Unemployment Rate Rises by "1"

Greenspan: Social Security is not in 'crisis'
Sue Kirchhoff
USA Today
Feb. 18, 2005 12:00 AM
WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Thursday that Social Security is not in "crisis" as President Bush has declared....
The focus of the hearing was Social Security, which Greenspan said is not in crisis. "Crisis to me usually refers to something which is going to happen tomorrow or is on the edge of going into a very serious change," he said. "That is not going to happen."
"The first priority is to assure that deficits are under control," Greenspan said, warning that major changes are needed to restrain increases in budget deficits." "To help control deficits," he said, "any future tax cuts should be offset elsewhere in the budget."

Can you say unemployeed?
Why Mr Greenspan, how dare you have the impertinence to contradict our fearless (craven) leader? Do you no longer enjoy the position which you hold? Surely you realize they will have no alternative now, but to make you out to be a fool. A poor misguided fool. A motley fool. Can there be little doubt that you will soon join the ranks of those who've gone before you (Richard Clark), and become yet another disgruntled exemployee of this administration?
******
I can only imagine (with a smile upon my face) GW's reaction when he was told about Greenspan's remarks? I say told about because as we all know, GW doesn't read the newspapers. Oh the temper tantrum that must have ensued! To have been a fly on the wall in that room. Talk about your priceless moments!!

By the way, who's been saying for months now that the ever rising deficit is the real, and most serious crisis our country is currently facing? Yep, that would be **MOI** .
Speaking of the French. Okay, so technically I was speaking French not of the French, but you know where I'm going with this. Has anyone else noticed that none other than the President's special lady has been making nicey-nicey overtures to the French? Somehow I don't think the French are as eagar to play kiss and make up as Ms Rice is. I can't imagine why.
Of course she doesn't have to worry about job security. After all in this administration, incompitense, clearly leads not only to job security but even advancement. Mr Greenspan on the other hand, would be wise to start planning his next career move. I don't think it will be in an upwards direction.
posted by wanda at 10:39 AM

CIA Chief Warns of Weapons of Mass Destruction Threat

"Feb. 16 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Director Porter Goss said ``it is only a matter of time'' before terrorists attempt to use nuclear, biological or chemical weapons against the U.S. "
*****

Ya think?
What else can you expect when you go around invading countries and threatening other ones? It's a simple basic fact we cannot prevent other countries or even terrorist from eventually obtaining nuclear weapons. It is equally foolish to assume that we would never be the target of their attacks. Did Americans believe that terrorist would always be satisfied with their attacks on foreign soil? Why? We here in the US represent everything the terrorist hate. Why would anyone believe they would never come knocking on OUR door? Especially after 9/11. We live in dangerous and uncertain times. Maybe someone should think about preparing people for the inevitable. I don't think duck tape and plastic for your windows is going to do it.
Maybe it's time we start thinking like they did back in the 50's & 60's. Building bomb shelters. At least making some kind of realistic plans for the worst case scenario. As far as I'm concerned it's not a matter of "if" but "when".
posted by wanda at 2:31 AM

Split Verdict in Iraqi Vote Sets Stage for Weak Government

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 13 - "The razor-thin margin apparently captured by the Shiite alliance here in election results announced Sunday seems almost certain to enshrine a weak government that will be unable to push through sweeping changes..."
"The verdict handed down by Iraqi voters in the Jan. 30 election appeared to be a divided one, with the Shiite political alliance, backed by the clerical leadership in Najaf, opposed in nearly equal measure by an array of mostly secular minority parties."
"According to Iraqi leaders here, the fractured mandate almost certainly heralds a long round of negotiating, in which the Shiite alliance will have to strike deals with parties run by the Kurds and others, most of which are secular and broadly opposed to an enhanced role for Islam or an overbearing Shiite government."
Source:: NY Times
~~~~~~~

Tell me again how this was worth 1200+ American lives, and thousands of Iraqi lives. Such a high price to pay for such a small victory.
The only question that remains in my mind, is did we learn anything here, or will we repeat this same mistake with Iran? A mistake I fear will be far more deadly and long reaching.
Tell me Bush supporters are you ready to stand behind your man, as he thumps his chest feigning courage the way the craven often do, as they send others to fight their battles, and shout defiantly to Iran "bring em on"?
posted by wanda at 4:22 PM