adoseoftruth's Blog

Today, McCain made Sarah Palin, current governor of Alaska his VP candidate.

Palin was born in Idaho and raised in Alaska. In 1984, she was the runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant, receiving a scholarship that allowed her to attend the University of Idaho, where she received a degree in journalism. After working as a sports reporter at an Anchorage television station, Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska, City Council from 1992 to 1996, was elected mayor of Wasilla (population 5,470 in 2000) in 1996, and ran unsuccessfully for Lieutenant Governor in 2002.

Palin was elected Governor of Alaska in 2006 on the theme of governmental reform, defeating incumbent governor Frank Murkowski in the Republican primary and former Democratic Alaskan governor Tony Knowles in the general election. She gained attention for publicizing ethical violations by state Republican Party leaders.[2]

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

I cannnot believe that she was selected to cement the electoral votes of Alaska, or due to her connections in Washington.

  If you are a disappointed Hillary supporter......how does this make you feel about the McCain ticket now?

Is this a good selection? 

There has been an ad done describing the relationship between Mr. Obama, and William Ayers ,  The ad is in the first comment box.  In response to that:

The Obama campaign is using a new television ad to take on the issue of Obama's association with a 1970s radical who bombed the Capitol and Pentagon.

Obama has denounced Ayers' actions with the radical group, but has also referred to Ayers as "mainstream" and "respectable," a point that conservatives continue to pound the soon-to-be Democratic nominee about.

A 501(c) 4 group, acting independent of Republican John McCain's presidential campaign, last week, hammered Obama for his relationship with Ayers with a provocative television spot in Ohio and Michigan.

"Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it? Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama," the spot by American Issues Project says.

Some news organization, including Fox News Channel, refused to air the ad which uses images of 9/11. The Obama campaign says it has been reaching out to advertisers and sponsors to put pressure on stations to reject the ad, which it calls "despicable" and "false."

Rather than firing back at the outside group, the Obama campaign uses its new TV ad to accuse Sen. McCain of raising the Ayers issue in the presidential campaign.

"With all our problems, why is John McCain talking about the sixties, trying to link Barack Obama to radical Bill Ayers?," an announcer says.

The spot is incorrect in insinuating that John McCain himself has brought up Ayers -- it is in fact McCain's campaign that has sought to use the Ayers association against Obama, and McCain spokesman Brian Rogers did so again upon learning about the ad.

"The fact that Barack Obama chose to launch his political career at the home of an unrepentant terrorist raises more questions about Senator Obama's judgment than any TV ad ever could," Rogers said in a statement.

To the Obama campaign's point, a former McCain aide, Ed Failor Jr. is a key backer of American Issues Project, although he no longer has official ties with the campaign.

The group's sole $2.87 million funder, Texas billionaire Harold Simmons, has bundled between $50,000 and $100,000 for McCain. Simmons, along with another organizer for American Issues Project, Christian Pinkston, were both involved with the 2004 Swift Boats Veterans for Truth group that assailed Sen. John Kerry's war record.

The Obama campaign's attorney Bob Bauer sent a letter to the Justice Department arguing that American Issues Project is engaging is evading federal election law.

501(c) 4 groups are prohibited by law from coordinating with political campaigns to attack a candidate. The McCain campaign denies it has coordinated with the group.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/stra
ngely-timed.html

This situation raises a whole host of issues including free speech, and campaign finance reform.

Is the fact that the Obama campaign is responding by bringing up Ayers themselves at this point a good idea or not?

Additional Thoughts?????

This week of course is the Democrat National Convention, and Obama made his selection of Joe Biden, a long time Senator from Delaware.  

I think the choice isn't a bad one.  It is a choice that clearly attempts to address the concern of voters about his relative youth and inexperience.  Certainly a political insider, Biden reported that he garnered $67 million worth of projects"[12] for his constituents through congressional earmarks in 2007 alone.

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

How do Hillary supporters out there feel about this choice?  Willing to get behind Obama, or are you even madder that Hillary wasn't even considered???

WASHINGTON —  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that the U.S. and Iraq have agreed to "time horizons" for U.S. troops to leave Iraq.

A final deal is not quite complete, but Rice and Foreign Affairs Minister Hoshyar Zebari said a withdrawal plan and accompanying strategic framework pact is close to fruition.

