And Now We Go Back To More Coverage Of The Anna Nicole Smith Story

Bleeech!!!!!!!!!!! Ha Ha Ha
Hey Folks - THERE'S A WAR ON AND HUNGRY AND DYING PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD

Anna Nicole Smith: We can't help ourselves
By John "Jack" Telfer, editor
02/25/2007
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
A recent survey showed that a strong majority of Americans felt the death of celebrity Anna Nicole Smith had received too much coverage in the media.
So why is broadcast media, particularly cable television, continuing to bombard viewers with stories about Smith night after night, program after program?
Because the cable companies know that Americans' actions do not match their words.
Those in the tabloid news and magazine business know it as well, as has been demonstrated by their cover stories in recent days.
The media is driven by numbers and the numbers indicate that while people say they have had too much of Anna Nicole Smith, they continue to watch. One recent special on the celebrity brought in the highest ratings for that night. Higher ratings and newsstand sales are numbers the media can use to garner more money for advertising.
So why wouldn't they take advantage of a hot celebrity death story such as Anna Nicole Smith?
If Americans really didn't want to see any more of Smith on television or in the magazines, there is a very simple solution -- they just need to stop watching the programming and buying the magazines. But for many reasons, that is easier said than done. Call it our human nature, our sinful nature, or our natural tendency to play in the mud rather than pure, clean water, the end result is the same.
We can't help ourselves.
We say we don't like the coverage of Smith because admitting we are intrigued by a story like this means admitting we enjoy watching the dirt about a fallen celebrity exposed for all the world to see. Something just doesn't seem right about it, but we are glued to the TV anyway.
Well, not everyone. There are many who are not infatuated with the Anna Nicole Smith story. They have had enough and become experts with their remotes, quickly changing channels when the latest in this bizarre story comes on the television. The problem is even without watching more than the teasers of this soap opera story you learn far more than anyone needs to know, including things like: Another man claiming to be the father of her baby; the family's battle over where she should be buried and the family viewing her decomposing body.
Why do we watch this stuff? As the Apostle Paul said nearly 2,000 years ago (paraphrased), we do the things we don't want to do and we don't do the things we want to do.
The world advances in so many ways, but some things never change.

SOMEONE NEEDS TO TAKE CHARGE

What part of we need to get out of this "WAR" don't these people understand? We have done everything wrong from the very beginning. Remember, we were providing this country with weapons for years. And now they will just use them against us.

There was no justification, and certainly no provocation. It was all a sham. And is all about oil.

I am so tired of reading about our sons and daughters either coming home in boxes, or permanently disfigured. I remember VeitNam.

I think we're just making al-Qaida stronger, and the insugency worse. From my limited point of view, things are not getting better. If they were, we wouldn't need to send 21,000 more kids into harms way.

On a side note - How did this woman get into this position in the first place. I know how she did, but how did she!!!


Rice: Congress Shouldn't Micromanage War
Sunday February 25, 2007 6:31 PM
AP Photo WX101, WX102
WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.
But Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers would step up efforts to force Bush to change course. ``The president needs a check and a balance,'' said Levin, D-Mich.
Rice said proposals being drafted by Senate Democrats to limit the war amounted to ``the worst of micromanagement of military affairs.'' She said military leaders such as Gen. David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, believe the president's plan to send more troops is necessary.
``I can't imagine a circumstance in which it's a good thing that their flexibility is constrained by people sitting here in Washington, sitting in the Congress,'' Rice said. She was asked in a broadcast interview whether Bush would feel bound by legislation seeking to withdraw combat troops within 120 days.
``The president is going to, as commander in chief, need to do what the country needs done,'' she said.
The Senate Democrats' legislation would try to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq by revoking Congress' 2002 vote authorizing Bush's use of force against Saddam Hussein.
One draft version supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would pull out combat forces by March of next year and restrict U.S. troops to fighting al-Qaida terrorists, training the Iraqi security forces and maintaining Iraq's borders.
Democrats have acknowledged that the proposal does not yet have enough votes to overcome GOP procedural obstacles and a veto by Bush. But they are hoping the latest effort will draw enough GOP support to embarrass the president and keep the pressure on.
Levin said it was appropriate for lawmakers to limit the broad wording of the 2002 war resolution given how the situation in Iraq has deteriorated.
``This is not a surge so much as it is a plunge into Baghdad and into the middle of a civil war,'' he said. ``We're trying to change the policy, and if someone wants to call that tying the hands instead of changing the policy, yeah the president needs a check and a balance.''
Sensitive to wavering Republicans, Rice made clear that Bush had no intention of backing away from plans to send 21,500 more combat troops to Iraq. While the U.S. role has changed since its overthrow of Saddam, the United States is obligated to see the mission through by working to build a stable and democratic Iraq, she said.
Rice said it is impossible to distinguish what is going on in Iraq from the larger fight against al-Qaida.
``Some of these car bombs may indeed be the work of an organization like al-Qaida,'' she said of the violence that continues to rock Baghdad.
``I would hope that Congress would recognize that it's very important for them to have the oversight role,'' Rice said. ``But when it comes to the execution of policy in the field, there has to be a clear relationship between the commander in chief and the commanders in the field.''
Senate Republicans recently thwarted two Democratic attempts to pass a nonbinding resolution critical of Bush's troop plan.
In the House, a nonbinding anti-war measure was approved this month. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she expects the next challenge might be to impose money restrictions and a requirement that the Pentagon adhere to strict readiness standards for troops heading to the war zone.
But that plan has drawn only lukewarm support from Democrats in the Senate and some in the House, who believe it is a politically risky strategy that could be seen as an unconstitutional micromanaging of a president's power to wage war.
``We're going to fund the troops as long as they're there,'' Levin said.
Rice appeared on ``Fox News Sunday'' and ``This Week'' on ABC. Levin was on ``Meet the Press'' on NBC.

This is the man who is control of our destiny...Did anybody really vote for this guy? Who will he really piss off next? I'm scared.

WTF People

This is our closest ally? Or are they just smarter than we are. I say it again, WTF


February 21, 2007 -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair said today that Britain will cut its forces in southern Iraq by nearly one-quarter within the next months.
Blair's announcement came as Denmark said it would soon withdraw all of its forces from Iraq.
Blair, speaking to parliament in London today, acknowledged that the situation in Al-Basrah, where British forces are based, is not as rosy as he had hoped.
Blair contrasted what he called the "orgy of violence" in Baghdad and some other parts of Iraq with the relative calm in Al-Basrah.
But he said the security environment is good enough to allow 1,600 British troops to return home in the next few months, and another 500 by the end of the year.
The remaining 5,000 British soldiers will vacate three bases they now control in the city, as well as a logistics base at nearby Shuaiba, and regroup at the Al-Basrah airport.
"What all of this means is not that Basra is how we want it to be, but it does mean that the next chapter in Basra's history can be written by the Iraqis," Blair said.
Blair contrasted what he called the "orgy of violence" in Baghdad and some other parts of Iraq with the relative calm in Al-Basrah. The southern Iraqi city has a negligible Sunni presence, contributing to the low level of sectarian violence.
Blair said the greatest number of attacks in the area have been against foreign forces. More than 130 British troops have been killed in Iraq since the invasion.
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney welcomed Blair's announcement, saying the troop reduction is a sign that "things are going pretty well" in Iraq. And U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in Berlin that "the coalition remains intact."
Under Pressure
Blair's government has been under intense pressure to bring British soldiers home. But he said the partial withdrawal and regrouping of British soldiers would not take away their ability to carry out important security operations.
"The British forces that remain in Iraq will have the following tasks: training and support to Iraqi forces, securing the Iraq-Iran border, securing supply routes and, above all, the ability to conduct operations against extremist groups and be there in support of the Iraqi Army when called upon," Blair said.
Blair's announcement came as Denmark announced it will withdraw its 460-strong contingent from southern Iraq by August.
Both moves were welcomed by Iraqi officials, who said they were ready to take greater responsibility for security in the region.
By contrast, the United States is sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq to help quell violence in Baghdad and in western Al-Anbar Governorate.

Well, this is my first post, hope it's not my last

The madness has to stop now, or were all going to die!!!I've got a lot to say on this subject...For now my question to all of you is. How the hell can we do it? And soon.

Our political leaders can't seem to get their %&$@ together to solve this debacle. We do we have to do?

I've got a lot to say about this, so if anbody out there is willing to listen, share or argue with me, I'm all ears!