>White House considers war overseer

WASHINGTON - The White House is considering naming a high-powered official to oversee the wars in
Iraq and
Afghanistan and report directly to
President Bush and National Security Adviser
Stephen Hadley.
ADVERTISEMENT

The goal would be to improve the coordination of military and civilian efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan by different parts of the government.

The Washington Post reported that the White House has approached at least three retired four-star generals in recent weeks, but they have declined to be considered for the position.

TALKING POINTS PROUDLY SUBMITS ITS APPLICATION FOR THE POST, DEAR LEADER Moron In Chief.

EL BILLDO'S QUALIFICATIONS AS OVERSEER:

EL BILLDO'S FURIOUS ATTACK ON ANYTHING THAT LOOKS SUSPICIOUSLY "PROGRESSIVE"

Your Loyal Defender and Apologist:

Outraged Sanctimonious Billdo

"Olbermann's Crutch
partisan chaos

It's been said that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged by reality. Apparently a liberal is someone who's been mugged by little girls."

:D

It's been said that a conservative is a liberal who's run out of new ideas and is paralyzed by their own fear...

What? No one's said that?

Well, I just did...

What? No one's said that?

Well, I just did...

Posted by: LMAO at April 11, 2007 2:39 PM
Safe to say everyone is laughing at YOU!

Wasn't KO laughing it up the other night at Mister Bush for almost blowing himself and some Ford Motor executives up?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2007-04-11T191736Z_01_N11231422_RTRUKOC_0_US-FORD-BUSH-JOKE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Why was the last link directed to a blog that had loving, wonderful things to say about Olbermann? And why do most of the posts on YouTube seem to promote his show? Only 1% of OlbermannWatch's vids are critical of him... the rest shows him commenting or interviewing people that agree with his views. That doesn't seem to make any sense. HannityWatch and OReillyWatch compile lies on a daily basis, but with OlbermannWatch they "catch" him on something laughable once every three weeks. Is it because even though we don't share his views, his opinion is based on fact, so it's hard to catch him? I've researched much of what he says - and I will say this - he does his homework.

> he does his homework.

Yeah, if lifting from MyDD, Daily Kos, moveon, Media Matters, and the bluest of the blue blogs is "homework". His "research" is exactly what one would expect from a slovenly political hack.

is that the only reply to my post... why not address the rest? If he didn't do his homework (researching the facts) OlbyWatch would catch him more often. They had a countdown clock for olbermann that they had to reset - now it's over a thousand days! They even sell his book and give Keith-friendly links! I don't understand this site. I've never seen anything like it. They post videos on YouTube that receive very favorable reviews - favorable towards Olbermann. They are helping him reach fans he normally wouldn't reach. His ratings are rising because he's saying what most people have been wanting the media to say. And OlbermannWatch is helping his star rise. I wouldn't be surprised if this site isn't owned by him or a fan of his. Nice try Johnny Dollar.

And OlbermannWatch is helping his star rise. I wouldn't be surprised if this site isn't owned by him or a fan of his. Nice try Johnny Dollar.

Posted by: John at April 13, 2007 2:21 AM

He's on to you, Johnny.

And OlbermannWatch is helping his star rise. I wouldn't be surprised if this site isn't owned by him or a fan of his. Nice try Johnny Dollar.

Posted by: John at April 13, 2007 2:21 AM

It's not on purpose, John, it's just incompetence. Sort of like Bush overthrowing a secular dictator and ushering in an era of religious fanatics.

Unintended consequences are the scourge of incompetent people everywhere.

I don't know what I meant by that... I just like his ID - Johnny Dollar

I don't know what I meant by that... I just like his ID - Johnny Dollar

Posted by: John at April 14, 2007 10:27 PM

Move to the back of the line, John. Back of the line...

I love you Cecelia.

Top ex-military leaders call global warming major security risk

SETH BORENSTEIN | AP | April 15, 2007 09:03 AM EST

WASHINGTON — Global warming poses a "serious threat to America's national security" with terrorism worsening and the U.S. will likely be dragged into fights over water and other shortages, top retired military leaders warn in a new report.

