molson_golden2002

He's anti-war, that would never sit well at all with the warmongers in the GOP. http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=6330

I have not read it yet. What is fictional about the book? Or are you just resorting to typical right wing knee jerkism?

Barzan Ibrahim Hassan al-Tikriti and Awad Hamel al-Bandar were hanged this morning. Ibrahim's head was detached from his body in the process one government official has reported. Another has said that this was an act of God. Hopefully, there are no videos of this on YouTube... _____________________ This from the Times. A real good read and if you follow it you can see where the casualties will come from, namely the supply convoys that will have to drive right through Baghada to these new green zones. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/world/mi...artner=homepage BAGHDAD, Jan. 14 — Just days after President Bush unveiled a new war plan calling for more than 20,000 additional American troops in Iraq, the heart of the effort — a major push to secure the capital — faces some of its fiercest resistance from the very people it depends on for success: Iraqi government officials. American military officials have spent days huddled in meetings with Iraqi officers in a race to turn blueprints drawn up in Washington into a plan that will work on the ground in Baghdad. With the first American and Iraqi units dedicated to the plan due to be in place within weeks, time is short for setting details of what American officers view as the decisive battle of the war. But the signs so far have unnerved some Americans working on the plan, who have described a web of problems — ranging from a contested chain of command to how to protect American troops deployed in some of Baghdad’s most dangerous districts — that some fear could hobble the effort before it begins. First among the American concerns is a Shiite-led government that has been so dogmatic in its attitude that the Americans worry that they will be frustrated in their aim of cracking down equally on Shiite and Sunni extremists, a strategy President Bush has declared central to the plan. “We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem,” said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. “We are being played like a pawn.” _______________________________________________ Bush is accused by top general of playing politics with soldiers lives: http://washtimes.com/national/20070114-014416-3480r.htm The military architect of the Iraq troop "surge" plan is criticizing the Bush administration, claiming the Pentagon is watering down the proposal for political reasons. "You cannot try and do this piecemeal. We have to implement the whole package," retired Gen. John M. Keane told the Sunday Telegraph. The former Army vice chief of staff co-authored the "Choosing Victory" strategy paper, the main points of which were adopted by President Bush for his Iraq war plan. Gen. Keane expressed his alarm after Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates testified on Capitol Hill that the troop buildup was expected to last "a matter of months" -- rather than the 18 months proposed by Gen. Keane. Mr. Gates also said the full deployment of 21,500 additional troops, announced by Mr. Bush last week, might not be implemented. He suggested that only two or three of the five brigades proposed for Baghdad could be deployed initially, while the rest are held in reserve. "That makes no military sense, although it might seem to make political sense," Gen. Keane said. President Bush has been criticized in the past for not listening to the advice of his top generals. "We need all five brigades in Baghdad as soon as possible. It will take three to four months to clear neighborhoods of death squads and insurgents, and at least the rest of the year to establish proper security for the population," Gen. Keane said. "If you only wanted to stage a clearance operation, you could do that in a few months. But if we left then, the militia would just return as they have in the past." ______________________________ Corruption, corrution, corruption! BAGHDAD, Jan 14 (Reuters) - Iraqi militants are taking most of the $1.5 billion a year that is stolen from Iraq's main oil refinery through smuggling and corruption, the government told parliament on Sunday. Speaking at the second reading of the 2007 budget, Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih said crime was behind the crisis in the oil industry, which is struggling to meet Iraq's own fuel needs despite having the world's third biggest reserves. "We have a system and an administration which encourage corruption," said Salih, who has oversight over the economy. "We are losing $1.5 billion at Baiji refinery alone and most of this money is channelled to terrorists who are using it to target us and target our nation." Baiji, 180 km (115 miles) north of Baghdad, provides most of Iraq's domestically refined fuel. It lies in Saddam Hussein's home province of Salahaddin, where insurgents from the Sunni Arab minority are strong. This year's budget foresees government spending of $41 billion. Officials have estimated that smuggling of Iraq's main resource, as well as other corruption, has cost the country several billion dollars a year since the U.S. invasion. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/RAS445332.htm

