The performance of our woeful Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Commitee must be seen to be believed. It's just as astonishing as the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' denial, abandonment, and hostility towards the centuries-old writ of habeas corpus. These people are positively medieval.
Rice said that it was "highly unlikely that the military would tell the president we expect X number of casualties" in her squirming response to California Senator Barbara Boxer.
Ahem.
"Pentagon planners this week warned President George W. Bush that his "troop surge" plan could double U.S. casualties in Iraq in the coming year and result in 10,000 or more American deaths by the end of 2008."
Easily found here. Amazing. She's either lying or unprepared, and both these are simply unacceptable. Though I suppose Senator Boxer could have had an aide google it up before she posed the issue before Rice. Maybe she had, but in the video it didn't seem like Senator Boxer was setting up Rice with that type of rhetorical trick. She just put Rice on the spot.
It's not a partisan thing anymore. The recent polls ALL show a two-against-one disapproval of Bush's handling of his war. The president is no longer in line with the people of his country. He's an outlier. (Pun intended.)
The Newsweek poll shows that only 24% approve of Bush's handling of the situation he created in Iraq. I would wager that that's the same group of people who also in recent polls said that Jesus will return in 2007. Is there an office betting pool for that?
Aside: Back in the day there were many acolytes of Moe Loogham. Perhaps many persist. There were and maybe still are different factions in respect to Moe: the "Moe is coming" crowd, the skeptical "Moe is not coming" group. I myself was of the opinion that he was already here but wouldn't go away.
Disclaimer: My spouse was a random participant in the Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International January 17-18, 2007. They were very happy to have been polled and called me at work to tell me about this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
All I have to say is that if Jesus returns in 2007, I have a feeling that the people who are happily supporting war, justifying 'collateral damage' in order to make the people in other countries do things our way, and who also oppose doing anything about New Orleans, doing anything about hunger, doing anything about poverty, starvation, disease and homelessness, just might squirm a little in their seats.
Ya think?
Personally I have my doubts, but if Jesu Christe were indeed to return this year I would advocate for him immensely.
There seems to be no scientifically verifiable evidence that he will return so soon, so I remain in doubt. This is not a spiritual issue. It has more to do with computer models of future events.
Rather than the return of the saviour, it's far more likely that dangerous climate changes will pose threats to coastal communities. I do not see that as beneficial to Jesus' plan. However, we could plan for this pending catastrophe. There is no religious imperitive *not* to do so.
Jesus' return will not drown Miami. Or will it? Will Long Island similarly drown? Is this god's plan? Where is this noted in the bible?
Post a Comment