Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

This story was on Scarborough Country

Posted By: PK on 2005-12-28
In Reply to: Looks more like Germany wouldn't give 'em up to the US. nm - Democrat

last night.  Joe Scarborough is a conservative lawyer and former congressman. 


The transcript is copied below.  If you read it, you might find that Bush didn't even lift a finger to try to get this terrorist, and you might walk away with a slightly different take on the situation.  Believe me, If Scarborough is upset with Bush, there's a reason.  He's always supported Bush.  Even the family of the Mr. Stethem is basically pro Bush.


'Scarborough Country' for December 27
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show


Updated: 10:45 a.m. ET Dec. 28, 2005



Guest: Erich Ritter, Tyson Slocum, Joseph Bruno, Ric Robinson, Clinton


Suggs, Ken Stethem


JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Right now in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, a terrorist is set free.  Will our government now stand up and finally do the right thing?  This terrorist hijacked a TWA plane and murdered a U.S. Navy diver.  And the German government let him out of prison, and our government didn't do much to stop them.  Tonight, the diver's brother and a close Navy friend who was also on that plane and beaten on that plane, they both come to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY to say what our government must now do and how we can all help get justice for Robert Stethem. 


Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, no passport required, and only common sense allowed. 


ANNOUNCER:  From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all.  Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.


SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, thanks so much for being with me tonight.  I hope you and your family had a very merry Christmas. 


Tonight on the show, we are going to be also talking about a quick-thinking surfer who fought off a great white shark and lived to tell about it.  Now, wait until you hear where he says he learned the skills that saved his life, and should you try this at home? 


Plus, blonde bombshell Anna Nicole Smith back in the news.  So, why exactly is the Bush administration hooking up with the former “Playboy” centerfold in court?  We will tell you the full story later in the show.


But, first, let's start with the outrage over why a terrorist is out of jail tonight, even though he was convicted of killing a U.S. Navy diver.  Now, this is a story we first brought you last week, after this man, Hamadi, walked free from a German prison.  Now, this thug hijacked a TWA jet in 1985.  You remember these scenes?  And he brutally beat and tortured 23-year-old Robert Stethem, Robert obviously in the Navy, and Stethem was so severely beaten that his body was unrecognizable when they finally dumped him onto the runway in Beirut. 


And now, for reasons we talk about, Hamadi is walking free in the Middle East. 


With me to talk about this outrage, and it is an outrage, friends, and our government needs to hear about it, we have got Ken Stethem with us.  He's a brother of that murdered Navy diver, and also Clinton Suggs.  He was sitting next to Robert on that hijacked flight, and he was also beaten by the terrorist who was set free. 


Ken, let's start with you. 


What did the American government do once you and your family started notifying them back in the spring that you were afraid that this terrorist thug, who murdered your brother, might walk free? 


KEN STETHEM, BROTHER OF MURDERED NAVY DIVER:  Well, Joe, the simple answer is nothing. 


Our family had asked for meetings through the Justice Department, and to the State Department for meetings, because of concerns we had over this possibility and some other points that we wanted to bring up.  And we never once were given a response even as to why no meetings would be able to take place. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Well, Wait a second, Ken.  Did you try to get in touch with Condoleezza Rice or anybody?  Who did you try to get in touch with at the State Department? 


STETHEM:  My parents were going through an intermediary through the Justice Department, and we absolutely tried to get ahold of Condoleezza Rice to get a meeting with her, and this is one of the few times since my brother was murdered that we have not been able to get access to the secretary of state. 


SCARBOROUGH:  You know, Ken, this is the thing that I don't understand.  Obviously the Bush administration has been waging a fierce war on terror over the past four or five years since 9/11, and yet in this case, here you have a terrorist thug with connections—his whole family has had connections to Hezbollah for some time—murdered an American, not only any American, but a guy that served in the United States Navy.


The murder was broadcast across the Arab world, and America, and everywhere else, and when you find out that he may be released, you try to contact this government, this president, this secretary of state, and they give you absolutely no assurances that they are going to work to try to keep him in jail? 


STETHEM:  We never heard word one back from them, Joe, and when you look at the timing, what is not just shameful but absolutely disgraceful is that the same time Bush was and the administration was preparing the speech that went public to the public, asking for continued support on the war on terrorism last week, at the same time he was planning and giving that speech, the administration knew that Germany was about to release Hamadi, and they did nothing. 


SCARBOROUGH:  You know, Ken—and the thing is, it's very interesting that despite the fact that you couldn't get the Bush administration, you couldn't get the secretary of state, you couldn't get anybody to call your family when this terrorist, who murdered your brother in cold blood on the international stage 20 years ago was about to set free, they finally did call your parents Christmas Eve. 


Talk about the president's chief of staff, Andy Card, calling your parents on Christmas Eve, and talk about that discussion.  What went on? 


STETHEM:  Andrew Card called my parents, and my parents—our family was appreciative at the gesture, but he basically called to pass along the president's condolences, to pass along the fact that he was not satisfied with any answer that he got within the administration as to why the family hadn't been contacted, either before or after, and that he wanted us to know that phone calls have been made at the highest level. 


SCARBOROUGH:  What did your parents say? 


(CROSSTALK)


STETHEM:  You know, my parents, for 20 years, have supported five different administrations and have just trusted and hoped that action would be taken.  And you know what, my parents understood the truth.


And the truth is the administration would have had to simply make a phone call at the presidential level, demand that Hamadi not be released or be released into U.S. custody, and pressured Germany to make that happen, and because they didn't do those three simple things, we are now supposed to believe that the administration is going to spend the time, money, effort, energy, manpower, and put the political capital at risk to go get him and bring him back?  You know what?


SCARBOROUGH:  Well, and, Ken, let me just say, that is what is so absurd to me tonight, listening, reading this story over the past week.  Now you are hearing the administration saying that they are going to do everything they can to hunt this guy down, to track—I would say if they had a clean shot at him, they should take him out for what he did to your brother 20 years ago, send a real message to terrorists across the Middle East. 


But that's not going to happen.  The guy slipped into Lebanon.  He's got connections.  His family has connections to Hezbollah.  They had a chance to keep him in custody and they wouldn't even return your phone calls.  Do you think the fix was already in?  Do you think the State Department knew what Germany was going to do, and so they decided not to talk to you, to let them go ahead and do it because they didn't want to offend an ally? 


STETHEM:  You know what, absolutely. 


And whether it was apathy or indifference or ineptness, you know what, it doesn't matter.  You can't say, you can't say that we are fully, totally committed to this war on terrorism and then let a convicted murderer and terrorist go. 


SCARBOROUGH:  And, Ken, let me just say, I mean, you have for the most part supported this president's war on terror, as have I.  I mean, the guy has aggressively gone after terrorists across the globe, but they have one in custody that killed your brother 20 years ago, and they do absolutely nothing to stop the Germans from letting him go on parole. 


Is that a fair characterization, that you and your family have been supporters of this president, but you just feel like it was a disgrace how this administration let you all down? 


STETHEM:  That's right, Joe, and I will tell you, nobody can accuse the Stethem family or myself for not supporting, absolutely supporting this war on terrorism. 


We absolutely recognize the president and his administration and the fact that he has done more in this presidency than all the other presidents, the last four or five, six combined, against terrorism.  But you know what, I think the obvious mistake that is being made is this.  Too much, too much of the burden for this war on terrorism is being placed on the military and the military actions, and really the military actions are only as good as the policies that they support.


And we do not have the clear, concise, and deliberate policy that we need on terrorism yet, because if we did, this wouldn't have happened. 


SCARBOROUGH:  This would have never happened, and again, to put a proper perspective on this, there is no doubt, I agree with you, this administration has done more to fight terrorism. 


STETHEM:  Absolutely. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Obviously, part that is just the times—than the past four or five combined.  I think they are doing a great job in a lot of areas, but here, again, a shameful lapse. 