I've always wondered if the government's actions actually cleaned the lakes or just drove away the companies that polluted the lakes. I know the phosphorous isn't going in there anymore--my mom recently moved near a town in Tennessee that was ruined by that decision, it mined the stuff or something like that. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_...t_lakes_cleanup When Canada and the United States approved the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972, the running joke in Cleveland was that anyone unlucky enough to fall into the Cuyahoga River would decay rather than drown. ADVERTISEMENT The Cuyahoga, which meanders through the city before reaching Lake Erie, helped inspire the cleanup initiative by literally catching fire three years earlier. The lower end of the 112-mile-long waterway was a foul brew of oil, sludge, sewage and chemicals. It made embarrassing headlines when its surface flamed for about 30 minutes. Today the river is returning to health under a plan developed through the binational agreement. Pollution levels have fallen. Nearly 70 fish species have been detected in areas once considered virtually lifeless. Bald eagle nests have been spotted nearby. "Maybe one day we'll actually be able to swim within the harbor," says Ed Hauser, an environmental activist who launches his kayaks from a park at the river mouth. "I'll get my feet wet, but I sure don't want to fall in there." The U.S. and Canadian governments are considering whether to update and strengthen the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which hasn't been significantly revised since 1987. It commits the two countries to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity" of the world's biggest surface freshwater system — a mission that many see as only partly accomplished. Although the lakes and their major tributaries are less dirty than four decades ago, states continue warning children and women of childbearing age to limit fish consumption because of lingering toxicity. Algae overgrowth and a resulting oxygen-starved "dead zone" in Lake Erie, all but eliminated by the early 1980s, are returning. And the waters face threats t t were recognized barely if at all when the agreement first was crafted, such as the exotic species invasion, climate change and shoreline development. Despite increasingly urgent warnings from scientists and activists that the lakes are in peril, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its counterpart, Environment Canada, "have no preconceived notion that we will or will not revise the agreement," says Mark Elster, senior analyst with the EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office. A committee representing both countries is studying the matter. A decision isn't likely before next year, Elster says. "Our only requirement right now is to review the agreement — its operation and effectiveness," he says. "The outcome of this process will be a report to the two governments on what could be done." Many supporters say the agreement has lost clout and could become irrelevant unless overhauled. There's no shortage of programs aimed at cleaning up the Great Lakes; a 2003 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office identified 140 on the federal level alone. Yet the water quality agreement is unique because it obligates the two countries to work toward the same goals. Although not legally binding, it carries moral weight. "It's really our insurance policy that Canada and the U.S. will continue to treat the Great Lakes as a joint responsibility," says Cameron Davis, executive director of the Chicago-based Alliance for the Great Lakes. "There is nothing else that comes close to providing that incentive." Yet even its biggest fans acknowledge the agreement's success record is mixed. Some say its influence peaked during the decade after President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau signed the initial version in 1972 and has waned since. Simply persuading Canada and the United States to adopt a binational approach was a big accomplishment, says Lee Botts, co-author of a recent book on the agreement. "That's why it's been considered a model around the world and really a pioneer at addressing environmental problems across international borders," Botts says. The pact called for a crackdown on phosphorus pollution blamed for rampant algae growth, which sucked oxygen from the waters and suffocated fish. Lake Erie had a gigantic dead zone, and beaches along Lakes Michigan and Ontario were strewn with rotting algae and alewife carcasses. Governments responded by ordering phosphate cutbacks in laundry detergents and better treatment of sewage and industrial wastes. Within a few years the algae problem faded, although it's now returning — possibly because of the exotic zebra mussel invasion. Research conducted under the agreement yielded information about water pollutants, including airborne contaminants such as mercury and chemicals that move up the food chain instead of breaking down. In 1978, the agreement was updated to propose "virtual elimination" of toxins from the lakes. Both nations have made progress. But not enough, say advocates who blame inadequate funding and regulation. They point to 43 heavily contaminated harbors and river segments designated for special attention under the latest version of the accord, approved in 1987. The pace of restoring these "areas of concern" has varied widely. Only three are finished: Collingwood Harbor and Severn Sound in Ontario and the Oswego River in New York. Most aren't close. The International Joint Commission, an independent agency that advises both countries on Great Lakes issues, last fall proposed replacing the agreement with a more flexible, action-oriented version. It would seek a common approach to modern problems such as invasive species, habitat loss, sewer overflows and suburban runoff. It would set timetables for solving problems and step up pressure on governments to meet them. Dennis Schornack, co-chairman of the IJC, says drastic change is needed because the existing agreement is "on a trajectory of obsolescence." He worries that the two governments' review may produce "a lot of motion ... but not a lot of change that will make a big difference to the health of the Great Lakes." But the Council of Great Lakes Industries, which represents chemical manufacturers, electric utilities and other companies, fears a more aggressive water quality pact will bring costly new regulations and stifle the regional economy. The IJC seemingly wants the agreement to "address everybody's ills. I think that's unrealistic," says George Kuper, the council's president. "It's already created a bureaucracy and a governance nightmare that is very difficult to maneuver around."