"We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold, are well worth having in such an agreement," Rice told reporters after meeting with Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"This agreement determines the principle provisions, requirements, to regulate the temporary presence and the time horizon, the mission of the U.S. forces," Zebari said.

A draft agreement announced Wednesday would have American troops leave Iraqi cities as early as June 30. Rice flew into Baghdad on an unannounced trip on Thursday to hammer out unresolved issues.

Zebari said the pact has to go before Iraq's Executive Council for Review, but, "really, we are very, very close to closing this agreement."

Besides spelling out that U.S. troops would move out of Iraqi cities by next summer, the Iraqi government has pushed for a specific date, most likely the end of 2011, by which all U.S. forces would leave the country. In the meantime, the U.S. troops would be positioned on bases in other parts of the country to make them less visible while positioned to help Iraqi forces as needed.

U.S. officials have resisted committing firmly to a specific date for a final pullout, insisting that it would be wiser to set a target linked to the attainment of certain agreed-upon goals. These goals would reflect not only security improvements but also progress on the political and economic fronts.

On Wednesday, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the calmer environment in Iraq had enabled the accord to be drafted.

"The improved security in Iraq allows us to have conversations with the Iraqis about setting goals for more American troops to come home and for the Iraqis to take the lead in more combat missions," Johndroe said. "Any dates in an agreement will be based on conditions on the ground because we do not want to lose the hard-fought gains of the surge."

On her way to Iraq, Rice too expressed optimism about progress in Iraq. However, she cautioned that a deal wasn't done.

Rice said the U.S. wants to make sure Iraqi forces are responsible for their own country's security, as has been the goal "from the beginning."

The military surge has worked and "we are making progress together in the defeat of Iraq's enemies of all stripes," she said.

The agreement "builds on the success we have had in the last year. This agreement is based on success," she added. "We're not sitting here talking about an agreement to try to get out of a bad situation."

Asked about fears expressed by neighboring countries over such a pact, Zebari said, "This (agreement) is a sovereign one, and Iran and other neighboring countries have the right to ask for clarifications. ... There are clear articles (that) say that Iraq will not be used as a launching pad for any aggressive acts against neighboring countries and we already did clarify this."

"Obviously, the American forces are here, coalition forces are here at the invitation of the Iraqi government," Rice said. "What we're trying to do is put together an agreement that protects our people, respects Iraq's sovereignty."

Iraqi and U.S. officials have been working on a Status of Forces Agreement for months and some of the negotiations appeared to be playing out in the news. Zebari acknowledged that the delay had been partly the effect of internal political factors.

Followers of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr control 30 of the 275 seats in parliament. The head of the group's political bureau on Thursday criticized Rice's visit and repeated the Sadrists' opposition to the security agreement.

"We as the Sadr movement denounce this dubious visit and such timing. We reaffirm our stance of rejecting the long-term agreement. We demand the Iraqi government, and on the highest levels, not to sign this unjust agreement and we demand the withdrawal of the government as soon as possible," said Luai Smeisem, the head of the political bureau in the Sadr movement.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The deal isn't done.  But, this is GOOD NEWS isn't it!? 

Can't we ALL agree on this?????

Assuming a deal is finalized, WHO benefits????

This is my platform:

 National Security

1)  Victory in Iraq.  Surrendering, or leaving without Iraq being able to defend itself will not happen
a) Fully support NSA, and patriot act.  I would seek Federal legislation which would fully list the rights to be granted "enemy combatants", and as such, keep it out of the judiciary.

2) NO Appeasement
a) I would not negotiate with dictators of the world in places like Iran, Syria, N.Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela without signifigant"pre-conditions" .  We negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness.

3) We will fight Islamic Jihadists wherever they are.  Governments which hinder our efforts will face at the minimum, economic consequences.  At worse, their sovereignty will not deter all efforts necessary to protect the American people.