Clinton, let me bring you in here.  Talk about Robert.  Talk about the situation when you knew that this terrorist had killed your friend. 


CLINTON SUGGS, TWA FLIGHT 817 SURVIVOR:  Well, right from the beginning, when they singled out Robert and myself as being in the military, they started with Robert, and they brutally beat him, and they executed him, Hamadi did.  And he was brought to justice, and now he is released, and, you know... 


SCARBOROUGH:  And, Clinton, he was killed, right—he was killed and you were tied up and beaten.  Why?  Because you all were in the military, right? 


SUGGS:  Correct. 


SCARBOROUGH:  How did they find that out? 


SUGGS:  We were traveling with military documents and military I.D.  cards.  And...


SCARBOROUGH:  And the second you handed those over, you said you knew you made a big mistake, right? 


SUGGS:  Well, it wasn't a big mistake. 


It was to surrender our I.D. cards to not bring as much attention to ourselves for not having passports at the time, so it seemed better to surrender than to make a fuss and then really become noticeable. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  Right. 


And you also—you were blindfolded, along with Mr. Stethem, and both of you were beaten very badly, weren't you? 


SUGGS:  That is correct.  Robert was beaten several times, from the beginning of the flight, within 20 minutes, and then he was severely beaten in Beirut, the first trip.


And the second trip, it was just—it's when they killed Bob.  It was


·         he had no way to defend himself.  He was tied with his hands behind his back, blindfolded, and there was nothing he could do.  And, you know, that's terrorism, and that's what terrorism is, and our government went out as steaming to bring terrorism to justice.  And then when it was brought to justice, the ball was dropped several administrations ago, and then now, we have come back to make a full force, like we are going to do something.


But when it comes to making sure these people are convicted and spend their time for the crimes they commit, they just walk, and now they are back home.  And he's a hero, and he has slipped away, and he is probably back up to where he started. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Well, I will tell you what, Ken, let me bring you back in here and ask you a question. 


Just I got to believe—and I know, Clinton, you have got to be completely disgusted by this, as much as, Ken, you and your family are—but what do you think our government should do?  What do you think the Israelis should do?  If they have a clean shot of this guy, you think they should take him out? 


STETHEM:  I think the Israelis should do what they know they can do and what the right thing to do is.  I think Israelis do real well on their own.  I will tell you, Joe, I will tell you what I would like to see. 


SCARBOROUGH:  But you think—you think the right thing, though, is to shoot him, kill him, like kill him the way he killed your brother? 


STETHEM:  You know what, Mohammed Ali Hamadi is running around free to commit more acts of terrorism, and my brother's wasn't the only case.  He was actually arrested bringing in liquid explosives into Germany.  He needs to be taken out, whether it's with a bullet or with a sentence, and in jail to stay.  He needs to be taken out. 


SCARBOROUGH:  You know, we are in a war on terror, and this thug is one of the key players in the war now, as far as I am concerned. 


Ken, final question.  And, again, I have supported the Bush administration.  I will continue to support them in the war on terror.  They have got guts.  The president has got a lot of guts that all of his adversaries don't have, and I salute him for that. 


But, tonight, they have screwed this up badly, Ken.  Tonight, what can you and what can me, what can our viewers in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY do to help your family out? 


STETHEM:  I will tell you what, Joe.  I would like the American people to pick up the phone and call the White House and call the State Department. 


I would like them to do that on January 3, between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. East Coast time.  I would like them to tell the president and the elected representatives, their elected representatives, we expect the same courage, commitment, and devotion to duty from there that we all expect of our men and women in uniform. 


SCARBOROUGH:  All right. 


STETHEM:  We expect—Joe, if I could. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  Go ahead. 


(CROSSTALK)


STETHEM:  We expect them to develop a clear, concise, and deliberate policy against terrorism that includes identifying Lebanon for what it is, which is a terrorist nation.  They give safe harbor to 25 percent of the terrorists on the top 23 terrorists of the FBI's list, and one of them was more responsible—was responsible for killing more Americans than anyone else before bin Laden. 


SCARBOROUGH:  All right. 


Ken, we got to go.  Thank you, Ken. 


Thank you, Clinton. 


We are going to be following this story. 



Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

From Scarborough Country. Finally, a Republican who is

spade a spade and not just blindly follow!  How refreshing.


SCARBOROUGH:  Now, today, President Bush again refused to answer questions about the White House CIA leak case.  But he did have this to say. 


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  I don‘t know all the facts.  I want to know all the facts.  The best place for facts to be done is by somebody who is spending time investigating it. 


I would like this to end as quickly as possible, so we know the facts.  And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration. 


(END VIDEO CLIP)


SCARBOROUGH:  Ah, nuance.  I love nuance.  Before, it was, if somebody leaked this information, they are not going to work in the administration.  Now it has been elevated to, if somebody committed a crime, they are not going to work in our administration. 


Now, a far cry, obviously, from what the White House had to say back in September 2003.  Listen to what White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had to say back then. 


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)


SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY:  If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration. 


(END VIDEO CLIP)


SCARBOROUGH:  Big difference. 


With me now to talk about this boiling Washington summer scandal are Peter Beinart—he‘s the editor of “The New Republic”—and also Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway. 


Peter, I have got to start with you. 


You know, I have been saying all along that somebody lied to George Bush, because George Bush would not have gone out a year ago and said, hey, if somebody was involved in this leak, they wouldn‘t work in my administration, if he knew that Karl Rove was involved.  Now we‘re talking about obviously an indictment.  Does this mean the White House now understands they are going to have to backtrack?


PETER BEINART, EDITOR, “THE NEW REPUBLIC”:  They have already started backtracking. 


I mean, Scott McClellan said the idea that Karl Rove was involved with this was—quote, unquote—“ridiculous.”  Now, of course, it is undisputed that Karl Rove was involved in this.  That alone seems to me is reason for Scott McClellan, if he has any dignity at all left, to resign. 


(CROSSTALK)


SCARBOROUGH:  You think he should quit? 


BEINART:  Absolutely. 


(CROSSTALK)


KELLYANNE CONWAY, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER:  Why? 


BEINART:  Because once a press secretary loses all credibility by being lied to by his bosses and then lying to the press as a result, the only honorable thing to do is resign.  It‘s pretty well—it‘s pretty—because has no credibility left.  He is now basically a walking pinata.


SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Peter, let‘s talk about what we know.  Let‘s talk about what we do know, Peter. 


(CROSSTALK)


SCARBOROUGH:  We know that either Karl Rove or Scooter Libby or the president or somebody in the Cheney-wing of the White House lied to Scott McClellan.  Is that safe to say?  Somebody is lying here.


(CROSSTALK)


BEINART:  Yes.  Someone lied to him, because he would not have gone out and said it was ridiculous that Karl Rove was involved without someone telling him that. 


(CROSSTALK)


SCARBOROUGH:  Kellyanne, I will you the same way. 


(CROSSTALK)


CONWAY:  Sure.  There‘s no..


SCARBOROUGH:  I will ask you the same question. 


There is no way this guy would have gone out and made the statement that he made last year had he not been lied to, right? 


CONWAY:  There is no evidence that anybody lied to Scott.  And there is certainly no evidence that Karl Rove was a producer of any information. 


If anything, the two most recent news accounts about this issue suggest that Karl was the recipient of the information from a media source, not the producer of that information.  And, look...


SCARBOROUGH:  Well, he produced—he produced it to “TIME” magazine and Cooper, didn‘t he? 


CONWAY:  No.  There is no evidence of that.  In fact, when Joe Wilson himself testified before the..


SCARBOROUGH:  Where have I been?  CONWAY:  Pardon me?


SCARBOROUGH:  Where have I been?  I mean, I am sorry.  I thought I read the “TIME” magazine article.  I thought I saw Matt Cooper on “Meet the Press” this weekend saying that he got the information from Karl Rove. 


CONWAY:  And...


SCARBOROUGH:  I mean, was I—was it all a dream?  Was it like the last season of “Dallas”? 


CONWAY:  No, Joe, it wasn‘t. 


But that—again, when you are the subject of a grand jury investigate, as it is going on now, you are not allowed to discuss it.  So, Karl can‘t really defend himself. 


What other reports have suggested is that, perhaps, immediately, perhaps, hypothetically speaking, someone in the media called Karl and said, I have this information.  I am going to do a story about it. 


Now, letting it fly out there in the ether does not mean that Karl provided the information.  Nor does it mean that he corroborated, verified or encouraged it.  If anything, he may have tried to kill it on the—on the—with the inference that the person not go out and use inaccurate information. 


Now, let‘s remember what this information is about, serious stuff, that the vice president allegedly sent Joe Wilson over to Niger to check out the uranium story.  And then, when Joe—when Joe Wilson, the same guy, testifies to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, he says, I may have used a little bit of literary flair, the same guy who poses in “Vanity Fair.”  This is not a credible person.


SCARBOROUGH:  Let me ask you this, Peter.  I want to bring this up.  The thing that I found very interesting—and, obviously, I respect Kellyanne and have for some time and agree with her a lot more than I disagree with her. 


But it seems, in this Karl Rove case—if we want to call it a scandal, we can call it a scandal—that if every time you start talking about Karl Rove, Republicans start talking about Joe Wilson.  Now, I think Joe Wilson is a liar.  I think he is a joke.  But it seems to me he is not relevant to this leak, is he?


BEINART:  No, he is not relevant at all. 


What Kelly is doing is repeating exactly the same talking points that every other Republican has been repeating all week. 


CONWAY:  That‘s not true.


BEINART:  And the point is, I happen to think Joe Wilson has a lot more credibility than Karl Rove.  But it is totally irrelevant. 


The question—even if you think that Joe Wilson is the biggest liar in Washington, it is absolutely sleazy to go after him by going after his wife.  That is not...


(CROSSTALK)


CONWAY:  Who is going after his wife? 


(CROSSTALK)


BEINART:  The people who went out and said, who said that his wife is a covert operative for the CIA, which got the CIA so upset that they asked the Justice Department to do an investigation, those people.


And is very likely those people are either Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, Ari Fleischer, or all of the above. 


CONWAY:  It is not very likely.  We don‘t know that.  You have to be careful. 


(CROSSTALK)


BEINART:  We don‘t know that.  Of course we don‘t know.


What we do know is that—is that there was a State Department memo which had this information.  We know that Fleischer was reading that memo. 


And we know that this information got to Robert Novak.  It is conceivable -yes, I will grant it is conceivable that, somehow, some reporter got it and spit it back to these guys in the administration.  But it is more likely that they got it from the State Department memo and then they fed it to Novak in an effort to discredit Wilson. 


(CROSSTALK)


SCARBOROUGH:  Kellyanne, let me ask you a question.


CONWAY:  Please.


SCARBOROUGH:  Kellyanne, let me ask you a question here.  I am just curious.  And I have been asking my Republican friends this question for the past couple weeks.  Let‘s say Bill Clinton‘s top political adviser had decided to reveal the identity of a CIA agent to a reporter from “TIME” magazine to get back at that person‘s spouse?  What would you be saying?  What would Republicans be saying about Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton‘s top political adviser? 


Let‘s just assume...


CONWAY:  Right. 


SCARBOROUGH:  ... that what everybody in Washington knows is actually the case, that this was passed on from Karl Rove to Matt Cooper at “TIME” magazine.  What would you say if the Clinton administration had engaged in this type of activity?


CONWAY:  I would say exactly what I said when the Clinton administration was engaged in far worse, something called Whitewater, which Peter was against investigating, even though people...


(CROSSTALK)


SCARBOROUGH:  I am not talking about—I am not talking about Whitewater.


(CROSSTALK)


SCARBOROUGH:  I‘m talking about the outing of a CIA agent in a time of war.  That is all I‘m asking.


CONWAY:  Right. 


SCARBOROUGH:  What would you say if they did that?


CONWAY:  And my answer is what it was then, which is that I respect the rule of law enough to allow the investigatory process to work its way out. 


If we all respect the law as it is written and the investigatory process that is currently undergoing, Joe, then the facts will be known.  And the president will keep to his commitment that anyone who broke the law will be out of there, including—anybody.


SCARBOROUGH:  Well, that is a different commitment from what we heard in the fall. 


(CROSSTALK)


CONWAY:  Pardon me?  No, it is a commitment.  But, guys...


(CROSSTALK)


SCARBOROUGH:  The commitment that was made before was anybody that revealed the identity of a CIA agent would be fired. 


Peter, I want to ask you this question in closing. 


And, Kellyanne, I love you, just like I love Peter. 


(CROSSTALK)


SCARBOROUGH:  I am not beating up anybody tonight. 


CONWAY:  Joe, Karl beat the Democrats twice now, though,  Karl has beaten the Democrats black and blue in two presidential elections.


SCARBOROUGH:  It is irrelevant.  I don‘t care.


(CROSSTALK)


CONWAY:  They want him out of Washington.


(CROSSTALK)


SCARBOROUGH:  It‘s irrelevant.


The bottom line is that a CIA agent has been outed.  I don‘t care whether a Republican did it. 


CONWAY:  She posed in “Vanity Fair.‘


SCARBOROUGH:  I don‘t care if a Democrat did it. 


(CROSSTALK)


SCARBOROUGH:  She went to “Vanity Fair.”  And, again, I think Joe Wilson and his wife are shameless.  But they did that after they were already revealed. 


(CROSSTALK)


SCARBOROUGH:  So, I just—again, I don‘t like—I think Joe Wilson is a joke.  The fact that this guy lied about just about everything involved in his African trip and then wrote a book called “The Politics of Truth” is shameless. 


But he is irrelevant.  His wife is irrelevant. 


Peter Beinart, final question to you. 


Now that I have preached, the question is this.  Is somebody going to jail over this?  Is somebody going to be indicted? 


BEINART:  I think it is—I would say the chances of someone being indicted are a bit better than 50-50.  The chance of someone going to jail I think are relatively low.  I would say less than one in four.  That is my guess. 


SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  I will play McLaughlin here.  Wrong! 


(LAUGHTER)


SCARBOROUGH:  Nobody is going to jail.


(CROSSTALK)


SCARBOROUGH:  Karl Rove is keeping his job.  Nobody in America cares. 


But I do. 


Thanks a lot, Peter Beinart.  Greatly appreciate it. 


Kellyanne, thank you so much for being patient with me tonight.


We will be right back in a second in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. 


 

Bedtime story from Hurricane country entitled

"Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves – protect us from harm…"   ". We are more compassionate than a government that…sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes."  Barack Obama, nomination acceptance speech, 08/28/2008.


 


This is written in response to the post below that express the "bootstrap mentality" approach to Katrina and Bush/federal government response.  Bush never seems to be held accountable for any of his actions or lack thereof.  What I do know is that we deserve better from our so-called leaders.  I want someone in charge of the country who knows that what I am about to describe is unacceptable.  I am writing this because, at the very least, we should not allow our memories to fade away too quickly about the most shameful episode of leadership/federal agency failure and breakdown I have ever witnessed in my lifetime.   


 


As for the poster who said that "if you don't live here, you don't know what you are talking about":  Thing is that I do live in hurricane country on the Gulf Coast where to this day, 3 years later, we still welcome, house, employ, include, encourage and support Hurricane Katrina survivors/refugees.  Hurricane Gustav is poised to make a visit here on the opening night of the RNC and will be slamming ashore and doing its thing during the opening speech by you-know-who.  My memory of the last time we went through this is very clear.  Where it seemed fuzzy, research filled in the blanks.  I'm going to jump right in here. 