1) Depends who you ask. Red Necks will say its about Heritage, and Blacks will say its about heritage alright, Jim Crow heritage 2) I believe but am not sure that the flag was brought out during the early Civil Rights movement, but other symbols of hate, like 'Pitchfork' Ben Tillman's bust in the statehouse have been there longer. 3) Dunno

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/200...rate-flag_x.htm COLUMBIA, S.C. — The NCAA will consider expanding its ban of championship events in South Carolina, possibly disallowing baseball and football teams from hosting postseason games, because the Confederate flag is displayed on Statehouse grounds. Robert Vowels Jr., head of the NCAA's Minority Opportunities and Interest Committee, said his group received a request from the Black Coaches Association about widening the ban. Predetermined postseason events, such as basketball regionals and cross-country championships — are now barred from South Carolina sites. "I think it's something worth looking at," said Vowels, commissioner of the Southwestern Athletic Conference. The NAACP started an economic boycott of South Carolina in 2000 because the Confederate flag flew over the Capitol dome. The Legislature voted that spring to move the flag to the Confederate monument in front of the Statehouse. However, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has continued its boycott, saying the legislative action did not go far enough. In 2001, the NCAA announced a two-year moratorium on awarding predetermined postseason events to the state. The governing body has continued the ban indefinitely, saying in 2004 that significant change on the issue had not taken place in South Carolina. Floyd Keith, executive director of the Black Coaches Association, said he received a request from members about furthering action against the state and closing what he saw as a loophole. "I don't know that anybody is comfortable playing in a place where they fly the Confederate flag," he said by telephone Tuesday. A subcommittee will study the question before bringing any recommendations to the full panel, Vowels said. He expects the process to take several months. Messages left at the office of South Carolina House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, were not immediately returned. Furman's football team has held Division I-AA playoff games at Paladin Stadium in five of the past seven seasons. Clemson's baseball team hosted NCAA tournament games nine times since 1994. South Carolina's Sarge Frye Field was a host site for the tournament each season between 2000-2004. "If the legislation goes through to change the interpretation, more people are going to be affected," Furman athletic director Gary Clark said. The NAACP has marched and protested outside several sports events since the ban, including the 2002 NCAA basketball regional at the Bi-Lo Center in Greenville, the WTA's Family Circle Cup in Charleston and the PGA Tour's Verizon Heritage in Hilton Head.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Aht3...p&type=lgns NEWARK, N.J. (AP) -- New York Giants star Michael Strahan was ordered to pay his ex-wife $15.3 million -- more than half his net worth -- in keeping with the couple's prenuptial agreement. Under the agreement, Jean Strahan was entitled to 50 percent of their joint marital assets and 20 percent of his yearly income from each year they were married. ADVERTISEMENT "She's grateful to the court," Jean Strahan's lawyer, Ellen Marshall, told The Associated Press on Saturday. "She looks forward to her future, raising their children and moving forward." A call to Michael Strahan's attorney, Robert Penza, and his agent, Tony Agnone, were not immediately returned. The NFL star had contended he wasn't responsible for the 20 percent because his wife failed to ask for it every year. But state Superior Court Judge James Convery disagreed, ruling "the plaintiff is not credible in his claim that the defendant never asked for her separate funds." In addition to the $15.3 million, Convery awarded Jean Strahan hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support. The couple married in 1999. "It pays to tell the truth, and I told the truth," Jean Strahan said in Saturday's New York Post. "I never asked for a penny more than the prenup that Michael and his lawyers wrote and made me sign. And all I ever asked for was that to be upheld."

So there is global warming but its not caused by man, I think you mean? When I was learning about the Industrail Revolution in England, one of the causes is attributed to an unusually warm decade in like the 1740's which allowed for greater agricultural output and a rise in population. Can't say that warming was man made. So count me as a skeptic of man made climate change, but I am willing to listen. Not sure we could turn back the clock even if we were doing it.

Which is why we should refer to it by its true name, 'Climate change'

Want to see what all the hub bub is about.

