REPUBLICAN SENATOR LUGAR WANTS A CRYSTAL BALL

Rep Sen Lugar

Today on Meet the Press, David Gregory interviewed Bob Gates and Hillary Clinton.  Both were very clear on the answer to the questions as to how, why and what are we doing in Libya.  Their segment was followed by an interview with Senator Richard Lugar, (R) Ind.

On 3/24 Senator Lugar was calling for Sen Kerry to hold hearings on the Libyan war immediately.  Senator Lugar was disturbed that we have not goals and end plans clear....emphasis on the 'we' being Obama.  He spoke as though it was totally a US action mentioning, early on in his comments, nothing about the UN Security Council or coalition.  How statements are made, with omissions as factors certainly can skew a picture badly.  With some validity he referred to our lack of knowledge about who or what the forces are that would replace Gaddafi, intimating a  sense of 'the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know'.  Meanwhile he admitted to having had a telephone call with Obama who had laid out answers.  Senator Lugar seems not to have heard them, or perhaps it was that they did not change his preconceived notions for which he wants to hold hearings (probably with people who do not have the answers either)..  He remains convinced we should not be involved with the Libyan Civil War.  We can all be grateful that Lafayette did not feel the same during the American Revolution.

People look for answers that don't exist yet about the future. Random variables being as unpredictable as they are, the consequence of many actions can not be anticipated. A valid point Sen Lugar raised is that nothing has been said about where the money will come from to pay for our participation.

Tom Ricks  a Pulitzer Prize winning former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. He writes a blog at ForeignPolicy.com and is a member of Center for a New American Security, a defense policy think tank,    was the only one who did not speak the language of gloom and doom.  He spoke practically; that the rebels might not win and our efforts may have been for naught. He did not suggest we should not assist the Libyan rebels in their attempts..

WHAT COULD VICTORY IN IRAQ LOOK LIKE?

While outgoing General Petraeus says he will never declare victory there, John McCain seems to be stuck in an outdated military thinking. This is not a typical war nor has it been run typically. Since 2006, most Americans have agreed that we will never be able to claim victory. In my memory, wars have been fought and when the loser surrenders, victory is declared. To whom should we look for surrender in Iraq? Saddam Hussein is no more (not ever having been a threat to us in the first place), but we have kept fighting. Why? The enemy isn't even in Iraq!

Why is McCain focusing on protecting Sarah Palin. Did anyone treat Hillary delicately? Did she ever describe herself as a pitbull with lipstick? Emphatically, no! Is a hockey mom without lipstick simply a pit bull? Why does McCain rarely mention Iraq and why did the RNC emphasize 9/11 and not the war when the war was conveniently manufactured, having shaken up the populace into a sufficient terror that anything was allowed after...especially by the bully type of American who thought only of punching out anyone to get revenge. Americans walked right into the spider-Cheney's web and we have been eaten alive ever since.

Osama bin Laden threatened he would break the American economy. He can now claim the only clear victory. He has succeeded due to the inability of this Administration to think of consequences. Can the USA claim a victory? Absolutely not. We succeeded in destroying the dictatorship of a country that didn't ask us to rescue them. This impulsive move destroyed almost the whole country. We allowed insurgents into Iraq who were fighting a 'war of terror' but we never really knew who they were nor was a formal war declared by any of them with the customary rules of engagement. There are, actually, rules to war as covered in the Hague Laws and the Geneva Convention though, since this is not a war to our enemy, they are not followed. We, on the other hand, consider it a war so we just choose to ignore them.

SARAH PALIN SPEAKS TO AMERCA

If there are those of you around old enough to remember when Bill Clinton anticipated the worst was over for him when he won the election, only to find he hadn't counted on next test, being accepted by the media. I particularly remember Cokie Roberts mouthing off about what would be taught him when he got to Washington, since he dared to think he could come into Washington and take over (not a direct quote), but the meaning was made clear. It was insinuated that he would learn who really runs Washington.

With condescension, Sarah Palin said in her speech, 9/3/08, "I'm not going to Washington seeking the media's good opinion, I'm going to serve the American people."
Having thrown the gauntlet to the media, she should not be surprised when they ask her to choose her weapon and meet her at dawn. Their weapon, you can be assured will be the written word. If she is impressed with herself for firing up her audience, she should be aware that theirs is continuously on the air for people to be influenced.

She got rid of the governor's personal chef, she let us know (which cannot be a significant saving for the state), adding "I can assure you five kids certainly miss her at times." (Can it be that it might be an unhappy chef trying to please the taste of all those teenagers?) She accused Obama of being worried someone won't read us our rights, causing me to wonder if the culture of ignoring the Constitution will be carried on were she to be in Washington. She goes on to say, "He wants to grow the government. Taxes are too high...he wants to raise them." She gave no indication she is even aware of the budget, what programs are essential, and from where the money will come.

