How stupid can this God Damn fundamentalist hick from Texas possibly be? I am speechless that this worthless piece of human trash has not been impeached.
Associated Press
President Bush on Thursday predicted victory in the war on terror at a time of increasing public anxiety at home, likening the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism with the fight against Nazis and communists.
With just more than two months until Election Day, Bush said opponents of the war in Iraq who are calling for a plan to bring home troops would create a disaster in the Mideast.
“Many of these folks are sincere and they’re patriotic but they could be – they could not be more wrong,” the president said.
“If America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable, and absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies – Saddam’s former henchmen, armed groups with ties to Iran, and al-Qaida terrorists from all over the world who would suddenly have a base of operations far more valuable than Afghanistan under the Taliban.”
The president chose a friendly audience in one of the United States' most conservative states to begin his pre-election series of speeches defending his war strategy. The three-week campaign is tied to the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
“The war we fight today is more than a military conflict,” Bush told thousands of veterans at the American Legion convention. “It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century.”
Only a third of Americans saying they approve of Bush’s handling of the war or his leadership overall – a figure that worries Republicans who are hoping they have enough support to keep control of Congress in elections just more than two months away.
Democrats said Bush’s speeches don’t change his failed Iraq policy.
“The American people know that five years after September 11th, we are not as safe as we should and could be,” said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. “Iraq is in crisis, our military is stretched thin, and terrorist groups and extremist regimes have been strengthened and emboldened across the Middle East and the world.”
A majority of Americans approved of the way Bush responded to the Sept. 11 attacks nearly five years ago, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that came out Thursday, and the president was trying to remind them of that as the anniversary approaches.
Bush described the current violence in the Mideast and the recently thwarted attack to blow up planes over the Atlantic Ocean as part of the same movement that resulted in the Sept. 11 attacks.
“As veterans you have seen this kind of enemy before,” Bush said. “They are successors to fascists, to Nazis, to communists and other totalitarians of the 20th century. And history shows what the outcome will be.
“This war will be difficult. This war will be long. And this war will end in the defeat of the terrorists,” Bush said.
He acknowledged the unsettling times – marked by sectarian violence in Iraq, war along the Israel-Lebanon border and terrorists allegedly plotting to blow up planes between Britain and the United States.
“The images that come back from the front lines are striking and sometimes unsettling,” Bush said. “When you see innocent civilians ripped apart by suicide bombs or families buried inside their homes, the world can seem engulfed in purposeless violence.”
But he also said that those responsible for bringing down the World Trade Center are united with car bombers in Baghdad, Hezbollah militants who shoot rockets into Israel and terrorists who wanted to bring down the flights between Britain and the United States.
“Despite their differences, these groups form the outline of a single movement, a worldwide network of radicals that use terror to kill those who stand in the way of their totalitarian ideology,” he said. “And the unifying feature of this movement, the link that spans sectarian divisions and local grievances, is the rigid conviction that free societies are a threat to their twisted view of Islam.”
Even in Utah, which gave Bush a wider margin of victory than any other state in the 2004 election, the president’s appearance was a source of dispute.
Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, a Democrat, led thousands of anti-Bush demonstrators on a march through the city Wednesday. He called Bush a “dishonest, warmongering, human-rights-violating president.”
The White House countered by organizing a campaign-like rally at the airport for Bush’s arrival Wednesday night. A couple thousand cheering supporters, who got tickets from the governor’s office and the congressional delegation, stood under floodlights and cheered as Bush pledged to stay in Iraq.
The pro-Bush American Legion did not have any anti-war speakers or nationally prominent Democrats scheduled to speak at its convention, which attracted at least 12,000 veterans.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld addressed the group earlier this week as part of the high-powered campaign to build support for the war.
This is the third time in less than a year that Bush has made a series of speeches on Iraq and terrorism. This time, it’s an all-hands-on-deck effort, with Vice President Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld also touting the mission this week.
While in Salt Lake City, Bush had a half-hour private meeting with leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He also raised at least $500,000 by speaking at a $500-per-plate luncheon for Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch.
For more on this story, see Friday's editions of The Journal Gazette or visit http://www.journalgazette.net after 7 a.m. Fort Wayne time Friday.
POSTED: 3:05 P.M. THURSDAY, AUG. 31, 2006
Liberal Christians
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Black Holes: The Deadliest Force in the Universe
When Sci-Fi Becomes Reality, and Destruction Is Total
Aug. 28, 2006 — - Imagine a black hole swallowing Earth, ending life in an instant. It's not only the stuff of pulp sci-fi novels but, scientists say, a looming possibility.
"It would be a bad day for the solar system if we got visited by a black hole," says Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of New York's Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History.
In our vast galaxy there are billions upon billions of stars, each of which is at a different point in its life cycle. Citing the law of averages, some scientists believe at least one star dies every day.
And in death, stars occasionally give birth to black holes; when a massive celestial body's core collapses, it creates an immense gravitational pull not unlike an invisible cosmic vacuum cleaner. As it moves, it sucks in all matter in its way -- not even light can escape.
"If you shoot a nuclear weapon right into a black hole, the effect would be smaller than a pinprick compared to the enormous gravitational pull of a black hole itself," explains Michio Kaku, professor of theoretical physics at City University of New York.
A black hole lies in the heart of every large galaxy. A monstrous one sits in the center of our own Milky Way. Astronomers say probably more than 10 million black holes inhabit the cosmos.
Hell Breaking Loose
Initially, scientists believed we had nothing to fear, because black holes were thought of as fairly stationary.
"Then, in the year 2000, all hell broke loose," Kaku says. "At that point, we had conclusive evidence that there are wandering black holes -- nomads, renegades -- right next to us in our own backyard of a galaxy."
Fortunately, scientists say the probability of a black hole heading straight toward Earth and swallowing us whole is highly unlikely. But what would happen to us if one entered our solar system and came close to Earth?
Although scientists haven't directly observed a black hole (since a black hole swallows light), they have observed the effect of a black hole on surrounding material. Astronomers say the first sign of a black hole's approach would be subtle changes in the night sky. The gravity from a black hole would distort Earth's orbit and we'd begin to notice differences in the orbits of other planets and stars in the galaxy.
The closer a black hole gets to Earth, the worse the disruptions would become. But even from a billion miles away from our solar system, a black hole would still cause a disruption in Earth's orbit, leading to changes in our tides.
If a rogue black hole ever closed in on our solar system and crept up next to Earth, the resulting havoc would seem like the wildest science fiction. Either Earth would career out of its orbit, spinning out of the solar system, or in the opposite direction, toward the sun, and we'd suffer a deadly warming.
In either scenario, a black hole closing on Earth would cause our home planet to be literally ripped apart and swallowed whole.
" In a contest between a black hole and the Earth," Tyson says, "Earth would lose. It's that simple."
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
Aug. 28, 2006 — - Imagine a black hole swallowing Earth, ending life in an instant. It's not only the stuff of pulp sci-fi novels but, scientists say, a looming possibility.
"It would be a bad day for the solar system if we got visited by a black hole," says Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of New York's Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History.
In our vast galaxy there are billions upon billions of stars, each of which is at a different point in its life cycle. Citing the law of averages, some scientists believe at least one star dies every day.
And in death, stars occasionally give birth to black holes; when a massive celestial body's core collapses, it creates an immense gravitational pull not unlike an invisible cosmic vacuum cleaner. As it moves, it sucks in all matter in its way -- not even light can escape.
"If you shoot a nuclear weapon right into a black hole, the effect would be smaller than a pinprick compared to the enormous gravitational pull of a black hole itself," explains Michio Kaku, professor of theoretical physics at City University of New York.
A black hole lies in the heart of every large galaxy. A monstrous one sits in the center of our own Milky Way. Astronomers say probably more than 10 million black holes inhabit the cosmos.
Hell Breaking Loose
Initially, scientists believed we had nothing to fear, because black holes were thought of as fairly stationary.
"Then, in the year 2000, all hell broke loose," Kaku says. "At that point, we had conclusive evidence that there are wandering black holes -- nomads, renegades -- right next to us in our own backyard of a galaxy."
Fortunately, scientists say the probability of a black hole heading straight toward Earth and swallowing us whole is highly unlikely. But what would happen to us if one entered our solar system and came close to Earth?
Although scientists haven't directly observed a black hole (since a black hole swallows light), they have observed the effect of a black hole on surrounding material. Astronomers say the first sign of a black hole's approach would be subtle changes in the night sky. The gravity from a black hole would distort Earth's orbit and we'd begin to notice differences in the orbits of other planets and stars in the galaxy.
The closer a black hole gets to Earth, the worse the disruptions would become. But even from a billion miles away from our solar system, a black hole would still cause a disruption in Earth's orbit, leading to changes in our tides.
If a rogue black hole ever closed in on our solar system and crept up next to Earth, the resulting havoc would seem like the wildest science fiction. Either Earth would career out of its orbit, spinning out of the solar system, or in the opposite direction, toward the sun, and we'd suffer a deadly warming.
In either scenario, a black hole closing on Earth would cause our home planet to be literally ripped apart and swallowed whole.
" In a contest between a black hole and the Earth," Tyson says, "Earth would lose. It's that simple."
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
Gathering nuclear storm
By Arnaud de Borchgrave
Published August 29, 2006
Just days before the United Nations Security Council deadline for Iran to cease and desist enriching uranium, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave the West the Iranian bird. By inaugurating a "heavy-water" reactor, Iran instantly doubled its chances of acquiring nuclear weapons. Adding insult to injury, the military mullahs test-fired a new long-range missile -- the Thaqeb, or Saturn, a submarine-to-surface weapon.
The new reactor runs on natural uranium mined by Iran and skips the difficult enrichment phase to produce plutonium, which gives nukes the power to obliterate entire cities. Of course, all these efforts, says Iran's president, is to treat and diagnose AIDS and cancer patients. And -- we almost forgot -- to generate more power to improve agriculture. The fact Iran has sufficient oil reserves to generate electric power for generations to come is conveniently overlooked.
Iran is now confident neither Russia nor China will go along with meaningful economic sanctions. Moscow says sanctions have never worked, ignoring those that collapsed South Africa's apartheid regime. The handwriting on the geopolitical landscape has convinced Israel and its core support in the U.S., from the neoconservatives to the Christian Right, that a military solution is inescapable.
Leading conservatives have said World War III -- the ultimate clash of civilizations -- has been under way since September 11, 2001. Some neocons say it started when the mullahs forced the shah into exile and seized power in Iran in early 1979 -- and that President Bush and Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair are treading water among the appeasers. They remind Mr. Bush he vowed not to leave office without first ensuring that "the worst weapons will not fall into the worst hands" and thus Iran cannot become a nuclear power. Their ideological guide Richard Perle goes so far as to accuse Mr. Bush, who knows Iran has pursued a secret nuclear weapons program for the last 19 years, of opting for "ignominious retreat."
Overlooked in this calculus is Mr. Bush's burden of two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, and a much-diminished U.S. military. A third front against Iran, an ancient civilization of 70 million with global retaliatory capabilities (e.g., Hezbollah), is a frightening prospect that conjures up the nightmare of a return to the draft.
Mr. Bush believes deeply that Iran poses an existential threat to close ally Israel. Congress recently voted a resolution that said an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States. Mr. Bush also believes Iran is determined to sabotage American hopes of establishing a new democratic Middle East.
In Iraq, clandestine Iranian aid, from sophisticated "Improvised Explosive Devices" to funds and weapons to the two main Shi'ite militias, may be designed to maneuver the U.S. into a humiliating, Vietnamlike withdrawal from Iraq.
Given Mr. Bush's overarching dedication to "winning the Global War on Terrorism," said one former senior intelligence analyst, the neutralization of Iran has become a sine qua non, "equal if not higher on his list of priorities than 'victory' in Iraq, another impossibility that he is unwilling to recognize, even privately, much less acknowledge publicly."
Mr. Bush's national security advisers have also pointed out that an escalating danger of U.S.-Iran military confrontation automatically intensifies internal and regional opposition to U.S. objectives in Iraq. The president keeps reminding private interlocutors to think of how history will judge this critical period 15 to 20 years hence. He sees personal and national humiliation if he were to leave office having acquiesced to an embryonic Iranian nuclear arsenal.
So odds makers bet sometime before the end of his second term President Bush will order a massive air attack on a wide range of carefully selected targets in Iran, in partnership with Israel, and against the advice of many of his advisers. Mr. Bush is convinced a nuclear Iran would pose an intolerable threat to U.S. national security and, as one former intelligence topsider put it, "he is firm in his faith that God agrees with him on that point, and certain that history will eventually recognize and properly appreciate his courageous and visionary leadership."
This raises the question of congressional approval. As George Will said to CBS' George Stephanopoulos two Sundays ago, when was the last time this president ever worried about getting approval in advance from the Congress or the public?
In any event, Israel is not taking any chances. Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres said last week Israel would not be the first to attack Iran. Other Israeli voices say Israel will have to do just that. Israel recently added a new command to the IDF -- the "Iran Command." Its new commander is Maj. Gen. Elyezer Shkedy, Israel's Air Force chief. He is responsible for all conflicts with countries "not bordering Israel." The Jewish state's strategic thinkers and military planners take the diminutive Mr. Ahmadinejad at his word when he says Israel must be "wiped off the map."
Most worrisome for Israel is Hezbollah's recent military performance against the Israeli Defense Force in Lebanon. The perception is this Iranian surrogate resisted and repelled a mighty foe. The reality is Iran's new-mown conviction Israel can be defeated. So Israel will now have to prove, yet again, that it cannot.
Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.
Published August 29, 2006
Just days before the United Nations Security Council deadline for Iran to cease and desist enriching uranium, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave the West the Iranian bird. By inaugurating a "heavy-water" reactor, Iran instantly doubled its chances of acquiring nuclear weapons. Adding insult to injury, the military mullahs test-fired a new long-range missile -- the Thaqeb, or Saturn, a submarine-to-surface weapon.
The new reactor runs on natural uranium mined by Iran and skips the difficult enrichment phase to produce plutonium, which gives nukes the power to obliterate entire cities. Of course, all these efforts, says Iran's president, is to treat and diagnose AIDS and cancer patients. And -- we almost forgot -- to generate more power to improve agriculture. The fact Iran has sufficient oil reserves to generate electric power for generations to come is conveniently overlooked.
Iran is now confident neither Russia nor China will go along with meaningful economic sanctions. Moscow says sanctions have never worked, ignoring those that collapsed South Africa's apartheid regime. The handwriting on the geopolitical landscape has convinced Israel and its core support in the U.S., from the neoconservatives to the Christian Right, that a military solution is inescapable.
Leading conservatives have said World War III -- the ultimate clash of civilizations -- has been under way since September 11, 2001. Some neocons say it started when the mullahs forced the shah into exile and seized power in Iran in early 1979 -- and that President Bush and Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair are treading water among the appeasers. They remind Mr. Bush he vowed not to leave office without first ensuring that "the worst weapons will not fall into the worst hands" and thus Iran cannot become a nuclear power. Their ideological guide Richard Perle goes so far as to accuse Mr. Bush, who knows Iran has pursued a secret nuclear weapons program for the last 19 years, of opting for "ignominious retreat."
Overlooked in this calculus is Mr. Bush's burden of two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, and a much-diminished U.S. military. A third front against Iran, an ancient civilization of 70 million with global retaliatory capabilities (e.g., Hezbollah), is a frightening prospect that conjures up the nightmare of a return to the draft.
Mr. Bush believes deeply that Iran poses an existential threat to close ally Israel. Congress recently voted a resolution that said an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States. Mr. Bush also believes Iran is determined to sabotage American hopes of establishing a new democratic Middle East.
In Iraq, clandestine Iranian aid, from sophisticated "Improvised Explosive Devices" to funds and weapons to the two main Shi'ite militias, may be designed to maneuver the U.S. into a humiliating, Vietnamlike withdrawal from Iraq.
Given Mr. Bush's overarching dedication to "winning the Global War on Terrorism," said one former senior intelligence analyst, the neutralization of Iran has become a sine qua non, "equal if not higher on his list of priorities than 'victory' in Iraq, another impossibility that he is unwilling to recognize, even privately, much less acknowledge publicly."
Mr. Bush's national security advisers have also pointed out that an escalating danger of U.S.-Iran military confrontation automatically intensifies internal and regional opposition to U.S. objectives in Iraq. The president keeps reminding private interlocutors to think of how history will judge this critical period 15 to 20 years hence. He sees personal and national humiliation if he were to leave office having acquiesced to an embryonic Iranian nuclear arsenal.
So odds makers bet sometime before the end of his second term President Bush will order a massive air attack on a wide range of carefully selected targets in Iran, in partnership with Israel, and against the advice of many of his advisers. Mr. Bush is convinced a nuclear Iran would pose an intolerable threat to U.S. national security and, as one former intelligence topsider put it, "he is firm in his faith that God agrees with him on that point, and certain that history will eventually recognize and properly appreciate his courageous and visionary leadership."
This raises the question of congressional approval. As George Will said to CBS' George Stephanopoulos two Sundays ago, when was the last time this president ever worried about getting approval in advance from the Congress or the public?
In any event, Israel is not taking any chances. Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres said last week Israel would not be the first to attack Iran. Other Israeli voices say Israel will have to do just that. Israel recently added a new command to the IDF -- the "Iran Command." Its new commander is Maj. Gen. Elyezer Shkedy, Israel's Air Force chief. He is responsible for all conflicts with countries "not bordering Israel." The Jewish state's strategic thinkers and military planners take the diminutive Mr. Ahmadinejad at his word when he says Israel must be "wiped off the map."
Most worrisome for Israel is Hezbollah's recent military performance against the Israeli Defense Force in Lebanon. The perception is this Iranian surrogate resisted and repelled a mighty foe. The reality is Iran's new-mown conviction Israel can be defeated. So Israel will now have to prove, yet again, that it cannot.
Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