                                                      
  Domestic Spending

1) I would support Tax CUTS, and fiscal responsibility:  The Bush tax cuts need to be permanent, and government needs eliminate  numerous departments and government programs.  For example, the DPT. Education and all programs which subsidize specific industries.
a) I believe that the  American people are NOT under taxed, Government Spends too much
c) I would pledge to BALANCE the budget

                                                     
         Energy

a) Support Immediate drilling in Anwar and the 48 contiguous states
b) Support Building new refineries
c) Support Nuclear energy
d) Expand the use of clean coal
e) Realistic steward of the environment,  would direct the EPA to reclassify carbon dioxide as a  non-pollutant.  Would oppose government mandating the use of specific products.
While simultaneously working with private industry to develop the new energy technologies for the future, with the goal being that America becomes completely energy independent within the next 15 years.   In order accomplish this, the EPA would be restructured, and their processes streamlined.

                                                      
Immigration Policy

a) build all necessary fences, our borders must be secure
b) use all available technology to help and support agents at the border
c) train and hire agents as needed 

d) ENFORCE current immigration laws.

e) I would consider further reform once the previous points had occurred.

                                                       
          Healthcare

a) I will look for Free-Market solutions to the problems facing the Healthcare industry, and will vigorously oppose any efforts to "nationalize healthcare". 
 b) I will fight for Individual health savings accounts, that includes "catastrophic insurance" for every American, so people can control their own healthcare choices.

                                                      
             Education

a)  Although this is still predominately a local issue,  I would fight for "CHOICE" in education.   Let parents decide.  In particular, I would fight for vouchers for parents that they could take to any regionally accredited institution. 

                                                      
           Social Security

a) Social Security  cannot exist in its current form.  It its current form it is strictly a vehicle for income redistribution.
b) Options must include "private retirement" funds, so people can "control" their own destiny.   People have to take responsibility for their own retirement.  

                                                      
                 Judges

a) I would nominate ONLY judges who recognize that their job is to interpret the Constitution, and NOT legislate from the bench.  

Will you vote for me.....................if not, why not????

I watched as much as I could of the womens gymnastics last night.  Although I am not a regular gymnastics fan, I am AMAZED at the strength, power, and agility of female and male gymnasts. 

The USA ladies team had an real opportunity to win the gold...........but, several critical errors, a fall of the balance beam and a floor exercise tumble did them in.

But, the Coach, Ms. Karolyi has been making some very public comments regarding the Chinese, accusing them of having gymnasts that may not meet the age requirement, and of tactics during the meet which contributed to some poor efforts on the part of USA gymnasts.

I will say, that to my eyes, the USA female gymnasts clearly appeared to be older than the Chinese............but, that proves nothing.

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/gymnastics
/news?slug=dw-karolyis081308&prov=yhoo&type=lgns>

Is this WHINING, and poor sportsmanship, or.......................can anybody make a case that the Chinese pulled out all the stops.........literally, to stack the deck in their favor?????

By CARA ANNA, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 22 minutes ago

BEIJING (AP)—One little girl had the looks. The other had the voice.

So in a last-minute move demanded by one of China’s highest officials, the two were put together for the Olympic opening ceremony, with one lip-synching “Ode to the Motherland” over the other’s singing.

The real singer, 7-year-old Yang Peiyi, with her chubby face and crooked baby teeth, wasn’t good looking enough for the ceremony, its chief music director told state-owned Beijing Radio.

So the pigtailed Lin Miaoke, a veteran of television ads, mouthed the words with a pixie smile for a stadium of 91,000 and a worldwide TV audience. “I felt so beautiful in my red dress,” the tiny 9-year-old told the China Daily newspaper.

Peiyi later told China Central Television that just having her voice used was an honor.

It was the latest example of the lengths the image-obsessed China is taking to create a perfect Summer Games.

“The little girl is a magnificent singer,” Chen said. “She doesn’t deserve to be hidden.” He said the ceremony’s director, film director Zhang Yimou, knew of the change. He declined to speak further about it.

China has been eager to present a flawless Olympics face to the world, shooing thousands of migrant workers from the city and shutting down any sign of protest.

The country’s quest for perfection apparently includes its children.

A member of China’s Politburo asked for the last-minute change during a live rehearsal shortly before the ceremony, Chen said in the Beijing Radio interview, posted online Sunday night. He didn’t name the official.

During the live rehearsal, the Politburo member said Miaoke’s voice “must change,” Chen said.