Having survived the first six years of the Republican Senate, I was appalled to hear her say, "Harry Reed, head of the do-nothing Senate." She must have been too busy having babies to have been aware of how little the Senate did other than rubber stamp Bush prior to Harry Reed.

Sarah Palin seemed, in her speech, to be totally oblivious to the issues of the 48 states down below her. She offered nothing but a pipeline and mentioned helping Ohio with raising employment there and another key State in the election. Her speech, though delivered emotionally and touching the fervor of the ramped up audience, had little to indicate that she could withstand a debate on world crises with Hillary Clinton (as a woman) or Barack Obama as the Democratic choice to be presidential candidate for 2008. It always saddens me when the bar to Office of the Presidency is lowered to the ridiculous. It is as disheartening as it was to hear of the Catholic Church's failure to protect its young people from predator priests by lowering its standards for priestly behavior.

Will we next find Internet colleges giving online courses on how to prepare yourself to be the next President? Indeed, that is what she is quite likely to be if she is now voted in as VP with a record of 1 out of three US VP's becoming President before the elected President's term of office has expired.

A SECOND BIG REASON TO NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN

The Republicans did not see fit to allow anyone to think Hillary Clinton was fit to be Commander in Chief or President. Her law degree from Yale and 30 years of successful political endeavors for women and children and many other projects, for her years in the Senate and on significant committees in no way compares in John McCain's mind to Sarah Palin's readiness for the job. I am left gasping in astonishment as to whether he really thinks he is immortal, women are just interchangeable bodies, or the American public is that stupid!!

The Environmental News Service writes that Palin has challenged the influence of big oil companies (her husband works for BP, formerly British Petroleum) and she is in favor of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Is there anyone out there who truly believes that McCain's health will endure through four years of a Presidency and that, should he not, she will be able to take over for him on day 1? If a degree in journalism with little major experience in the field, mother of 5, and governor of a rich state with relatively few financial problems prepares this 42 year old former beauty queen to balance the budget or pay off the National Debt, let alone deal with the foreign affairs of the country, they have made a total mockery of the process of electing a President and Vice President, the person to whom the red button control falls as second in command.

SEXISM THRIVING IN THE SEXIST MEDIA

The Women's Media Center has put out a great video and it is wonderful to watch and listen to all the media guys who think they are not sexist, while being flagrantly sexist. One sound bite is Chris Matthews insisting that the reason Hillary Clinton is a Senator is because her husband 'messed around'. That is not only an insult to this woman who is so far brighter and superior to him in every way, but it is an insult to the NY voters who intelligently voted her in, and then voted her in for another term (when her husband wasn't messing around).

One, intellectually challenged, speaking about Hillary, who by now must be post menopausal, spoke of 'besides the PMS and mood swings'.... Male menopause comes when the skull sucks up hair, letting it come through ears, nose, eyebrows, as 'manhood' weakens elsewhere. Someone should remind these men that there is also a male climacteric and they are in it! They may joke about women's mood swings but fail to see themselves as they become crabby, opinionated, grumpy old men and their butt drops off. (I have yet to see a man over 60 who hasn't lost the curve he used to have behind him, below his waist....or has it now moved up to between his shoulders?) These men remind me of the joke in which the mother is telling her daughter that an older man is like a Christmas tree. The daughter looks confused and asks how that can be. Mother replies, "Well, like the Christmas tree, he is dead at the root and has balls only for decoration."

The church began to push women to the side when one of the old priests decided Mary Magdellan was a prostitute. He spread the word and made it stick (sounds like he was a Karl Rove ancestor). Women were eventually pushed out of the church management as neatly as Bush got rid of the Constitution and job description of the President. I recall spending an Easter in Greece and being taken to a church service in which all women stood on one side of the church while all men sat on the other!

Wait until more women unite and the sisterhood becomes less like sibling rivalry. Then we'll see how these peacocks we refer to as 'men in the media' quack and quickly let their tail feathers down. When this voting period is over, we will be as clear about the poor judgment of our acquaintances and neighbors as we became by those who voted for Bush and were unable to see through him during his perpetual motion campaign for eight years in office. So we will recognize all the women who are so insecure and trodden on by being women that they quickly ran to a handsome man who promised hope. Rather than risk voting for someone who might be as weak as they feel themselves, the sheep followed the Shepherd. What a pity that the Phyllis Schlaflys seem to be a majority still....those who cower around men, the Stepford wives of today. Sadly, the plumbing may make men physically stronger in majority but brains trump it all. Hopefully women will some day learn that they really are equal, not just hope that men will come to believe it. They will also learn that equality does not mean Unisex bathrooms but equality of opportunity...equal pay for equal work and proper respect shown for achievement, not ridicule as we have seen shown Hillary Clinton through this campaign. Luckily for us we believe Barack Obama is a good candidate and that the Democratic party has not been ripped asunder as the self-proclaimed pundits would hope to convince us

The Psychology Department published an ambivalency test you can take. Try it if you care or dare.