Joining calls already made by scientists and environmental activists, the retired U.S. military leaders, including the former Army chief of staff and President George W. Bush's former chief Middle East peace negotiator, called on the U.S. government to make major cuts in emissions of gases that cause global warming.

The report warned that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicted.

"Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations," former U.S. Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan told Associated Press Radio. "Everybody needs to start paying attention to what's going on. I don't think this is a particularly hard sell in the Pentagon. ... We're paying attention to what those security implications are."

Gen. Anthony "Tony" Zinni, Bush's former Middle East envoy, said in the report: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism."

The report was issued by the Alexandria, Virginia-based, national security think-tank The CNA Corporation and was written by six retired admirals and five retired generals. They warned of a future of rampant disease, water shortages and flooding that will make already dicey areas _ such as the Middle East, Asia and Africa _ even worse.

"Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies," the report said. "The U.S. will be drawn more frequently into these situations."

In a veiled reference to Bush's refusal to join an international treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the report said the U.S. government "must become a more constructive partner" with other nations to fight global warming and cope with its consequences.

The Bush administration has declined mandatory emission cuts in favor of voluntary methods. Other nations have committed to required reductions that kick in within a few years.

"We will pay for this one way or another," wrote Zinni, former commander of U.S. Central Command. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."

Top climate scientists said the report makes sense and increased national security risk is a legitimate global warming side-effect.

The report is "pretty impressive," but may be too alarmist because it may take longer than 30 years for some of these things to happen, said Stanford scientist Terry Root, a co-author of this month's international scientific report on the effects of global warming on life on Earth.

But the instability will happen sometime, Root agreed.

"We're going to have a war over water," Root said. "There's just not going to be enough water around for us to have for us to need to live with and to provide for the natural environment."

University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver said the military officers were smart to highlight the issue of refugees who flee unstable areas because of global warming.

"There will be tens of millions of people migrating, where are we going to put them?" Weaver said.

Weaver said that over the past years, scientists, who by nature are cautious, have been attacked by conservative activists when warning about climate change. This shows that it's not a liberal-conservative issue, Weaver said.

"There will be tens of millions of people migrating, where are we going to put them?" Weaver said.

Maybe we should ask THE FACTOR, because he's this site's global warming expert.
I'm sure he'll know.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

"It's not on purpose, John, it's just incompetence. Sort of like Bush overthrowing a secular dictator and ushering in an era of religious fanatics.

Unintended consequences are the scourge of incompetent people everywhere.
Posted by: LMAO at April 13, 2007 4:56 AM"

This comment proposed an idea that I find difficult to accept. Taken at face value it also means that the consequences of the competent are always intended, so therefore the consequences of their actions are always intended.

I understand LMAO's intention with his remark, but let me illustrate the difficulty as I see it.

From the Washington Times:

"Inside Politics: A hard-earned lesson
The Washington Times ^ | January 7, 2003 | Greg Pierce

Posted on 01/09/2003 4:44:51 PM PST by NonValueAdded

"Most Americans celebrated as the ball fell in Times Square New Year's Eve. But for auto dealers this new year is especially sweet. January 1 marked the expiration of the federal luxury tax on cars, the last vestige of the destructive luxury tax package in the infamous 1990 budget deal," the Wall Street Journal says.

"Starting in 1991, Washington levied a 10 percent tax on cars valued above $30,000, boats above $100,000, jewelry and furs above $10,000 and private planes above $250,000. Democrats like Ted Kennedy and then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share and privately about convincing President George H.W. Bush to renounce his 'no new taxes' pledge," the newspaper said in an editorial.