 


When Hurricane Katrina made landfall, President Bush was on one of his marathon vacations.  The August 2005 vacation, in fact, was the longest vacation of any US President (5 weeks).  By the time Katrina showed up, he already had been at the ranch for 3 weeks, so he was pretty well rested up.  On August 26th, Katrina strengthened to a Category 3 Hurricane and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco declared state of emergency.  Blanco asked President Bush to declare federal state of emergency for Louisiana.  Next day, Bush interrupted his bike ride with Astronaut Lance Armstrong and declared a state of emergency in selected regions of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi on Saturday, the 27th.  The declaration did not include any of Louisiana's coastal parishes, an oversight that would later be addressed in Congressional hearings.  Same day, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin orders a voluntary evacuation of all residents from the city of New Orleans.


 


Go here to see a map of parishes not included in the declaration.  http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/637/1/.  This map is an eye-opener. Mr. Harris calls it upsidedownland.   Hello.  Inland parishes included, coastal parishes excluded.  Bushes parents live in the hurricane-prone city of Houston.  He probably should have know better. 


 


August 28th, within 9 short hours, Katrina doubled in size and strengthened from a category 3 to a 5.  Nagin's evacuation became mandatory.  During video conferences involving the president on August 28th and 29th, the NHC director informed Bush that Katrina might push its storm surge over the city's levees and flood walls, using such language "potential for nightmare scenarios," and that this has been known for at least the three decades he has worked at the NHC.  Previous warnings, such as the one made by the Houston Chronicle in 2001, told of a disaster that "would strand 250,000 people or more, and probably kill one of 10 left behind as the city drowned under 20 feet of water" following a severe hurricane making landfall on NO.  Other publications, such as Popular Mechanics, Scientific American,  and The Times-Picayune had given similar doomsday scenarios in which a sinking city would drown and its residents would be left homeless.


 

On  August 28th, the National Weather Sevice out of Baton Rogue and NO issued the following bulletin. This text is included in its entirety because the warning Bush decided to ignore just don't get any more clear than this.  Before reading this, keep in mind that in response, Bush alerted FEMA Director Michael Brown, aka "Brownie," and stayed put, on vacation, since he had "done his part." No shouts in tended.  This is the way cut and paste works.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weather_Service_bulletin_for_New_Orleans_region
...DEVASTATING DAMAGE EXPECTED...
 
HURRICANE KATRINA...A MOST POWERFUL HURRICANE WITH UNPRECEDENTED
STRENGTH...RIVALING THE INTENSITY OF HURRICANE CAMILLE OF 1969.
 
MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER. AT
LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL
FAILURE. ALL GABLED ROOFS WILL FAIL...LEAVING THOSE HOMES SEVERELY
DAMAGED OR DESTROYED.
 
THE MAJORITY OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WILL BECOME NON FUNCTIONAL.
PARTIAL TO COMPLETE WALL AND ROOF FAILURE IS EXPECTED. ALL WOOD
FRAMED LOW RISING APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL BE DESTROYED. CONCRETE
BLOCK LOW RISE APARTMENTS WILL SUSTAIN MAJOR DAMAGE...INCLUDING SOME
WALL AND ROOF FAILURE.
 
HIGH RISE OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL SWAY DANGEROUSLY...A
FEW TO THE POINT OF TOTAL COLLAPSE. ALL WINDOWS WILL BLOW OUT.
 
AIRBORNE DEBRIS WILL BE WIDESPREAD...AND MAY INCLUDE HEAVY ITEMS SUCH
AS HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND EVEN LIGHT VEHICLES. SPORT UTILITY
VEHICLES AND LIGHT TRUCKS WILL BE MOVED. THE BLOWN DEBRIS WILL CREATE
ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTION. PERSONS...PETS...AND LIVESTOCK EXPOSED TO THE
WINDS WILL FACE CERTAIN DEATH IF STRUCK.
 
POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS...AS MOST POWER POLES WILL BE DOWN
AND TRANSFORMERS DESTROYED. WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS.
 
THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY
THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED. FEW
CROPS WILL REMAIN. LIVESTOCK LEFT EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL BE
KILLED.
 

On August 29th, John McCain's 69th birthday, Katrina hits New Orleans as a category 4, levies break, Bush continues his itinerary.  He jets on off to Luke Air Force Base near Phoenix to join McCain and wish him happy birthday (kinda makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside).  Picture available on the website cited below.  Afterward, Bush spoke about Medicare to 400 guests at the Pueblo El Mirage RV Resort and Country Club in nearby El Mirage.   Not to worry.  Brownie's doin' a heck of a job.  August 29th:  FEMA press release: 'First Responders Urged Not To Respond To Hurricane Impact Areas Unless Dispatched By State, Local Authorities.'         


 


Five hours after the hurricane hit, FEMA chief Michael Brown asks Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff for approval to send 1,000 Homeland Security workers within 48 hours to the Gulf Coast to provide assistance.  Bush fires up the jet and heads out to Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. for talk on prescription drugs for seniors.  Back in NO, the 17th Street Canal levee breaks.  The Red Cross, while providing relief and support across the Gulf Coast, did not enter New Orleans to provide relief at the Superdome, or any other victim shelter in the city.


 


August 30th.  The Coast Guard reports that it has rescued some 1,200 people from rooftops around the area.  Of course, it's all over the TV.  The number of evacuees in the Superdome swells to 20,000, as people rescued or left homeless throughout the city are brought to the stadium. Gov. Blanco says the Superdome will have to be evacuated. Bush appears in Coronado, Calif. for a V-J Day commemoration.  Go to the website cited below for photo corresponding to the following caption:  President Bush plays a guitar presented to him by Country Singer Mark Wills, right, backstage following his visit…"  The photo is very telling.  For those of you who don't go ballistic when they read democratic commentary, you will find some fascinating information next to the photo. 


 


August 31st.  Evacuation of the Superdome begins.  Bush cuts vacation short by 2 days and returns to Washington after a brief fly-by over New Orleans where he observed the scene from above.


 


September 1st:  Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff claims "we have a tremendous array of forces that are currently deployed in New Orleans," as cable TV networks show live images of looting, Superdome residents awaiting evacuation and people stranded without food and water throughout the city.  Bush tells "Good Morning America" that "I don’t think anyone anticipated a breach of the levees."  That day, Newsweek reported, "The reality, say several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president, did not really sink in until Thursday night. Some White House staffers were watching the evening news and thought the president needed to see the horrific reports coming out of New Orleans.  Counselor Bartlett made up a DVD of the newscasts so Bush could see them in their entirety as he flew down to the Gulf Coast the next morning on Air Force One. "


 


September 2nd:  President Bush takes aerial tour of New Orleans.  Relief copters grounded in New Orleans during Bush visit. 


 


September 3rd:  Construction equipment removed from broken levee after Bush visit. Louisiana Senator Landrieu Implores President to "relieve unmitigated suffering" and end FEMA's "abject failures" 


 


September 4th:  More than 4,600 active duty military personnel join almost 27,000 National Guard troops in Louisiana for disaster relief.  Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard lambastes FEMA's response on NBC's "Meet the Press"


 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina


In a September 26, 2005 hearing, former FEMA chief Michael Brown testified before a U.S. House subcommittee about FEMA's response.  He was questioned about why Bush's declaration of state of emergency of August 27 had not included the coastal parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and Plaquemines (in fact, the declaration did not include any of Louisiana's coastal parishes, whereas the coastal counties were included in the declarations for Mississippi and Alabama).  Brown testified that this was because Louisiana Governor Blanco had not included those parishes in her initial request for aid (can you say pass-the-buck/fib?), a decision that he found "shocking."  After the hearing, though, Blanco released a copy of her letter, which requested assistance for "all the southeastern parishes including the New Orleans Metropolitan area and the mid state Interstate I-49 corridor and northern parishes along the I-20 corridor. 


 


A couple of cliches thrown in for good measure:  A picture's worth 1000 words.  Actions speak louder than words. 