“We had to make that choice. It was fair both for Lin Miaoke and Yang Peiyi,” Chen told Beijing Radio. “We combined the perfect voice and the perfect performance.”

“The audience will understand that it’s in the national interest,” Chen added.

He said he felt a responsibility to explain to the country what happened but on Tuesday the link to the video on the Beijing Radio Web site no longer worked.

Miaoke’s performance Friday night, like the ceremony itself, was an immediate hit. “Nine-year-old Lin Miaoke becomes instant star with patriotic song,” the China Daily newspaper headline said.

Zhang, China’s most famous film director, was asked at a post-ceremony news conference about the little girl who swung on wires high above the Bird’s Nest National Stadium during the performance.

“She is a lovely girl and she sings well,” Zhang said, according to a transcript posted on the Beijing organizing committee’s web site.

The switch became a hot topic among Chinese and raced across the country’s blogosphere.

“The organizers really messed up on this one,” Luo Shaoyang, 34, a retail worker in Beijing, said Tuesday. “This is like a voiceover for a cartoon character. Why couldn’t they pick a kid who is both cute and a good singer? This damages the reputation of both kids for their future, especially the one lip-synching. Now everyone knows she’s a fraud, who cares if she’s cute?”

Others disagreed.

“They want the best-looking people to represent the face of China. I don’t blame the organizers for picking a prettier-looking kid over the not-so-pretty one,” said Xia Xiaotao, 30, an engineer.

“It’s the unfortunate reality that these sort of things turn political,” said marketing worker Zhang Xinyi, 22.

It was not the first time an Olympics opening ceremony involved lip-synching.

At the 2006 Winter Games in Turin, Luciano Pavarotti’s performance was prerecorded. The maestro who conducted the aria, Leone Magiera, said this year that the bitter cold made a live performance impossible for Pavarotti, who was in severe pain months before his cancer diagnosis. Pavarotti died in 2007 at age 71.

Also Tuesday, Beijing organizers confirmed that some of the opening ceremony’s fireworks display—29 gigantic footprints shown “walking” toward the National Stadium—featured prerecorded footage. The footage was provided to broadcasters “for convenience and theatrical effects,” said Wang Wei, vice president of the Beijing Olympic organizing committee.

(NBC also has augmented its Olympic coverage in the past to set the right mood. That fire in the studio fireplace during the 2002 Salt Lake Games? It was just a video.)

Neither of the two little girls involved could be reached by The Associated Press on Tuesday, and it was not clear how the ceremony—or the controversy— might change their lives.

Peiyi is a first-grader at the Primary School affiliated to Peking University. Her tutor, Wang Liping, wrote in her blog that Peiyi is both cute and well-behaved, with a love for Peking opera.

“She doesn’t like to show off. She’s easygoing,” Wang wrote. She and other school officials couldn’t be reached Tuesday.

Miaoke, however, was a minor celebrity even before the opening ceremony. The third-grader appeared in a TV ad last year with China’s biggest gold medal hope, hurdling champion Liu Xiang, and she was in an Olympics ad earlier this year, China Daily reported.

Her father, Lin Hui, told China Daily he learned Miaoke would be “singing” only 15 minutes before the opening ceremony began.

Lin “still cannot believe his daughter has become an international singing sensation,” the report said.

Chi-Chi Zhang and Isolda Morillo in Beijing contributed to this report.

Is this a big deal...............or no issue at all???

• 
• • Oliver Tickell
  • The Guardian,
  • Monday August 11 2008
  • Article history

We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction.

The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.

Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way.

To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

But what are we to do? All our policies to date to tackle global warming have been miserable failures. The Kyoto protocol has created a vast carbon market but done little to reduce emissions. The main effect of the EU's emissions trading scheme has been to transfer about €30bn or more from consumers to Europe's biggest polluters, the power companies. The EU and US foray into biofuels has, at huge cost, increased greenhouse gas emissions and created a world food crisis, causing starvation in many poor countries.

So are all our efforts doomed to failure? Yes, so long as our governments remain craven to special interests, whether carbon traders or fossil fuel companies. The carbon market is a valuable tool, but must be subordinate to climatic imperatives. The truth is that to prevent runaway greenhouse warming, we will have to leave most of the world's fossil fuels in the ground, especially carbon-heavy coal, oil shales and tar sands. The fossil fuel and power companies must be faced down.

Global problems need global solutions, and we also need an effective replacement for the failed Kyoto protocol. The entire Kyoto system of national allocations is obsolete because of the huge volumes of energy embodied in products traded across national boundaries. It also presents a major obstacle to any new agreement – as demonstrated by the 2008 G8 meeting in Japan that degenerated into a squabble over national emission rights.

The answer? Scrap national allocations and place a single global cap on greenhouse gas emissions, applied "upstream" – for instance, at the oil refinery, coal-washing station and cement factory. Sell permits up to that cap in a global auction, and use the proceeds to finance solutions to climate change – accelerating the use of renewable energy, raising energy efficiency, protecting forests, promoting climate-friendly farming, and researching geoengineering technologies. And commit hundreds of billions of dollars per year to finance adaptation to climate change, especially in poor countries.

Such a package of measures would allow us to achieve zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and long-term stabilisation at 350 parts per million of CO2 equivalent. This avoids the economic pain that a cap-and-trade system alone would cause, and targets assistance at the poor, who are least to blame and most need help. The permit auction would raise about $1 trillion per year, enough to finance a spread of solutions. At a quarter of the world's annual oil spending, it is a price well worth paying.

· Oliver Tickell's book Kyoto2 has just been published kyoto2.org

So, the theory of Global Warming now states that there may be a 4 degree Celcius rise in temperatures.  And the only solution  since individual nations aren't actually doing anyting to eliminate CO2 emissions, is to sell "global caps".    The article indicates such a sale would raise about 1 Trillion dollars per year and that this is a "price well worth paying".

Comments????

By Lanny Davis
Former White House Counsel/FOX News Political Contributor

I remember the exact moment I had my first serious doubts about whether I was 100 percent right that the U.S. preemptive invasion of Iraq and the take-out of Saddam Hussein was a serious mistake.

I had been strongly opposed to the U.S. intervention from the start. I felt this way even though I believed (as did most everyone, including the intelligence community) that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and even though I thought that Saddam was a murderous, genocidal thug and the world would be better off — and the U.S. safer — with him dead.

However, I reasoned, the WMD inspectors were back in and we had Saddam surrounded — thanks to George Bush, by the way, for which we Democrats did not give him sufficient credit at the time.

So why risk the uncertainties of a preemptive invasion, loss of life and treasure, and diverting our attention from 9/11 and the war against terror, which most U.S. intelligence indicated had nothing to do with Saddam?

Of course, all these remain good reasons for opposing starting the war, even as I look back now.

But then came my first moment of doubt.

I saw on TV in early 2005, in their first preliminary democratic elections, long lines of Iraqis waiting to vote under the hot desert sun with bombs and shrapnel exploding around them. Waiting to vote!

And then there was that indelible image — an older woman shrouded in a carpet-like cape, smiling gleefully and holding her purple finger in the air for the TV cameras, purple with ink showing that she had voted.

Smiling! In the middle of war! At U.S. troops standing nearby!

Wow, I thought. Is it possible I was wrong?

Is it possible, I wondered, that Iraqis truly did want democracy and freedom and the right to vote and government of the people, just as we Americans do? And were willing to fight for it, with our help?

Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Even a great thing?

Maybe another democracy, however imperfect, other than Israel in the Middle East could lead to more moderation, possibly other democracies? Democracies that could serve as bulwarks against Al Qaeda-type of terrorist states?

Then in 2005-2006 came the increased violence from the Sunni insurgents against American kids, then the sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shi’ites, with young Americans caught in the crossfire. My certainty in opposing the war and supporting a deadline for getting out re-emerged.

And then in early 2007 came the surge, which so many of us in the anti-war left of the Democratic Party predicted would be a failure, throwing good men and women and billions of dollars after futility. We were wrong.

The surge did, in fact, lead to a reduction of violence, confirmed by media on the ground as well as our military leaders.

It did allow the Shi’ite government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the last several months to show leadership by joining, if not leading, the military effort to clean out of Basra the masked Mahdi Army controlled by the anti-U.S. Shiite extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and in the Sadr City section of Baghdad he claimed to control.

This willingness by the Shi’ite–dominated Maliki government to move against the Sadr Shi’ite extremists won crucial credibility for the government among many Sunni leaders and Sunnis on the streets, who joined together with Shi’ites to turn against the Al Qaeda in Iraq and other Taliban–like extremists.

These are facts, not arguments.

I think there are a lot of anti-war Democrats who, like me, are impressed by these facts and who now see a moral obligation, after all the carnage and destruction wrought by our military intervention, not just to pick up and leave without looking over our shoulders.

Surely we owe the Iraqis who helped us, whose lives are in danger, immediate immigration rights to the U.S. Yet the shameful fact is that most are still not even close to having such rights.

Surely we owe the Maliki government and the Shiiite and Sunni soldiers who put their lives on the line against Shiite and Sunni extremists and terrorists at our behest some continuing presence and support and patience as they strive to find peace, political reconciliation — and maybe even the beginnings of a stable democracy.

The only question is, for how long?

Forever? No. 100 years? No.

But for how long? I don’t know.

I just know I can’t get out of my mind that lady with the purple finger held up, smiling into the camera. If getting in was a mistake, then getting out — how and when — is not so simple as long as there is hope that she can some day live in a democratic Iraq that can help America in the war against terror.

This piece was also published in The Washington Times on Monday, July 21, 2008.

Georgia today claimed that Russian forces had overrun the strategic city of Gori as troops prepared to defend the capital Tbilisi from what one official called a "total onslaught".

Georgian soldiers fled Gori, 17 miles from the border with rebel South Ossetia, in panic and disarray, clinging to the sides of cars and vehicles as they sped out of town. A Georgian armoured personnel carrier was in flames on the street, a victim of an apparent sudden rout.

Alexander Lomaia, secretary of the Georgian security council, said that the Georgian army had been told instead to concentrate its efforts on holding Mtskheta, 15 miles from the capital.

"Russian forces are occupying Gori. Georgian armed forces received an order to leave Gori and to fortify positions near Mtskheta to defend the capital. This is a total onslaught," Mr Lomaia said.

Central cause of the conflict is that Southern Ossetes want to unite with their counterparts in the North, part of Russia

Just hours before the retreat Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and France’s foreign minister Bernard Kouchner had been forced to dive for cover in Gori when an unidentified helicopter flew overhead.

Georgia was facing a Russian push on two fronts as as the Kremlin continued to ignore international pressure for a ceasefire five days into the conflict.

In the west, Russian troops entered Georgia from the breakaway region of Abkhazia on the Black Sea, while in the north, intense shelling continued in and around South Ossetia.

Moscow confirmed that its soldiers had swept from Abkhazia into the town of Senaki, 40 km inside Georgia. The Defence Ministry in Moscow claimed that the raid on Senaki was intended to prevent Georgian troops from regrouping for "new attacks on South Ossetia".

The admission marked a dangerous new phase in the conflict as Russia advanced into Georgian territory with no indication of when its offensive might cease, despite a claim from President Medvedev that much of the operation was complete.

President Saakashvili told Georgians in a televised address that Russia was attempting to occupy the whole country. He said: "This provocation was aimed at occupying South Ossetia, Abkhazia and then all of Georgia."

He claimed that Russian tanks were rampaging through the countryside while Russian troops were carrying out summary killings and human rights abuses.

In the hours before the claimed fall of Gori, The Times witnessed Russian MiG fighter jets bombing Georgian positions about 9 km from the border with South Ossetia, and there were sustained exchanges of artillery fire.

Soldiers on the ground claimed that Russian and South Ossetian forces had established artillery positions inside the border on the Georgian side. Georgian tanks and heavy weaponry ringed the outskirts of Gori in anticipation of a Russian advance.

The prospects for a negotiated ceasefire were dealt a blow when Russia's ambassador to Nato declared that Mr Saakashvili "is no longer a man that we can deal with". Dmitri Rogozin said: "He must be punished for breaching international law. He is responsible for many war crimes."

President Sarkozy of France is preparing to fly to Georgia and Russia tomorrow on a peace mission, following a round of shuttle diplomacy by his foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, who is due in Moscow tonight carrying a draft ceasefire proposal signed by Mr Saakashvili.

Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, said that Russia would continue its military operation until "its logical end".

He hit out at the United States in particular for transporting 800 Georgian soldiers from Iraq, some of whom were deployed in Gori.

Russia warned the West that "the Georgian side was preparing aggression," said Mr Putin. "Nobody was listening. And this is the result. We have finally come to it. However, Russia will of course carry out its peacekeeping mission to its logical end."

Russia's incursion into Georgian territory follows a rapid troop build up, as thousands of Russian troops have poured into Georgia's breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Nato's Secretary-General today criticised Russia over its "disproportionate" use of force. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was "seriously concerned" about Russia's response and its "lack of respect for the territorial integrity of Georgia," a spokesperson said.

The statement followed President Bush's comments in Beijing, where he was watching the Olympics. He said he had spoken "firmly" to Mr Putin, who was directing the Kremlin's actions in Georgia.

Gordon Brown today made his first direct comments on the crisis, saying there was "no justification" for Russia’s military action in Georgia, and that there was a "clear responsibility" on Moscow to agree a ceasefire and bring a swift end to the conflict which threatened a "humanitarian catastrophe".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/
article4507980.ece

WHAT, COULD AND SHOULD WE (USA) DO IN RESPONSE TO THE RUSSIAN ACTION??????

Edwards admits to affair, denies fathering child

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 7 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Friday admitted to an extramarital affair while his wife was battling cancer. He denied fathering the woman's daughter.

Edwards told ABC News that he lied repeatedly about the affair with a 42-year-old woman but said that he didn't love her. He said he has not taken a paternity test but knows he isn't the father because of the timing of the affair and the birth.

ABC said a former Edwards campaign staffer claims he is the father, not Edwards.

Edwards was a top contender for the Democratic nomination for president, pursuing his party's nod even after announcing that his wife, Elizabeth, had a deadly form of cancer.

He placed second in the Iowa caucuses last January but dropped out of the race a few weeks later. He has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential choice for Barack Obama. The former North Carolina senator was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004.

In 2006, Edwards' political action committee paid $100,000 in a four-month span to a newly formed firm run by Rielle Hunter, who directed the production of just four Web videos, one a mere 2 1/2 minutes long.

Hunter's daughter, Frances Quinn Hunter, was born on Feb. 27, 2008, and no father's name is given on the birth certificate filed in California.

The payments from Edwards' One America Committee to Midline Groove Productions LLC started on July 5, 2006, five days after Hunter incorporated the firm in Delaware.

Midline provided "Website/Internet services," according to reports that Edwards' PAC filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Midline's work product consists of four YouTube videos showing Edwards in informal settings as he prepares to make speeches in Storm Lake, Iowa, and Pittsburgh, Pa., prepares for an appearance on "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" and travels in Uganda in 2006.

Edwards' PAC paid Midline $100,000 in a four-month span in 2006, and followed that up with two smaller payments totaling $14,461, the last on April 1, 2007.

Comments????

It doesn't take much effort now to figure out that as a consequence of the "Surge", Al Queda in Iraq, and insurgent forces have been pulverized to the point of a complete collapse.   This country has bore a tremendous cost, in dollars and lives in achieving this. 

Years ago, President Bush stood on an aircraft carrier with the banner "Mission Accomplished" behind him.  In hindsight, clearly that was premature.  Since then, the President , Republican Party, and conservatives have bore the political and public relations consequences.  

But today, in 2008,  is it time to justly and with all due consideration declare VICTORY in Iraq?  And if so, should it be done before the November elections?

"America is no longer what it could be...........what it once was..........to be better, more prosperous, unified,  kinder, tolerant, .........."

See video below:

Now, I don't expect Mr. Obama to come read this blog and clarify what he said to that young girl................but it is clear that there are plenty of folks out there who seem to fully grasp the sort of "hope" and "change" Mr. Obama preaches. 

So, Liberals, I am asking for some help here.

His statement implies that there was a time in the past that when all was much better.......that America was much closer to what it should be than it is today. 

SO, what time period is he talking about???  And do you believe, or not,  that Mr. Obama believes that there was a better America than the America of 2008???

Thanks in advance for broadening my understanding!

See Video in first comment: