Whoa! I must say I pleasantly surprised somehow I expected a lot more SOLers to equate the pills with abortion than 2/13.

^^LOOL@blame Schumer - his warning letter freaked out investors according to the whitehouse. Jon Stewart's funny take on the apparent disconnect between the president and the chairman of the FED's take on the economy.

Washington, D.C. -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on reports that the Bush Administration’s is drafting a proposed rule that would place new restrictions on domestic family planning programs. While current law already allows health care providers and professionals to refuse to provide abortions based on their religious beliefs, this provision would threaten the funding of organizations and health facilities if they do not hire people who would refuse to provide birth control. “If the Administration goes through with this draft proposal, it will launch a dangerous assault on women’s health. “The majority of Americans oppose this out of touch position that redefines contraception as abortion and represents a sustained pattern of the Bush Administration to reject medical and sound science in favor of a misguided ideology that has no place in our government. “I urge the President to reject this policy and join with Democrats to focus on preventing unintended pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion through increasing access to family planning services and access to affordable birth control.”

Do you think using birth control is the same thing as having an abortion? PS don’t assume everything is about the poster – tis' a scientific question

This land is my land!!!

^^ He used to lead the tarawih prayers at the MCC last ramadan. I don't know if he is still there, will find out next ramadan.

President Bush: ``It's been a difficult time for many American families,'' he said. Still, he said, the economy is demonstrating ``remarkable resilience.'' Bush spoke as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke was testifying before the Senate Banking Committee, where he said the economy is facing ``significant downside risks'' to growth and the threat of higher inflation. Enough said ...

I didn't know this still happens in some parts of the world. Part 1 Part 2

^^ It would have been funnier coming from Mccain's mouth.

LOOOL @ Bella sweetie being a housewife is your prerogative but don’t assume it’s every woman’s cup of tea. Some of us wear that "independent" woman badge with pride

I asked for the moon and few stars - didn't get any of it but oh well!

To the corporate media, Obama is black and McCain is white Ben Smith from Politico writes: "I'm a little on the fence here. It's obviously satire, made clearer by the fact that the New Yorker is a deeply friendly publication to Obama and the Democrats these days. So is the outrage -- encouraged here by the campaign -- an appropriate reaction? Or the new, pro-Obama PC? (If the latter, all's fair on the campaign trail in any case... but it could prove a worryingly powerful tool used from the White House.)" I like Ben, but I don't recall any such concern when his own story from two weeks ago was used by the McCain campaign, and corporate media pundits like Mrs. Greenspan and others, to repeatedly eviscerate Wesley Clark and me, among others, for questioning the connection between John McCain's wartime experience and whatever qualifications he may or may not have as commander in chief. We're told that it looks an awful lot like pro-Obama PC to object to the depiction of Mrs. Obama as some blackxploitation gunslinger, of Senator Obama as a look-alike for Osama, of both as flag burners who would defile the Oval Office. Depicting Obama and his wife in this offensive, stereotypical, and borderline racist manner is okay and fair game because, as Ben says, "all's fair on the campaign trail." But, as we learned just two weeks ago, asking questions and drawing conclusions about actual experiences from John McCain's life, and their impact on his qualifications for president, is beyond the pale, gutter politics, and downright un-American. And what's worse - no one in the corporate media suggested that it was pro-McCain PC when the pundits-that-be declared McCain's military record, and more generally his qualifications as commander in chief, whiter than the driven snow and totally off-limits to any criticism or even questioning. All is not fair, by any means, when John McCain is the topic. It's the classic problem of American journalism, and American society, vis-a-vis Democrats and the left. Tangentially suggest that getting shot down doesn't necessarily qualify John McCain to be president and you are the one who hates America. There's no discussion, no debate. The question simply cannot be asked because the conclusion is "obvious" and unworthy of debate, and debate itself is deemed offensive. But portray Barack Obama and his wife as a walking racial - nay, racist - stereotype, and it's not just acceptable, but anyone who would question the propriety of such a portrayal is, again, un-American. Criticize McCain, you're un-American. Defend Obama, you're un-American. Now, imagine had Barack Obama said that he didn't love his country until he was a 30-something. Do you think Obama would face criticism? Do you honestly think he'd even survive as a candidate in post 9/11 America? And then imagine were John McCain mocked on the cover of the New Yorker, dressed in POW garb, with a drug addicted, pill popping, gun-toting wife and depicted in a manner that suggested that he loves Osama bin Laden and hates America. Would the corporate media be talking about pro-McCain PC-ists who can't take a joke? Or would the New Yorker get Dixie Chicked? Source

^^ It's interesting that the Whitehouse was blaming this on Sen. Schumer yesterday because of a warning letter he sent mid last month.

^^ Yes he changed his positions on FISA and public financing but nothing else as far as I can see - the man has always had some nuanced positions. Here is a form letter I received from his senate office after sending some heated emails to his constituency service office last week. ============================= Dear xxxxxx: Thank you for contacting me concerning the President’s domestic surveillance program. I appreciate hearing from you. Providing any President with the flexibility necessary to fight terrorism without compromising our constitutional rights can be a delicate balance. I agree that technological advances and changes in the nature of the threat our nation faces may require that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), enacted in 1978, be updated to reflect the reality of the post 9/11 world. But that does not absolve the President of the responsibility to fully brief Congress on the new security challenge and to work cooperatively with Congress to address it. Congress has been considering the issue of domestic surveillance since last year. Just before the August recess in 2007, Congress passed hastily crafted legislation to expand the authority of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct surveillance of suspected foreign terrorists without a warrant or real oversight, even if the targets are communicating with someone in the United States. This legislation was signed into law by the President on August 5, 2007. On November 15, 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3773, the “Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007” (RESTORE Act) by a vote of 227-189. The House bill did not provide retroactive immunity for private companies that may have participated in the illegal collection of personal information, nor does it provide immunity for Administration officials who may have acted illegally. On February 12, 2008, the Senate passed S. 2248, making its own reforms to FISA. During consideration of this bill, I was proud to cosponsor several amendments, including the Dodd-Feingold amendment to strike the immunity provision, which would have enhanced privacy protections while maintaining the tools to fight terrorism. However, with the defeat of this amendment, the bill did not provide for a mechanism that would allow the American people to learn exactly what the Bush Administration did with its warrantless wiretapping program and provided for no accountability. The House and Senate worked out a compromise, reconciling differences between the two versions of the bill. While I recognize that this compromise is imperfect, I supported this legislation, which provides an important tool to fight the war on terrorism and provides for an Inspectors General report so that we can finally get to the bottom of the warrantless wiretapping program and how it undermined our civil liberties. Importantly, the improvements in the bill were the result of a strong grassroots movement of Americans who demanded the protection of their civil liberties. However, I remain disappointed that this bill, now signed into law, grants an unprecedented level of immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the President's warrantless wiretapping program. I joined several of my colleagues in efforts to remove the immunity provision from the bill, and I am sorry to report that these efforts failed. The American people understand that new threats require flexible responses to keep them safe, and that our intelligence gathering capability needs to be improved. In a dangerous world, the government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. The American people do not want the President or the Congress to use our security imperatives as a pretext for promoting policies that not only go further than necessary to meet a real threat, but also violate some of the most basic tenets of our democracy. Like most members of Congress, I continue to believe that the essential objective of conducting effective domestic surveillance in the War on Terror can be achieved without discarding our constitutionally protected civil liberties. Thank you again for writing. Please stay in touch as this debate continues. Sincerely, Barack Obama United States Senator

My Plan for Iraq By BARACK OBAMA Published: July 14, 2008 THE call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States. The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown. In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness. But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge. The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009. Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government. But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war. Con’t reading …

Why do we have one of these threads pop up every couple of months to tell us Somalis are not homogeneous? I mean really who cares. :rolleyes:

All you cab drivers, stop hating on the guy he is planning to serve his adopted country with honor. :cool: I say let the brother spread out democracy NZ style.

Good luck to the siter, am glad she was able to get out of xamar safe and sound.