"But it wasn't long before even those die-hard class warriors noticed they'd badly missed their mark. The taxes took in $97 million less in their first year than had been projected � for the simple reason that people were buying a lot fewer of these goods. Boat building, a key industry in Messrs. Mitchell and Kennedy's home states of Maine and Massachusetts, was particularly hard hit. Yacht retailers reported a 77 percent drop in sales that year, while boat builders estimated layoffs at 25,000. With bipartisan support, all but the car tax was repealed in 1993, and in 1996 Congress voted to phase that out too. January 1 was disappearance day.

"The end of any federal tax is such a rarity that it's well worth celebrating. And the luxury-tax lesson of economic damage is worth keeping in mind as politicians begin to wail that President Bush's new tax proposals aren't punitive enough on the rich."

(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ..."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/81993
6/posts

Did Senators Mitchell and Kennedy intend to reduce revenues to the Feds and put 25,000 workers out of work?

Did they intend to get a talking point and thought the damage would be less, so not highly publicized?

Are they incompetent and therefore didn't realize the unintended consequences were sure to follow?

Did they become incompetent only after the unintended consequences occurred?

Just asking.

Grammie

"Top ex-military leaders call global warming major security risk."

Ex military leaders are also of the group that feel that the Iraq War has been a complete failure.
Imagine that !
Only in Bush's America could military people become hard core "leftists".

The truth is that EVEN the military has seen the truth on these issues.
It's as obvious as the air between Jeff's and The Factor's ears !

The Washington Times, a truly right wing publication.

Everyone notice how many articles in many publications grammie had to avoid and dismiss on the failures of her Republican leadership to finally find one ( in a right wing rag) to diss Democrats.

Grammie Squawkins, a truly blind, partisan and unpatiotic American !

Sorry, Chicken Blogger, I thought you were making a statement with universal applications. If you had made a little footnote or something to indicate that you are highly selective and prejudiced in applying your own criteria, I would not have bothered.

Grammie

Notice that The Squawkins had to go back to 2003 for the article.

Very topical Grammie.

Now for some news a little more up to date :

By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

BAGHDAD - Cars, minibuses and roadside bombs exploded in Shiite Muslim enclaves across the city Sunday, killing at least 45 people in sectarian violence that defied the Baghdad security crackdown, while a radical anti-U.S. cleric raised a new threat to
Iraq's government.

Two officials close to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said his followers would quit their six Cabinet posts Monday — a move that could leave Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's already weak administration without enough support to stay in power.

And in a rare gesture of dissent from America's partners in Baghdad, dozens of Iraqi policemen demonstrated in front of their station, accusing U.S. troops of treating them like "animals" and "slaves."

Notice the Bushies NEVER talk about Iraq.
Wonder why !

BTW, Grammie, "my critieria" are facts....as in the above article showing once again how well your SURGE is working.

The right is waiting until Iraq totally crumbles to the ground before they MAY admit that the Surge is not working.

...unintended consequences?

They didn't prepare for the consequences. They knew what they wanted, but had no idea how execute.

Jim Baker said he doesn't get asked anymore why they didn't go into Bahgdad in 1991.

They knew that by removing Saddam, there would be a political vaccuum, and the different factions would fight to to gain power. Scowcroft knew it, George Sr knew it. They knew if you did go in, you would have to go in with a large show of force. It was common knowledge. Many of the generals expressed it to Rumsfeld and Bush. Rummy wanted to do it on the cheap, and he also broke up the Republican Guard - two major mistakes. But there's enough incompetence to go around. From the cherry picking of raw data (uncofirmed and unverified) about weapons of mass destruction to lying about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

If you talk to anyone connected with Bush Sr's administration, the current state of Iraq should not have been an unintended consequence.

Along with your analogy from the Washington Times... I have another one for you.

from The Secret History of the CIA:

"As CIA director, the presidents father, George HW Bush, joined with a Saudi prince to create a bank for covert operations to fight the Soviets through the Islamic cause in Afghanistan. The Bank of Credit and Commerce International collapsed in scandal, but it's personalities and pieces became the vessels and conduits of the terrorist network that funneled money to finance the 9/11 operation."

Now that's an unintended consequence.

Google: Bush Carlyle Bin Laden PNAC

and enlighten yourself.