 


Go here for a Katrina Timeline.  August 25 to September 5.  The links embedded in this timeline make for a good read as well. 


http://www.ojr.org/ojr/wiki/Katrina_Timeline/


Go here for a corresponding timeline of Bush's vacation and a few photos.   http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/010936.php
Just because YOU say Scarborough

hasn't always supported Bush doesn't make it true.  In fact, if people like you (Bush groupies) say it, it probably isn't true at all.


I watch Scarborough's show every night.  Do you? Scarborough has always supported Bush.  But he doesn't follow him blindly like some people, and when Bush does lies or spits on the Constitution, Scarborough calls him on it.  Of course, to you, I guess if someone believes in defending the Constitution, that's a direct insult to your president.  What kind of values do you have?

I saw it on Scarborough.
The Conservative Scarborough.  The next two years are going to be very frightening.  Fasten your seat belts.  :-(
Scarborough has not always supported Bush. SM
In fact, I would give him a 50/50 on the Bush support. He is a very vocal opponent more often than not.  Believe it not, not all conservatives stick together.  Will the Bush blame game ever end?
No. I love the country side in Alabama...I'm a country girl...nm
Yes killing this country - have you been out of the country the last 3 months or so
Don't you have a clue as to what is happening in America? Where have you been? Don't you listen to what is happening or are you still drinking the kool-aid. That time is over. Put the aid down and wake up. The country is being destroyed. These have been the worst 4 months in the history of bad presidents. Foreclosures are on the rise, unemployment is on the rise, 3+ trillion more in deficit and on the rise, companies shutting down, Clinton for SoS. Napolitano - one of the biggest tragedies to happen to America. The list goes on and on and on and on.

Dubya is not in office anymore. You think dubya "pulled the trigger", well the O keeps reloading it and continues to pull the trigger.
Here's the story. sm
Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 10:51 p.m. EDT

RFK Jr.: Bush, Barbour to Blame for Katrina

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is blaming Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, along with President Bush, for causing Hurricane Katrina.

As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2, Kennedy blogged Tuesday on HuffingtonPost.com. The influential Democrat's enviro-conspiracy theory had the sinister Gov. Barbour engineering Bush's energy policy on behalf of the president’s major donors from the fossil fuel industry.

Kennedy charges that in March 2001, the former Republican National Committee chairman issued an urgent memo to the White House on CO2 emissions.

With that, the president dropped his pro-environment campaign promise like a hot potato.

Because of Bush and Barbour's CO2 folly, said Kennedy: Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged.

RFK, Jr., even suggested that Katrina's last minute detour through Mississippi was a bit of Divine payback, declaring:

Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast.

Another take on the story....
Republicans on the Record

What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)?

Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.

In fact, the civil rights movement was not about politics. Nor was it about which politicians did what and which political party should take the most credit. When it came to civil rights, America's politicians merely saw the handwriting on the wall and wrote the legislation to make into federal law the historical changes that had already taken place. There was nothing else they could do.

The movement of blacks to the North, as well as their contributions as fighting men in the world wars, plus the hard work of millions of blacks and their families and churches, along with the efforts of many private groups and individuals made the civil rights movement succeed.

Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators.

In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.

The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation's military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.

Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.

As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]


It has been maintained all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.

Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.

I know. I was there.

When I moved to Georgia in 1970, the Democratic Party had a total lock on Georgia. Newt Gingrich was one of the first outsiders to break that lock. He did so in a West Georgia area into which many Northerners were moving. He gained the support of rural West Georgians over issues that had absolutely nothing to do with race.



JFK – The Reluctant Civil Rights President

JFK evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed.

His lukewarm support for theAct included his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. Dixiecrats preferred the jury system to trials presided over and decided by judges because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil rights violators.

His record in the 1950s did not mark Kennedy as a civil rights activist. Yet the 1957Act to benefit African-Americans was passed with the help of Republicans. It was a watered- down version of the later 1964 bill, which Kennedy backed.

The record on JFK shows he was a man of his times and a true politician, more given to equivocation and pragmatism than to activism. Kennedy outlined civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for him to act.

For the most part, in the 1960 presidential campaign he avoided the civil rights issue altogether. He did endorse some kind of federal action, but he could not afford to antagonize Southern Democrats, whose support he desperately needed to defeat Richard Nixon. Basically, he could not jeopardize the political support of the Dixiecrats and many politicians in the rest of the country who were concerned about the radical change that was in the offing.

After he was elected president, Kennedy failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. That failure was for pragmatic political reasons and so that he could get the rest of his agenda passed.

Introducing specific civil rights legislation in the Senate would have meant a filibuster and the obstruction of other business he felt was just as crucial as civil rights legislation. A filibuster would have happened for sure and it would have taken 67 members to support cloture to end such a filibuster. Sixty-seven votes Kennedy believed he did not have.

As it was, Kennedy had other fish to fry, including the growing threat of Russian imperialism, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs as Cuba went down the communist rat hole, his increase in the numbers of troops and advisers he was sending to Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In addition, the steel business was in crisis and he needed a major tax rate cut to stimulate a sluggish economy. Kennedy understood his options and he chose to be realistic.

When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act.

The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. Various efforts by groups of Protestant and Catholic clergy, along with the Urban League, NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, black activists, individuals both white and black and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr., as well as other subsets of his movement, are what forced civil rights to be crafted into federal law.

The National Opinion Research Center discovered that by 1963 the number of Americans who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30 percent in 20 years, to 72 percent. Americans supporting school integration had risen even more impressively, to 75 percent.

The efforts of politicians were needed to write all the changes and efforts into law. Politicians did not lead charge on civil rights – again, they just took credit, especially the Democrats.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act

When all the historical forces had come together, Kennedy decided to act. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963.

Gathering business and religious leaders and telling the more violent activists in the black leadership to tone down the confrontational aspects of the movement, Kennedy outlined the Civil Rights Act. In it, the Justice Department was given the responsibility of addressing the worst problems of racial discrimination.

Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.

Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill's final success.

Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Man From Illinois

In the Senate, Hubert Humphrey was the point man for the Civil Rights Act. That is not unusual considering the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the presidency.

Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California led the Republican pro-civil rights forces. But it became clear who among the Republicans was going to get the job done; that man was conservative Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen.

He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.

Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.

Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.

Believing that Dirksen could be forced into voting for the Civil Rights Act, they demonstrated and picketed and there were threats by CORE to continue demonstrations and violence against Dirksen's offices in Illinois. James Farmer of CORE stated that people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters in protest.

Dirksen blew it off in a statement typical of him: When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end.

Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill's seven sections.

The Republican swing votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.

As they worked through objections to the bill, Dirksen explained his goal as first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill.

In any event, there were still 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions. Senators Dirksen and Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a clean bill as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute.

This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure, which was crucial to obtain the support of the swing Republicans.

On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.

In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.

On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart:

There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied.

After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?

Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind.

The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.

This does not tell the whole story either...
See below:
What is SCHIP?

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created by Congress in 1997 and is funded by both the federal government and the states. The program is designed to help states initiate and expand the provision of child health insurance to uninsured, low-income children.

SCHIP is administered by the states which have three options for providing SCHIP coverage. They can:

create separate SCHIP programs;
expand eligibility for benefits under the state’s Medicaid plan (a Medicaid SCHIP program); or
use both approaches in combination.
Within federal guidelines, states determine their SCHIP program(s):

design,
eligibility rules,
benefits packages,
payment levels, and
administrative and operating procedures.
At the federal level, SCHIP is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services though the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

There is nothing here about enrolling all the children in private insurance. That is at the discretion of the states. According to this they can expand the Medicaid coverage for SCHIP...government administered. At the federal level, it is administered by Medicare/Medicaid. Goverment administered. So to say it is not government administered is an untruth.

"Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."

That is also an untruth. This is from the bill itself:
SEC. 110. LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR STATES THAT PROPOSE TO COVER CHILDREN WITH EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.

(a) FMAP Applied to Expenditures- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(8) LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD HEALTH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO CHILDREN WHOSE EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE-

`(A) FMAP APPLIED TO EXPENDITURES- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2008, the Federal medical assistance percentage (as determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4) of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP under subsection (a)(1) with respect to any expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage for a targeted low-income child whose effective family income would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or type of income.

`(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State plan amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan.'.

It does NOT exclude coverage for those OVER the 300% marker. It only limits matching funds. And you notice it says EXCEEDS 300% of the poverty line. So anything UP TO 300% of the poverty line would be covered under the proposal sent to Bush, which equals the $82,600. Bush understands the bill better than this guy does. It does leave it open for New York or anywhere else to put people on the program right up to $82,600 per year income. Just like Bush said. I did not make this up. It is copied directly from the bill that is posted on the Library of Congress website.

Just making sure the whole story is told.
here is that story...
Commissioner dismissal controversy
On July 11, 2008, Governor Palin dismissed Walter Monegan as Commissioner of Public Safety and instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he subsequently turned down.[44][45] Monegan alleged shortly after his dismissal that it may have been partly due to his reluctance to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann.[46] In 2006, before Palin was governor, Wooten was briefly suspended for ten days for threatening to kill McCann's (and Palin's) father, tasering his 11-year-old stepson (at the stepson's request), and violating game laws. After a union protest, the suspension was reduced to five days.[47]

Governor Palin asserts that her dismissal of Monegan was unrelated to the fact that he had not fired Wooten, and asserts that Monegan was instead dismissed for not adequately filling state trooper vacancies, and because he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."[48] Palin acknowledges that a member of her administration, Frank Bailey, did contact the Department of Public Safety regarding Wooten, but both Palin and Bailey say that happened without her knowledge and was unrelated to her dismissal of Monegan.[48] Bailey was put on leave for two months for acting outside the scope of his authority as the Director of Boards and Commissions.

In response to Palin's statement that she had nothing to hide, in August 2008 the Alaska Legislature hired Steve Branchflower to investigate Palin and her staff for possible abuse of power surrounding the dismissal, though lawmakers acknowledge that "Monegan and other commissioners serve at will, meaning they can be fired by Palin at any time."[49] The investigation is being overseen by Democratic State Senator Hollis French, who says that the Palin administration has been cooperating and thus subpoenas are unnecessary.[50] The Palin administration itself was the first to release an audiotape of Bailey making inquiries about the status of the Wooten investigation.[48][51]

I think the story is entirely possible, but unlikely.

I have done a little bit of poking around and read a few other tidbits here and there and formed my opinion.   


Everyone keeps saying that her water broke while she was in Texas, but it did not technically.  She was just leaking fluid, and she was not in labor.  She had had 4 kids and knew she was not yet in labor and discussed that with her doctor, who gave her the go-ahead to fly.  That is not that unusual to me. 


She waited a long time to announce her pregnancy.  Okay, but probably the reason she waited was because she already knew the baby had Down's (she reportedly found out in December) and knew that there was a higher chance that she would miscarry.  Rather than announce her pregnancy, then lose her baby, she chose to keep it private until she was more certain she would indeed carry to term.  I understand that.  I also think that she probably needed the time to process how her family would adapt to a special needs child, and wrap her mind around it, so to speak.  Not to mention the fact that a fifth child is not usually announced with the pomp and circumstance of a first baby.  That is typical.


As far as her not looking pregnant, that happens all the time.  I remember seeing Pamela Anderson on a talk show and she was 7 or 8 months' pregnant.  I was shocked at how tiny she was.  She looked barely pregnant, and her baby wasn't even extra small when it was born.  DIfferent women carry differently and Governor Palin was dressing in jackets and other clothing which would hide a bulge. 


I saw the picture of her daughter and that was completely unconvincing as well.  Girls wear shirts tight across the tummy like that all the time, even if they are chubby in the midsection.  It is very common.  If she was pregnant and trying to it it while posing for a family photo, wouldn't she choose different clothing?


All that being said, even if it were to turn out to be true, I wouldn't hold it against her for claiming the child as her own in order to protect her daughter and the baby.  I don't see anything wrong in hiding a teenage pregnancy if it can be successfully hidden.  No one should be proud of being unwed and pregnant.  It's too bad that so many young girls think absolutely nothing of it, an actually get pregnant on purpose knowing full well that the baby's father will never be a part of its life.  That is part of what is wrong with our society today. 

thanks for your story

We must be nearly the same age because I know several women who were pressured into giving their children away and they are still haunted by that decision to this day. You are correct about the damage Palin is doing to her daughter. 


 

What the..? What was there ONE story about someone
have been SP's doing ?? You make it sound like she handed down firings to several thousand. LOL But hey, if she's that powerful and good at putting her plans into action, then maybe I will vote for McCain/Palin.
Let me tell you a story

Back in the early 70s, I was a single mom, going through a divorce, and no job. My son was only 1-1/2 years old. I needed help and had no one. I went to Welfare to see if they could help me. I got some money for an apartment and food stamps.


After 5 months, I found a job, told welfare I was going off it because I didn't need the help anymore. Well, they absolutely begged me to stay on it for at least another year. Needless to say, it was harder to get OFF it than to get on it. I just couldn't get it through their heads that I didn't want their handouts. I had a standing invitation to come back anytime.


Well, fast forward 8 years. My new husband's job went down the tubes and we went through all our savings, living paycheck to paycheck on mine. Went back to welfare to see if we could at least get food stamps for our 2 kids now. Nope! I earned $11 too much. They told us to sell the cars and the house we were buying and then maybe, just maybe, we would qualify for everything. No way!


Needless to say, we had a friend who owned a bar and served sandwiches and soup. He let my husband work for him doing odd jobs around his property and paid him in leftover soup and sandwiches. Hubby was also able to pick up a few other odd jobs and that's how we survived for 2 years.  We had a woodburner and cut and split our own wood, had seeds given to us and grew our own garden in the summer. We survived, but it wasn't easy. The only thing nice about it was my children learned about survival and my husband and I never gained any weight.The kids ate first, then hubby because his odd jobs were tougher than mine, and I ate last.


To this day, I can't look at a plate of spaghetti, soup, or chili. LOL

I actually got the story from CNN ....
Just sayin ...
And in a related story...

...*Curious George* wants to know who's visiting porn sites.  Hmmmmmm... thought spying was only supposed to be used to catch *terrorists*....



U.S., Google Set to Face Off in Court



By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business WriterTue Mar 14, 8:16 AM ET



The Bush administration will renew its effort to find out what people have been looking for on Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine, continuing a legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government.


Lawyers for the Justice Department and Google are expected to elaborate on their opposing views in a San Jose hearing scheduled Tuesday before U.S. District Court Judge James Ware.


It will mark the first time the Justice Department and Google have sparred in court since the government subpoenaed the Mountain-View, Calif.-based company last summer in an effort to obtain a long list of search requests and Web site addresses.


The government believes the requested information will help bolster its arguments in another case in Pennsylvania, where the Bush administration hopes to revive a law designed to make it more difficult for children to see online pornography.


Google has refused to cooperate, maintaining that the government's demand threatens its users' privacy as well as its own closely guarded trade secrets.


The Justice Department has downplayed Google's concerns, arguing it doesn't want any personal information nor any data that would undermine the company's thriving business.


The case has focused attention on just how much personal information is stored by popular Web sites like Google — and the potential for that data to attract the interest of the government and other parties.


Although the Justice Department says it doesn't want any personal information now, a victory over Google in the case would likely encourage far more invasive requests in the future, said University of Connecticut law professor Paul Schiff Berman, who specializes in Internet law.


The erosion of privacy tends to happen incrementally, Berman said. While no one intrusion may seem that big, over the course of the next decade or two, you might end up in a place as a society where you never thought you would be.


Google seized on the case to underscore its commitment to privacy rights and differentiate itself from the Internet's other major search engines — Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news), Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and Time Warner Inc.'s America Online. All three say they complied with the Justice Department's request without revealing their users' personal information.