Almost as nice as the 'fact' that the VAST MAJORITY of the wars in the last 100 years were all about oil?

The government levied the fines after plea bargains were reached in which people pleaded guilty. Pretty straight forward really. You follow so far? A lesson? How cute. Legislators write the laws? Or maybe lobbyists write them? I think the lobbyists want these laws inforced, but these super wealthy people see no need to send people of their own class to jail. That's the point I was making. And then your point about late trading. Let's review. You said it was legal. I proved it wasn't. You thanked me as if I proved your point. You were wrong and I was right, ok? You tried getting around that with the inane argument that somehow a federal law wouldn't apply to Wall Street. Who do you think the fvcking SEC regulates? And FYI, Spitzer was working along with the SEC on some of the cases. Federal/State cooperation, ever hear of it? Another thing you should look up is a smashing court case named Marbury vs Madison, form John Marshall's day and age. It settled the issue of national supremecy long ago.

What's next, steroids on ESPN? BTW, look at the bottom the page at the key chains they are selling to the WND readers. ROTFLMAO!! Mega Dittos! http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636 Con job at The Weather Channel Posted: January 5, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern This week Americans observed a national day of mourning (I'm speaking not of President Ford's funeral, but rather the day that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seized power in Congress). Far-left political ideologies are being promulgated through ever-increasing mediums, and recently I noticed that a once-vaunted American television network, The Weather Channel, had succumbed to the cancerous spread of liberalism.

You brought up the Hitler appeasement episode again, I assuse to shoot down the idea of diplomacy. I see that as silly. Totally different situation. And on top of that to point to the 'appeasement' of Hitler to as some sort of proof diplomacy doesn't work is the silly. We are not even talking to the Iranians, that is stupid, arrogent and dangerous

Yes, let f'n Israel deal with it.

What an ignorant post. Ya, and Saddam may have done 9-11, as per VP Cheney. I may marry Jessica Simpson, too. You might be smart one day, but I doubt it

Some of those calls were pretty bad. The interference call on Max was a real stinker! Too bad, I love playing the Leafs, but hate losing to them

Yup, good thing we invaded Soviet Union to end Cold War. Nah, diplomacy never works, nope, never

And Shiites and Sunnis are killing each other now in Iraq. Iran is al-Quida's enemy. The Iranians are supporting the Shiite militias that are basically part of the government we are funding and American boys are dying to protect.

It sure looks like what you are saying is coming true. Drudge had a Pat Buchannan article from antiwar.com up the last few days about this: http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10290 We also note that the Iranian consulate was raided by US troops. Provoking a response? If Bush can stir the country up for another war he might feel he is off the hook for Iraq. FDR had the USS Greer incident, LBJ had the Maddox and Turner Joy 'Incident' and who knows? The war lovers are sure hoping we can send Americans into another fight, something exciting on tv and all.

Arf!

Fine, and Kudos to Bush one for "liberating" Kuwait and all. Still, be careful for what you wish for, namely a war. The love of war will get us no where. That is what you want. You claim the end of the world will happen if we don't attack, but an attack could very well bring about the same results. The Saudi foreign minister--no friend of Iran, mind you--said that just one missle fired TOWARDS Saudi Arabia would drive the price of oil to $100 a bbl. Now imagine the Straights of Hormuz cut off, or a direct hit on a few oil tankers in the Gulf or on Sadis oil facilities, or if Iran simply refuses to sell its oil for one week or a month. You might say, no big deal, but in the real world there would be a giant impact, felt at every level. The Baker Iraq commission made a lot of sense in my opinion. Its time to open up channels to talk. We all have to live on this planet together and with all the countries building nukes now its better we talk than fight. Talking will also give us better electorial success in Iran. After all, the current moron 'in charge' over there would have lost had not Bush labled them as part of Axis of Evil.

The name Ruuuuuuuutuuu brings up good memories? I only remember the year he was our second line center and scored all of two goals all year. I believe he was later traded to Chicago

Oh great, the little dog has an opinion. So war for oil is a good idea with you? Too bad we lost this war for oil and just haven't realized it yet. So while its fine with you our troops are dying to secure a resourse, what do we do when we hit peak oil? Wouldn't it be smarter to turn to conservation, alternative energy and others measures instead of war? What do other posters think about our little dog here thinking a war for oil is a good thing? Arf arf!

Say, what's your position on the issue we are discussing? Or don't you have one? That would be my bet