Nice song - without peace there can be no prosperity

The Audacity of Listening By GAIL COLLINS Published: July 10, 2008 We have to have a talk about Barack Obama. I know, I know. You’re upset. You think the guy you fell in love with last spring is spending the summer flip-flopping his way to the right. Drifting to the center. Going all moderate on you. So you’re withholding the love. Also possibly the money. I feel your pain. I just don’t know what candidate you’re talking about. Think back. Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton in the first place? Their policies were almost identical — except his health care proposal was more conservative. You liked Barack because you thought he could get us past the old brain-dead politics, right? He talked — and talked and talked — about how there were going to be no more red states and blue states, how he was going to bring Americans together, including Republicans and Democrats. Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place? Left field? When an extremely intelligent politician tells you over and over and over that he is tired of the take-no-prisoners politics of the last several decades, that he is going to get things done and build a “new consensus,” he is trying to explain that he is all about compromise. Even if he says it in that great Baracky way. Here’s a helpful story: Once upon a time, there was a woman searching for a guy who was ready to commit. One day, she met an attractive young man. “My name is Chuck,” he said, grinning an infectious grin. “I’m planning to devote my entire life to saving endangered wildlife in the Antarctic. In five weeks I leave for the South Pole, where I will live alone in a tent, trying to convince the penguins that I am part of their flock. In the meantime, would you like to go out?” “I have just met the man I’m going to marry,” she told her friends. She had been betrayed by poor listening skills, which skipped right over the South Pole and the tent. Of course, after five weeks of heavy dating, Chuck flew away and was never heard from again. A year and a half of campaigning and we still haven’t heard Obama’s penguins, either. It’s not his fault that we missed the message — although to be fair, he did make it sound as if getting rid of the “old politics” involved driving out the oil and pharmaceutical lobbyists rather than splitting the difference on federal wiretapping legislation. But if you look at the political fights he’s picked throughout his political career, the main theme is not any ideology. It’s that he hates stup!dity. “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war,” he said in 2002 in his big speech against the invasion of Iraq. He did not, you will notice, say he was against unilateral military action or pre-emptive attacks or nation-building. He was antidumb. Most of the things Obama’s taken heat for saying this summer fall into these two familiar patterns — attempts to find a rational common ground on controversial issues and dumb-avoidance. On the common-ground front, he’s called for giving more federal money to religious groups that run social programs, but only if the services they offer are secular. People can have guns for hunting and protection, but we should crack down on unscrupulous gun sellers. Putting some restrictions on the government’s ability to wiretap is better than nothing, even though he would rather have gone further. Dumb-avoidance would include his opposing the gas-tax holiday, backtracking on the anti-Nafta pandering he did during the primary and acknowledging that if one is planning to go all the way to Iraq to talk to the generals, one should actually pay attention to what the generals say. Touching both bases are Obama’s positions that 1) if people are going to ask him every day why he’s not wearing a flag pin, it’s easier to just wear the pin, for heaven’s sake, and 2) there’s nothing to be gained by getting into a fight over whether the death penalty can be imposed on child rapists. His decision to ditch public campaign financing, on the other hand, was nothing but a complete, total, purebred flip-flop. If you are a person who feels campaign finance reform is the most important issue facing America right now, you should either vote for John McCain or go home and put a pillow over your head. However, I believe I have met every single person in the country for whom campaign finance reform is the tiptop priority, and their numbers are not legion. Meanwhile, Obama has made it clear what issues he thinks all this cleverness and compromising are supposed to serve: national health care, a smart energy policy and getting American troops out of Iraq. He has tons of other concerns, but those seem to be the top three. There’s definitely a penguin in there somewhere. OP-ED Piece

Originally posted by Baashi: I gotta tell you folks the thrill is gone. Obama has lost his magic touch. He's moving to the center which means he has to eat back his words and dish out lame explanations. For those who didn't know now they know the man is just another politician. Still I am going to vote for him. Between the two politicians running, his rhetoric is more tolerable. The only thing the man reversed on himself is the FISA bill which by the way Hillary voted against it yesterday just to twist the knife little bit. I don't think he is moving to the center, only difference in his positions is how he phrases it and which words he emphasizes. But overall his policy positions haven’t changed.

The fact that this administration has done this over and over and over to perfectly innocent people in the name of 'war on terrorism' is mind-boggling. Hitchens was mentally scarred knowing full well that nothing would happen to him, and it only lasted for seventeen seconds, imagine the mental and emotional devastation these prisoners feel when this is done so many times that they lose count. Only to be thrown back into a prison cell convinced they will never leave. I hope the Bush-Chaney crowd is tried for war crimes by the next admin.

^^ I am actually this close to getting of the Obama bandwagon - first it was the 'muslim smear' thing than the Jerusalem must never be divided and now Iran and the FISA bill. My patience is running out but I am hopping he will be much better than McCain. So I will wait it out and see what he does next.

Three Amigos: Bush, McCain, Obama Draw a Blood-Red Line on Iran by Chris Floyd Thursday, 3 July 2008 The development of a nuclear weapon by Iran is the great, glowing, neon "red line" of American politics today, one that every single major player in the American power structure says cannot be crossed. An ironclad bipartisan consensus has formed on the issue: Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Period. End of discussion. "All options are on the table" to prevent this from happening, George Bush has repeatedly declared, with John McCain singing along. Meanwhile, Barack Obama has hammered home the point even more forcefully: "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon -- everything." "Everything" in a president's power includes the largest military machine in human history and the largest nuclear arsenal on earth, so this is not exactly an idle boast. In fact, the American bipartisan political consensus on Iran amounts to precisely this: putting a gun to someone's head and saying, "If you don't do what I want, I'm going to blow your goddamn brains out." This Bush-McCain-Obama line was underscored this week by one of Obama's top foreign policy advisers, Anthony Lake, who said "the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is the biggest threat facing the world," the Financial Times reports. Think of that: the biggest threat facing the world. Bigger than global climate change. Bigger than poverty and disease. Bigger than growing conflicts over shrinking resources. Bigger than terrorism (which was the last greatest biggest threat facing the world). Bigger than organized crime. Bigger than the Terror War operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and Somalia, which continue to spawn so much death, ruin, extremism and economic turmoil. Bigger than all of these -- and all other threats facing the world -- is the prospect that Iran might, in Lake's words, "get on the edge of developing a nuclear weapon." This is certainly a remarkable state of affairs, and one which provokes a very simple question: Why? Why is an Iranian bomb (or even the prospect of Iran "getting on the edge" of having one) the ultimate danger facing the world today -- a prospect so dire, so infinitely evil that even the most "progressive" operators in the power structure insist they would be willing to use nuclear weapons to stop it?