Miracle on 34th 16th Street

Bush accedes to McCain in backing ban on torture

WASHINGTON -- President Bush yesterday agreed to accept Senator John McCain's bill barring US officials from abusing terrorist suspects, with the White House reversing course after months of resistance when it became clear that its refusal to endorse a torture ban left the president politically isolated.
The agreement brings to an end an extended standoff between Bush and McCain, an Arizona Republican who was Bush's rival for the presidency in 2000. The White House relented under intense pressure from Congress and the international community.

Well I'll be a monkeys uncle! I guess miracles do happen. Don't you just know Dick Cheney is one pissed puppy?

Now if we can just get them to start working on that
border problem.
In my opinion it's time to close our borders. Put up a 10 foot high wall, with barbed wire and guard posts at 300 yard intervals. Start hitting employers who hire illegals with heavy fines.
Of course that may cause some problems for the republicans, (Immigration May Again Drive a Wedge Between GOP, Latinos), but hey, when your fighting a war on terrorism you gotta do what you gotta do. Right?

By the way did anyone else notice that the President was quick to defend Tom DeLay, but has yet to come out and defend Scooter Libby, or anyone involved in the whole White House Leak fiasco? And isn't it nice he thinks Rumsfield is doing a "great job". Of course the last guy he said that about was Michael Brown. Just before Brown handed in his resignation. Could there be hope of a repeat scenario?

What about that CNN poll that says it's gonna be Hillary-v.-Rudy in 08? [source]
If that's the case, I guess we'd all best get used to saying President Giuliani. Sorry dems, I just don't think the Hillster can pull it off. I don't think any woman can.
Personally I'd rather see the Democrats take back Congress in 06, than worry about who's gonna be the next President. A Democratic controlled Congress with Giuliani as President would be acceptable with me.
So, what do YOU think?
posted by wanda at 2:47 AM

When did Republicans and Democrats switch parties?

Back in Lincoln's time republicans were, well decidely more like democrats. If you've studied much history, you know this to be true. Who would have ever thought it would take a democrat to finally turn the national deficit into a national surplus? And who would have ever believed a republican would send it spiraling so far out of control?

What has happened to the people who call themselves conservatives? I always thought Republicans were the party of the people who wanted LESS government interference in their private lives. LESS government regulating what we as private citizens could do, say, think, read, watch on TV, eat, drink, smoke, or whom we have sex with. That and LESS government spending. Keeping a tight reign on the fiscal budget. Which would ultimately mean lower taxes.
Aren't Republicans suppose to be all about personal responsiblity? Taking care of yourself and your family. Minding your own business and letting your neighbors mind theirs?
When did all these people who call themselves conservative suddenly become so interested in what everyone else is doing? Not just interested either. They darn well want to dominate what other people do. All the way from whom we sleep with to how we express our wishes during the holiday season. What is up with this intense desire to legislate and regulate every aspect of our lives?

"I'm convinced that conservatives, the people who say they want less government and more freedom, either have a highly-developed sense of irony or none whatsoever.[Bobby]

If I want to acknowledge the holidays (and there IS more than one you know, the season starts with Thanksgiving, lasts through New Years, and encompasses Hanukah, Kwanza, and Christmas) by greeting people with "HAPPY HOLIDAYS", is that NOT my personal right? If I want to watch porn, eat McDonalds, and dress like a two dollar whore, is that NOT my right? Mind you I only do ONE of those, but if I wanted to don't I have every right to do all of them?

What in the world is going on when the two men in Congress (John McCain/ Joe Lieberman) who seem to be able to see and understand the other side's point of view, are both detested by a good many in their OWN party? Has bipartisianship been reduced to two individuals? If so, then what hope do we have of ever again being a united country?

I want to offer up some advice here, to those on both sides of the fence. First all you might want to do some research on your party of choice. You may find they haven't always reprsented what you think they do. Secondly, once you realize you have more in common with the other side than you ever thought you would, you might consider being less 'partisian' and more open to hearing what their saying. Maybe then we can all learn a little give and take.

Well, it's a thought.
posted by wanda at 5:55 PM

We Need A Hero
not a chickenhawk playing GI Joes

I've been experiencing a bit of writers block lately. Therefore I thought I'd share a little some thing I came across while surfing the good ole WWW. Hopefully I'll be back to my usual witty and brilliant self soon.
******

A couple of weeks ago I received a wall calendar from my insurance company, USAA. I've been doing business with them since I was a second lieutenant in training at Chanute Air Force Base in Rantoul, Illinois ("shoot me, don't Chanute me"), and I like the calendars they send their clients

At least, I liked the calendar until this year, when I opened the calendar to its first month--December, 2005--and saw a picture of a deployed soldier in desert cammies, sitting in front of a tent reading a letter from home, with this caption:

"It is easy to take liberty for granted, when you have never had it taken from you." -- Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States

Normally a quote from someone connected to the military would include the department, years of service, and highest rank. But Dick Cheney didn't serve in the military. He had "other priorities"--things to do, people to see, unpleasantness to avoid--that made it terribly inconvenient to send his hiney into the military in service to his country, let alone serve in the bloody conflict we were entangled in back in the 1960s.

For August, 2006, the USAA calendar shows a combat helicopter with a quote from Norman Schwarzkpof: "It doesn't take a hero to order men into battle. It takes a hero to be one of those men who goes into battle." I doubt anyone within USAA strategically placed this quote in response to Cheney's words. But it is ironic to compare the words of a real war hero with the empty word pudding of a man who would live to send young people into a battle he would never have chosen (or been willing )to have fought.[source]
*****

If I were Cheney I'd be ashamed to even look our troops in the face. I'd be ashamed that I, who had 'better things to do' and never gave a single hour much less day of service to my country, had been so gung ho to send men and women in to fight and die in an unmitigated and unnecessary war. I'd damn sure be too ashamed to put my face on any military related publication. But then I am a person of integrity. Clearly another trait lacking in Cheney's makeup.
posted by wanda at 6:27 AM