Cooperating with the government is a slippery slope and it's a path we shouldn't go down, Google co-founder Sergey Brin told industry analysts earlier this month.


Even as it defies the Bush administration, Google recently bowed to the demands of China's Communist government by agreeing to censor its search results in that country so it would have better access to the world's fastest growing Internet market. Google's China capitulation has been harshly criticized by some of the same people cheering the company's resistance to the Justice Department subpoena.


The Justice Department initially demanded a month of search requests from Google, but subsequently decided a week's worth of requests would be enough. In its legal briefs, the Justice Department has indicated it might be willing to narrow its request even further.


Ultimately, the government plans to select a random sample of 1,000 search requests previously made at Google and re-enter them in the search engine, according to a sworn declaration by Philip Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley who is helping the Justice Department in the case.


The government believes the test will show how easily it is to get around the filtering software that's supposed to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit material on the Web.

I only posted one story. sm
And the subject, to me, is Ward Churchill has his deception, not AIM.  I would think as an OP, you would be more in tune to what the OP publications are saying about him. 
Where did you find this story? sm
I can't find anything anywhere on this.   Thank you!
I only found one story on this. sm

From an obscure site called Rogers Cadenhead.  The remainder of the stories, from the LA Times, etc., did not include anything about U.S. Troops protecting the Hezbollah sympathizers. 

Could it be possible there are 2 sides to the story? sm
The US, UK, and Israel also have a long and colorful history of 'creating incidents' to further their own agendas. I would say control of the Middle East is something at the top of the list. Hezbollah is wrong to send rockets into Israel. In fact, they are all wrong, but what do you expect them to do just wait there and be incinerated by Israel?
Here is a follow up to the first story... sm
http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=448&z=56
Real story from the MSM?.....sm
Bush controlled, corporate crony owned media telling the truth - not going to happen. That only happens when you have a democratic republic, not a corporate plutocracy. TV news definitely lies, suppresses, and distorts news.
Actually that's not the complete story...
You did not mention that when Summersby was dying of cancer she stated that it had been a romantic affair after all and wrote about it in her book.  This contradicted what she had earlier stated.  Who knows what really happened, and does it really matter?  I doubt it.  It only proves that we're all flawed humans, even some Republicans!!
I like the semaphore story better....nm

nm

yes, he changed the story

"just a bit" to better prove his point that she was a reformer.  Like his cross in the dirt story as a POW.  When he first told it, it happened to someone else.  It went over better when he changed it to first person. That is dangerous behavior.  We have been through 8 years of information manipulation.  Please no more.


 

This whole story is absurd, more like a
fairytale or wishful thinking, right is running scared is all.
That's not the whole story/reason. (sm)
I, for one, do not want to pick produce from the fields and do many of the jobs that migrant workers do. I'm not lazy, per se, but I have other opportunities to make my income in ways closer to how I want to live.

Many Americans do not want to do those menial jobs. So, we do need migrant workers who are willing to fill those positions.

That isn't the whole story, though. And it doesn't make it acceptable to allow illegals in regardless of the job situation, etc.
Is this a true story? LOL
nm
Here's the rest of the story.
1. No soup for researching the breakdown on appropriations and who came down for and against as they progressed through time. That "congress did" cop-out does not cover for the fact that between 2002 and 2007, Dems were outnumbered by war zealots with glazed-over eyes as they followed a leader of liars and prevailed on the money issues. Answer: The pubs dominated and ARE credited for building up a $400B debt, no matter how fast you spin it.
2. Thank you. Obama voted against. Vision, conviction and courage to place principle over politics. Biden voted for, but has since stated he believes it was a mistake because of the W administration mismanagement of the war. Go here for Biden on the issue of Iraq: Does not appear to be part of the fleeced flock anymore. http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm.
3. Obama. Ahead of the curve. Petraeus is not running for president.
4. Petraeus is a military man with a military agenda and a reputation to protect, just like McCain. Trouble is, public is war weary and are looking for nonmilitary solutions…or at least somebody who is willing to consider such notions. There has to be a plan for what lies beyond the surge, which is not an everlasting solution. Question is whose plan? Bush and McCain NOW get it that Obama gots it and are going with his flow. According to you, Petraeus is onboard too. By the way, the Iraqi leadership just might be entitled to weigh in on this one. After all, it IS their country. They backed Obama on international television this past summer, lest we forget.
5. Well then, according to you, Petraeus is onboard troop draw-down. No highjack here, but a bit slow on the draw.
6. There has been no political resolution. Iraqis have not taken control of their own nation. Exactly what do you think will happen after troop withdrawal? The Sunni, Shia and Kurds will throw farewell flowers at the troops and each other in gratitude for all the help and Iraq will become the "oasis of democracy" in the Middle East? All the surge has done is prolong the inevitable. We need to step aside NO MATTER WHAT the consequences and hand the Iraqis the keys to the kingdom and let them sort themselves out.
A story I like to tell about the Ivy League...
I earned a BBA (Bachelors of Business Administration) from Temple University. Many years ago, I had a pretty high-powered job. I'll never forget a young lady who came in to interview with me for a job in our department. It seemed as though she couldn't mention often enough that she had earned her BBA from the University of Pennsylvania. So, following her lead, I spent quite a bit of time talking to her about her time at Penn, and it didn't take her very long before she was expressing her opinion that an Ivy League education was better than any other, and so she was the best candidate out there. I admired her spunk, but not her flawed logic.

I told her that the BBA degree was accredited by a single organization, and that the study curriculum at all schools offering the degree was the same. One could argue that faculty in some schools were better or worse than in others, but there was no hard and fast measure of that opinion. The curriculum, however, was the same in every school.

I asked her what her University of Pennsylvania tuition had been. This was in the early 1980s, and she proudly said it was around $30,000 a year. I told her that tuition at Temple University was about $4000 a year. So the cost of my BBA had been roughly $16,000. The cost of hers had been roughly $120,000. I told her that in my opinion, we had purchased the same product, but that there was a significant difference in the cost of that product. I then asked her if as an employee of our company, I might expect her to likewise overpay on budget items in our department.

The kicker was, my degree was hanging on the wall in my office. She couldn't help but see it. It really wasn't the way to warm up to the interviewer. My impression of her was that someone paid a lot of money for her education, but she wasn't too smart.
thats your story and your sticking to it...
x
Yours is a compelling story....
and is indicative of why assistance is needed to help those truly in need. I have never said welfare needs to be stopped. What I said is able-bodied people who want assistance should have a job or job training attached to it, so they can get OUT of the cycle of poverty. I said that assistance SHOULD be used for those physically or mentally unable to work. However, if any of us are honest, we know that there are thousands upon thousands who are on assistance who are completely capable of working. They take benefits from those who truly are physically unable, like you were, or lessen those benefits and make it harder to get benefits. Assistance programs need to be fixed so that those who really are physically or mentally unable to work can get the help they need.
The other side of the story....
http://www.newsmax.com/smith/barack_obama_tony_rezko/2008/09/02/126890.html
Yep. there are two sides to every story....
you just have to choose the side that fits your view for your country. Godspeed in your search. :)
Other side of the story...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/16/2008-09-16_john_mccain_campaign_releases_troopergat.html
half the story
Refuted.
http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/WSJletter111003.html
Try reading this one.
Here's the same story on ABC.?. see inside
I thought AOL was considered a liberal site, but I guess not. Here's ABC with a bit more information, but basically the same story:


Inside the White House: What Went Wrong?
Sources in the Meeting Tell ABC News Why the Talk Turned Into a Screaming Match
By JONATHAN KARL
Sept. 26, 2008


If all had gone according to plan, Thursday's White House meeting would have been a triumphant photo opportunity, where top Democratic and Republican congressional leaders come together with the president and the two presidential candidates to support a plan for stabilizing the financial markets. Instead, the meeting devolved into a shouting match that nearly derailed the economic bailout plan.

Here's an account of what happened, based on conversations with several of those present, both Democrats and Republicans:

The first sign of trouble: Twenty minutes before the White House meeting, Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson calls House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say there are problems with the agreement reached earlier in the afternoon. Pelosi is miffed. Democrats believed the issues Paulson raised had already been resolved.


President Bush opens the meeting at 4 p.m., quickly turning it over to Paulson who gives a status report on the markets and says, "We need to get this done quickly." Paulson turns it over to Pelosi, who defers to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who defers to Sen. Barack Obama. Obama starts things off for the Democrats by reiterating his principles on what the plan should include. Obama agrees with Paulson on the need to act quickly but says some on the Hill "don't understand the need for the rush." Some of the Republicans took this as an attack on them.

Obama then defers to Sen. John McCain, but McCain defers to House Republican Leader John Boehner to speak on behalf of the Republicans. Boehner says House Republicans have "a lot of problems" with the plan and "most of my caucus is not there."

At this point, the meeting is still fairly cordial. Pelosi even compliments the president on his speech Wednesday night. But the meeting starts to devolve.

After some more give and ake, Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, presents a five-page list of 192 economists and business school professors who oppose the plan. Bush isn't impressed. "I don't care what somebody on some college campus says," Bush says. Instead, he says he trusts Hank Paulson, who, he says, has more than 35 years of experience and access to more information than those academics on Shelby's list.

Boehner says House Republicans have a different idea: providing federal insurance for mortgage securities instead of buying them outright.

Obama chimes in again, asking Paulson what he thinks about the insurance idea. Paulson says he thinks the idea is unworkable, and adds, "We can't start over."

After 43 minutes, McCain finally speaks. He says there are "legitimate concerns that need to be listened to" and that there has been "significant progress" in incorporating his principles into the bill. "We have one shot at getting this done right," he says. McCain does not get specific. "He said a whole lot of nothing," says one Republican in the room.

Shortly after that, things get a whole lot worse. Rep. Spencer Baucus, the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, speaks in favor of the Republican alternative, setting Rep. Barney Frank, the Democratic chairman of the committee, into a rage. Frank accuses Republicans of "sandbagging" him by bringing up a plan he's never seen. There's more shouting. The president brings the meeting back to order and urges everybody to get back together because "we need to get this done." The deciding factor for him on any final deal, he says, is whether or not Hank Paulson says it will work.

The meeting ends, but the fireworks are yet to come.

Democrats go back into the Roosevelt Room to discuss whether to go out to the cameras waiting on the White House driveway. Paulson comes in and literally begs them not to go out and criticize the meeting. For dramatic effect, Paulson gets down on one knee and says, "Please, I beg you, don't blow this up."

Barney Frank, shouting, "Don't give me that bulls**t."

More Frank: "Hank, you've got a problem here. Republicans want to torpedo this."

Pelosi is also outraged, but the Democrats decide not to go out as a group to the microphones.




http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5895827&page=1
Video story

Found interview with REAL PEOPLE about this.  Click link below for story, then video next to story.  I had a hard time getting vid to play, but viewed another story's video then went back to this one and it worked.


The FBI is investigating and Obama's camp had no comment.


Click below.

I don't believe this story for one minute!
The "B" carved in this young lady's cheek is more like scratch, and it is backwards. Have you ever looked at writing in a mirror? It's backwards! This young lady may have been mugged, but she scratched the "B" in her cheek all by herself. She is also a college Republican field representative, which makes this story even more fishy and explains her motive for doing this. Talk about stooping low...this is as low as it gets!
Reminds me of a story. s/m
Wealthy (Republican no doubt) race horse breeder sent his prize horse to England with his trainer for an important race.  Being frugal (or a tightwad) breeder told trainer to send him a telegram and let him know how the horse did in the race but to keep it brief to save money.  By and by the breeder received a telegram which said "SFSFF."  Upon his return home the breeder gleafully met the trainer and demanded to know how much money he had won.  The trainer reported that he had won nothing.  The breeder said, "but I got your telegram, SFSFF, started first, slowed, finished first."  " No, no, no said the trainer, SFSFF, started first,  stumbled, farted, fell."
They mentioned this story
on The O'Reilly Factor last night.  I saw the picture of her.  She says that she was at an ATM and was attacked by someone when they saw a McCain sticker on her car.  Bill O'Reilly mentioned that ATMs have cameras and they said the camera didn't pick up anything.  The B on her cheek was supposedly done by a knife.  Bill O'Reilly said that it didn't look like a knife wound to him and I must agree.  I'm a republican and I know that there are some wacko Obama supporters out there, but I just don't think this story is true.  We will see though.
I've not been following that story........ sm

maybe because I've been too absorbed in conspiracy theories? 


While Nixon was by far not my most favorite president, I really don't see any point in digging up stuff in the past on a dead president that really does not have anything to do with today's issues, except maybe to poke fun at him.  I doubt there is much in them of further historical interest. 

With that said, what appeared to be a sincere effort at starting a discussion on something other than what has been gone over and over here the past few days, I was interested to note that it was nothing more than yet another Bush bash.  I'm disappointed in you, BB. 

Here is the WHOLE story on "taxing"
health care benefits...

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Will-John-McCain-Really-Tax-Your-Health-Care-For-the-First-Time.htm
Story about to break....
whistle blower from Project Vote/Acorn...testifying in PA yesterday...supposedly has documents proving direct link between Obama campaign and Acorn/Project Vote...who this person says are virtually the same....saying Obama campaign gave the maxed-out donor list to Acorn/Project Vote so they could get donations from them for their voter registration program.  So much for "I have no connection to Acorn or their voter registration programs."   If I was that woman I would hire bodyguards.
Here is the link to story..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/mccain-camp-busses-in-sch_n_139300.html
My voting story
So I got up at 7am this morning to go with my husband to vote. Now, on our registration cards it told us we had to go like two towns over to vote. Since we just received them a couple of days ago, I didn't bother calling. I figured we would just take a nice little 20 minute drive. No biggie.

Well we arrive at the voting precinct, stand in line for 30 minutes (they had a whopping three voting machines set up!) and we get to where they check you in and are told "sorry, you're not on our list". So the polling manager takes us outside and we stand there for 20 minutes in the freezing drizzle as she tries to call the court house and find out why our registration cards sent us there and where we were supposed to be. Finally, they tell her we are supposed to go 8 miles down the road (further away from our house) and go vote there. She tells them that it's wrong (mind you we passed three other voting precincts on our way to this one!) but we told her that it was fine we would go. So we get down there and stand in line for another 20 minutes or so and finally got to vote!

IT'S OVER!!! IT'S ALL OVER!!!!!! WOOOOHHOOOOO!!!!
Get used to it. She's the story that just keeps on giving
there will be plenty more where that comes from.
I think I have the other side of the story.
I've been watching all those other stations for years. I just started watching Fox lately. How much more "open-minded" do you want me to be???
The story behind change.gov...

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/20/document-drop-the-story-behind-changegov/

Do you not know the story of Chicken Little?
Get off your high horse, Joan. It's you who's being "all snotty" by playing playground monitor.

And if you honsetly can't see the correlation between someone's absurd comments about 'the most daunting challenge in U.S. history' and Chicken Little running around sqwaking 'the sky is falling' then maybe this well help:

Metaphor (from the Greek language: metaphora, meaning "transfer") is language that directly compares seemingly unrelated subjects. It is a figure of speech that compares two or more things not using like or as. In the simplest case, this takes the form: "The [first subject] is a [second subject]." More generally, a metaphor is a rhetorical trope that describes a first subject as being or equal to a second object in some way. Thus, the first subject can be economically described because implicit and explicit attributes from the second subject are used to enhance the description of the first. This device is known for usage in literature, especially in poetry, where with few words, emotions and associations from one context are associated with objects and entities in a different context. In a simpler definition, it is comparing two things without using the words "like" or "as."

There now. That wasn't so hard, was it?
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved