said.

Again, this raises serious ethical questions about what it means to be "balanced" in war reporting. Especially in a war against enemy combatants who by every measure of the Geneva Conventions are illegal!

So, two main issues remain even after we hear Naikzad's version of events.

1) Do journalists have a moral responsibility that trumps whatever ethical standards they learned in journalism school to try and prevent heinous crimes that puts life or limb in jeopardy? I think yes. And if the AP had prior knowledge that these crimes were about to be committed then they had a moral (and perhaps legal) responsibility to notify those with the power to stop them. In this case probably NATO.

2) Do journalists have an allegiance to their home country in times of war that transcends the normal peace time journalistic ethic of "neutrality"? Again, I think yes. I do not necessarily think that journalists shouldn't try to understand why our enemies do the things they do. But note that they are our enemies, journalists included.

American journalists must recognize that America's enemies are their enemies. The Associated Press is and American company. Their allegiances must be to America.

There are two problems with the Naikzad incident raised by this second question. First, if the Associated Press, an American company, knew the location of enemy combatants it seems that they would have an obligation to report that, does it not?

Second, when American companies hire foreign stringers to do their reporting for them it would seem that they have a responsibility to add a context to the story which clearly distinguishes between our actions and the actions of our enemies. Such a distinction isn't always easy to make. We shoot at the Taliban, they shoot back.

But in the case where the Taliban's version of events is that two women were "executed" for crimes against Sharia law, but where Americans (and might I add the rest of the civilized world) would see the event as murder plain and simple, then clearly the context of the story must reflect American values and not the values of the barbaric enemies we fight.

The one bright spot in this whole thing is that the AP seems to at least be troubled by what happened. A feeling, I'm sorry to say, they seemed not to have after another one of their stringers in Iraq was caught with an al Qaeda operative.

MAKE-UP: LANCOME MAQUILIQUIDE UV PERFECT FOREVER

For some cruel, retarded, and extremely unforgivable reason, my t-zone is oilier than usual. I so want to die now. My once-beloved L'Oreal True Match now feels like goo melting off my face! My 7 Signs Serum can no longer handle the job of keeping my make-up together, so I may have to switch foundations earlier than I anticipated. I just wish I could blow off work, but nooo, I am being overworked this week! Pfft. That's okay, hard work comes with a lotta moolah. A lotta moolah means SHOPPING SPREEES! Anyway I may have to consider two new products in my search for the Holy Grail of all Foundations:


According to Lancome's website, something called "New Liquid Perfect Shine Catchers" will absorb shine for 12 hours. Or "from morning until night"! I don't believe it for one second but "New Liquid Perfect Shine Catchers" sounds so cool that I just may have to flutter over to a Lancome counter and DEMAND for this earth-defying product of heavenly miracles! It also has sun protection, which is nice, but nothing beats Shiseido in that department. Anyway, Lancome also has a shine control make-up base called the Maquibase Shine Control, and I'm thinking of getting that too. 'Cause they match. :P

It's also worth mentioning that the lovely ladies over at Make-up Alley rated this product a cool 100%! Yes, all four of them!

SONG OF THE DAY: Janet Jackson's "Feedback"

Been stuck in my head the whole WEEK.

POLITICS: Hussein just adores himself.

I don't understand the fascination with Obama. I personally don't find him swoon-worthy; He has zero achievements to brag about and his future policies are abhorrent. No, there's nothing about him that makes him drop-dead sexy. And yet people treat him like a rockstar!

He supports mothers killing babies, for pete's sake!

Anyway here is an article from the Washington Times. It's about how much Obama just adores himself.

Obama's Biggest Fan

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?

Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Ronald Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation. When President John F. Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush the elder -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?

Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.

Obama may think he's King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.

After all, in the words of his own slogan, "we are the ones we've been waiting for," which, translating the royal "we," means: " I am the one we've been waiting for." Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his lectern, until general ridicule -- it was pointed out that he was not yet president -- induced him to take it down.

He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish" -- a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how "embarrassing" it is that Europeans are multilingual but "we go over to Europe, and all we can say is 'merci beaucoup.' " Obama speaks no French.

His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism . . . that you come out of your isolation. . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?

We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when "our planet began to heal." As I recall -- I'm no expert on this -- Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

WAR ON TERROR: Photo of the Day!

From Blackfive.net: U.S. Marine Corps Cpl. Johathan R. Segovia, personnel security detail, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, a ground combat element attached to Multinational Force - West, relaxes with Iraqi children in Sha-ban, Iraq, July 9, 2008. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Taylor J. Schulz .

What terror? :)

MAKE-UP: Why I want to go to Japan.

So next week, or if time does not permit, maybe next, next week, I am planning to splurge on make-up. It's long overdue! Sure, in the past week I bought a couple of products here and there, but never went all-out! Instead, I directed all my financial resources to skincare. lol! It's more important than make-up after all, but now that I've got that settled, I can re-focus all my energy on finding the right make-up foundation, hauling in all the great new products from MAC and Lancome, and hunting down old favorites from NARS (cream eyeshadows), Dior (lippies, shimmer!), Maybelline (back-ups!), and L'Oreal (eyeshadow palettes!). I have got to find the perfect foundation! I think Estee Lauder's Double Wear Light will be the Holy Grail of all foundations, but until I've tried it, I can't be too sure. I've heard mostly positive reviews on it, but I still remember some of my raved-about Chanel/Lancome and even Clinique products being a complete let-down. Anyway, here is one good reason why I want to go to Japan:

Funky make-up!
That's from Maybelline Japan's Angelfit collection which is formulated for Asian skin. I love the pink and silver theme- it's visually orgasmic. Make-up brands from Asia are really good- I hope they take on the global market soon because flying over to Hong Kong or South Korea just to get your hands on some phytogenic pressed powder is not cool.

p.s.
Could you be my Holy Grail?

POLITICS: Newbie Hussein has 300 advisers.

Gee, wonder how may 'qaeda sympathizers make up his 300-man team!
WASHINGTON: Every day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day.

One recent Q. & A. asked, for example, whether Obama supported the decision by Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States. The answer, provided to Obama with bullet points, was yes — or "a genuine opportunity," as he put it in a speech on Iraq this week.

Behind the e-mail messages is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.

"It is unwieldy, no question," said Denis McDonough, 38, Obama's top foreign policy aide, speaking of an infrastructure that has been divided into 20 teams based on regions and issues, and that has recently absorbed, with some tensions, the top foreign policy advisers from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. "But an administration is unwieldy, too. We also know that it's messier when you don't get as much information as you can."

The group is on the spot this week as Obama is planning to make his first overseas foray as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, with voters at home and leaders abroad watching closely to see how he handles himself on the global stage.

Unlike George W. Bush, who entered the presidential race in 2000 with scant exposure to national security issues, Obama has served since his election to the Senate in 2004 on the Foreign Relations Committee and has had a running tutorial from aides steeped in the issues. His campaign says that he is well prepared and that he often alters and expands on the talking points provided to him by his foreign policy advisers.

Most of the core members of his team served in government during President Bill Clinton's administration and by and large were junior to the advisers who worked on his wife's campaign for the Democratic nomination. But they remain in charge within the campaign even as it takes on more senior figures from the Clinton era, like two former secretaries of state, Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher, and are positioned to put their own stamp on the party's foreign policy.

Most of them, like the candidate they are working for, distinguished themselves from Hillary Rodham Clinton's foreign policy camp by early opposition to the Iraq war. They also tend to be more liberal and to emphasize using the "soft power" of diplomacy and economic aid to try to advance the interests of the United States. Still, their positions fall well within centrist Democratic foreign policy thinking, and none of the deep policy fissures that have divided the Republicans into two camps, the neoconservatives and the so-called pragmatists, have opened.

Obama's core team is led by Susan Rice, an assistant secretary of state for African affairs in the Clinton administration, who has pushed for a tougher response to the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan, and Anthony Lake, Bill Clinton's first national security adviser, who was criticized for the administration's failure to confront the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and now acknowledges the inaction as a major mistake.

The core group also includes Gregory Craig, a former top official in the Clinton State Department who served as the president's lawyer during his impeachment trial; Richard Danzig, a navy secretary in the Clinton administration; Mark Lippert, Obama's former Senate foreign policy adviser, who just returned from a navy tour of duty in Iraq; and McDonough.

McDonough and Lippert are paid by the campaign and based in Chicago, and the rest are outside advisers who volunteer their time from Washington.

The group no longer includes Samantha Power, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Harvard human rights expert who resigned in March after she was quoted calling Hillary Clinton a "monster." But Lake still talks to Power, and Obama sent a long personal tribute that was read at her wedding in Ireland this month.

Obama's Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, has a far smaller and looser foreign policy advisory operation, about 75 people in all, and none are organized into teams. In 2004, the Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry, had a foreign policy structure similar in scale to Obama's, but it had limited influence on the candidate, who had spent 20 years in the Senate, former advisers said. Obama is not yet receiving the government intelligence briefing that is typically made available to a presidential candidate upon becoming his party's nominee.

(Read more?)

hussein news
Obama's unnecessary world tour courtesy of taxpayers

McCain mocks Hussein

Obama attracts 3 anchor groupies

I'm so sick of this guy.

WAR ON TERROR: Chertoff: European terrorists trying to enter US

WASHINGTON - European terrorists are trying to enter the United States with European Union passports, and there is no guarantee officials will catch them every time, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday.

Chertoff's comments on Capitol Hill comes as the country is entering a potentially vulnerable period with the presidential nominating conventions coming up next month; the presidential election in November; and the transition to a new administration in January — all of which may be attractive targets for terrorists.

In his last scheduled appearance before the House Homeland Security Committee, Chertoff said that the more time and space al-Qaida and its allies have to recruit, train, experiment and plan, the more problems the U.S. and Europe will face down the road.

"The terrorists are deliberately focusing on people who have legitimate Western European passports, who don't appear to have records as terrorists," Chertoff told lawmakers. "I have a good degree of confidence we can catch people coming in. But I have to tell you ... there's no guarantee. And they are working very hard to slip by us."

Chertoff and other intelligence officials have delivered similar warnings before, and he offered no new information about specific threats or an imminent attack.

Chertoff reiterated his concern that terrorists could sneak radiological material into the country on small boats or private aircraft. This material could be used to create an explosive device known as a "dirty bomb."

The Homeland Security Department has a strategy to protect against this small boat vulnerability and is testing radiation detection equipment in Seattle and San Diego ports.

Chertoff said that getting out a regulation to prescreen and enhance security of general aviation aircraft coming to the U.S. from overseas is one of his top priorities.

He also said he expects to approve new radiation detection technology this fall.

Responding to a question from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, Chertoff dismissed any rumor that he is on a list of potential running mates for Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Chertoff quipped that the only list he has for next year is a list of vacations.

Chertoff's term as the country's second Homeland Security Secretary ends when a new administration takes over the White House in January.

(AP)

MAKE-UP: STILL SEARCHING for The Perfect Foundation

I raved about L'Oreal's True Match line, but that doesn't mean I've shut my mind off to other brands. As wonderful as True Match is, I've come to the conclusion that it's just not perfect. After a while, L'Oreal's mineral powder foundation actually started to sting, so I had to let that one go. It was the one product that started my obsession with mineral make-up, it had good coverage you can build on, it made concealers unnecessary and it was inexpensive to boot. But a couple of days ago, I somehow became allergic to it and had to let it go. I switched back to using plain ol' pressed powder from The Face Shop- their oil-control powder from the Phytogenic line -and my skin felt okay again. Anyway I am going to go foundation-hunting when I'm done with my bottle of True Match liquid foundation. I am leaning towards powder foundations now, because they're just so much easier to use and I wouldn't need anything else. Maybe just a dab of concealer and that's it.

  

I'm keeping an eye out on Chanel Vitalumiere Creme Compact Satin Smoothing Creme Compact Foundation SPF 15, which scored an impressive 9 out of 10 from TotalBeauty reviews, as well as Chanel Pro Lumiere Professional Finish Makeup SPF 15, which is actually foundation in liquid form but what the hell, Penelope Cruz uses it! Both products are quite expensive but if it's worth the investment, then I'll go for it.

My other options are: Double Wear Light Stay-in-Place Makeup SPF 10, which claims to be humidity-resistant and oil-controlling, as well as light, photo-friendly and non-acnegenic! It sounds too good to be true! It's like a sheer-to-medium-coverage, oil-free, dermatologist-tested high definition foundation all in one! It has a natural finish, too, though I tend to lean towards the dewy look. There is also the Country Mist Liquid Make-up from Estee Lauder, and it's said to be moisturizing and ideal for women with dry skin. Well I've got an oily t-zone so I think I'll pass, but I do so want that "moist, dewy finish" they claim to have! I think I'll end up getting the Double Wear Light Stay-in-Place foundation and the double matte oil-control pressed powder. But then that kind of beats the purpose of my wanting a new foundation product. Maybe I should just get THIS! Ah well, I'll write back on this when I've found my one true love- and that should be in a week.

Uhm, anyone understand Japanese?

POLITICS: Obama - Professional Flip-flopper

PatDollard.Com: Hussein removes all criticism of the Surge from his Website


WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama’s aides have removed criticism of President Bush’s increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat’s written war plan to reflect changing conditions.

Debate over the impact of President Bush’s troop “surge” has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase.

A year and a half after Bush announced he was sending reinforcements to Iraq, it is widely credited with reducing violence there. With most Americans ready to end the war, McCain is using the surge debate to argue he has better judgment and the troops should stay to win the fight. Obama argues the troop increase has not achieved its other goal of fostering a political reconciliation among Iraqi factions.

After Bush delivered a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, 2007, announcing his plan, Obama argued it could make the situation worse by taking pressure off Iraqis to find a political solution to the fighting.

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.

In a speech Tuesday, he argued that since the surge began, the strain on the military has increased, the United States has spent another $200 billion in Iraq, Afghanistan has deteriorated, the Taliban and al-Qaida have rebuilt and Iraqis have not made political progress. “That’s why I strongly stand by my plan to end this war,” Obama said.

McCain said Obama is failing to acknowledge success. “Today, we know Sen. Obama was wrong” to oppose the surge, McCain said.

As first reported Tuesday by the New York Daily News, Obama’s campaign removed a reference to the surge as part of “The Problem” section on the part of his Web site devoted to laying out his plan for Iraq.

The change was part of many broader changes that Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said were made to reflect current conditions. She provided the full text of the old site and the updated version, which includes a new section on the recent resurgence of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and another on this year’s negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement that would detail the legal basis for the ongoing presence of U.S. military forces operating in Iraq.

The changes stress that Obama’s plan to end the war is responsible and designed to improve national security. They include:

—An updated Obama quote at the top of the page. The previous quote stressed how Obama had the judgment to oppose the “rash war” from the start. This was a popular message among Democratic voters and was meant to draw distinctions with primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who initially supported the war. The new quote focuses on how ending the war will make Americans safer—a message aimed at general election voters who are more likely to trust McCain on issues of national security, according to polling.

—A description of Obama’s plan as “a responsible, phased withdrawal” that will be directed by military commanders and done in consultation with the Iraqis. Previously, the site had a sentence that has since been removed that flatly said, “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq.” Morigi said that his plan hasn’t changed, but they wanted to expand the description. “There’s not an intent to shift language,” she said.

—A new sentence that says Obama “would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq.”

Only one of his plan’s subheads remains unchanged, the first one—”Judgment You Can Trust.” That’s a message the campaign wants Americans to embrace.

GWB SIGNATURE PEN: Sooooo cute!

From the website: Handcrafted from Texas mesquite, finished in solid sterling silver, and featuring the laser-engraved signature of the Chief Executive, President George W. Bush. Refillable.
OMG! Imma get my daddy this! It's the George W. Bush signature pen, and it sure beats out my beloved late grandfather's Cartier fountain pen collection! Plus, it's mucho cheaper- only $79.95! I love it! Gee, I should just buy one for myself- I love GWB more than my daddy does! lol! I wish the George W. Bush store had girly W shirts, tumblers, pens, and whatnot available for fashion-conscious women such as myself! I mean, I wouldn't mind owning a pink W t-shirt or a pink W tumbler- heck, I will proudly show it off! But yeah, after this President leaves office, I wouldn't clunk down any money for a McCain or Obama store. Pfft. (But I must admit I kind of like the McCain bumper stickers!)


McCain Store

POLITICS: President Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill — and Oil Drops $9!

In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.

Now isn’t this interesting?

Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won’t decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them.

Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.

The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date. A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They’re talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.

There’s also a “gang of 10” in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium. So it’s possible a lot of action on this front could occur much sooner than people seem to think.

So I repeat: Drill, drill, drill. Deregulate, decontrol, and unleash the American energy industry. Those hated traders will then keep selling oil as the laws of supply and demand and free markets keep working.

Bravo for Bush. Bravo for the traders.

(NRO)

more Bush news!
The President will not demand conservation!
President Bush said Tuesday that he will not call on Americans to conserve gasoline despite the rising price of oil, saying consumers are "smart enough" to figure out for themselves that they should drive less.

President Bush gives Obama some good advice
The president was asked what advice he would give Obama ahead of his trip to Iraq.

“I would ask him to listen to Ryan Crocker [U.S. ambassador to Iraq] and General [David] Petraeus,” Bush said. “There’s a temptation to let the politics at home to get in the way [of] the considered judgment of the commanders. That’s why I strongly rejected an arbitrary timetable of withdrawal.”

Bush said he recognized the pressure on politicians – “MoveOn.org, banging away on these candidates – it’s hard to kind of divorce yourself from the politics.”

Glenn Beck Poll: Who would you vote for?
B. Hussein Obama
2.67%

John McCain
21.99%

President George W. Bush
75.35%!

FOUR MORE YEARS!

FASHION: From BAGSNOB, Purse with Purpose

BAGSNOB.COM: Dallas jewelry designer, Rachelle Dauphinee, has added jewels to some of the clutches ($425)
These simple but chic clutches were created by Cambodian women rescued from the sex trade. For $80 you can help provide aid to Cambodian women- and children -rescued from prostitution rings. More info at Bagsnob.com!

WAR ON TERROR: Insurgents try to pit Afghanistan against Pakistan

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Insurgents fired simultaneously on Pakistan and Afghanistan positions Thursday night in hopes of provoking a battle between the two military forces, NATO officials said Friday.

U.S. forces were called into action on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border after Afghan security forces came under fire from insurgents inside Pakistan, NATO said. Meanwhile, two Pakistani border outposts also had come under fire.

Six mortar rounds hit one Pakistani outpost, and troops there returned fire, according to Pakistan military spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas.

Six Pakistani security personnel were injured in the exchange along the South Waziristan border, and a number of casualties were "observed/reported" on the other side of the border, he said.

NATO said it had reports that four Afghan border police officers and eight Pakistani military members were wounded in the four-hour firefight.

International Security Assistance Force officials "suspect that the insurgents' dual attack was specifically intended to spark a border incident," the statement said. ISAF is the NATO contingent in Afghanistan.

U.S. forces first responded with artillery fire. U.S. officials with knowledge of the firefight said all rounds landed inside Afghanistan, within 350 meters (383 yards) of the border.

As the firefight continued, a U.S. F-15 aircraft dropped a GBU-13 bomb that also landed in Afghanistan, the officials said.

(CNN)