Apparently our great leader, on the advice of his chief spin doctor, has taken to phoning people randomly at 6am in the morning who have written to him complaining about his policies. If Gordon Brown phoned you, what would you like to say to him?http://www.prweek.com/uk/home/article/81…
Gordon Brown’s latest comms offensive involves cold-calling members of the public who have written him letters, according to sources close to Downing Street.
The initiative is said to be the brainchild of Downing Street chief of strategy Stephen Carter and is intended to ‘humanise’ the Prime Minister as his popularity continues to wane.
‘Carter thought it was a good idea to have Brown call people personally,’ said one insider. ‘Carter will choose a letter or email at random, have one of his team at Number 10 prepare a res­ponse, then get Brown to call.’
The move is an attempt to spread positive word of mouth for the PM, especially in the ­regions.

NYT REJECTS MCCAIN’S EDITORIAL; SHOULD ‘MIRROR’ OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET
An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES — less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The paper’s decision to refuse McCain’s direct rebuttal to Obama’s ‘My Plan for Iraq’ has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.
‘It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece,’ NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain’s staff. ‘I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.’
MORE
In McCain’s submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: ‘I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it… if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.’
NYT’s Shipley advised McCain to try again: ‘I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft.’
[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]
MORE
A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator’s Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not “re-work the draft.”
McCain writes in the rejected essay: ‘Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. ‘I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,’ he said on January 10, 2007. ‘In fact, I think it will do the reverse.’
MORE
Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.
‘The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.’
Shipley continues: ‘It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.’
Developing…
The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s
initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they
could and should do for themselves.”
Abraham Lincoln

I have been dieting for the past three months. My strategy has been limiting my calorie intake (although eating very healthy foods) to no more than 1200 per day and walking 1 1/2 to 3 miles per day.
After the birth of my daughter almost two years ago, , almost losing her to a blood infection that almost took her life at birth, losing our main source of income, having my husband hospitalized for extended time for an unknown illness, losing our home to foreclosure, and later the rental we moved into, I gained a significant amount of weight from the associatedd stress.
Things are looking up and I’m finally to a point where I can focus on myself and my personal health and want to lose the unwanted weight to be healthy for my husband and child.
I have been trying really hard and done well up to this point; however, I feel off the bandwagon yesterday and today. I feel terrible and want to know how much damage I’ve done to my success and what I can do to minimize struggle in getting back on track.
Only serious responses please. This is something I take very serious.

Has the Global War on Terrorism increased our saftey?
The Global War on Terrorism
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the United States found itself caught in a precarious position. All of a sudden, the country was no longer safe, and steps had to be taken to assure the safety of the American people. On September 18, 2001, the U.S Congress authorized the president to: “use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons” (U.S Congress). The Bush Administration took initiatives in securing the safety of the country by creating the Department of Homeland Security, implementing the Patriot Act, invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq in 2003. This paper entails information on the “War on Terrorism” and isolates objectives, strategies, and preventative measures taken in the aftermath of September 11.
Israel’s Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabbin first coined the phrase, “War on Terrorism” in 1992 to describe the conflict with Palestinian nationalism. However, there is a problem with the phrase “War on Terrorism,” stemming from the confusion and controversy surrounding the word “terrorism.” There are a multitude of definitions that describe terrorism yet some of them are in direct conflict with one another. The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (FBI 1999). Another similar definition comes from the UN, whom describes terrorism as, “the act of destroying or injuring civilian lives or the act of destroying or damaging civilian or government property without the expressly chartered permission of a specific government, thus, by individuals or groups acting independently or governments on their own accord and belief in an attempt to effect some political goals” (White). The definitions are very much the same but are also very distinct in context. The UN’s definition of terrorism is very specific in describing the context of terrorism while the FBI’s definition is relatively vague and lacks the necessary detail in defining the threat. According to the FBI, almost any act of aggression could be deemed as terrorism. It does not specify whether the use of force is coming from; civilians, the domestic government, or another country. Inevitably, this will lead to confusion over which events could be considered terrorist attacks and which ones cannot. The UN on the other hand makes very clear who the force has to come from, leading to less confusion, when identifying terrorist attacks. The point that is trying to be made here is that there are many different perceptions of terrorism and what it is. Different definitions of the term create confusion over how to handle the situation as well as confusion over who the terrorists really are.
One of the first initiatives the Bush Administration took in response to the September 11 attacks was the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The department was created nine days after the attacks on America. The government stated that, “the mission of the Office will be to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks. The Office will coordinate the executive branch’s efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United States”(Wikipedia). The department is comprised of 22 agencies already in existence. The idea behind creating the department was to increase interoperability between agencies and increase information sharing among the various groups. The agencies under the Department of Homeland Security umbrella include the U.S Coast Guard, the U.S Secret Service, U.S Customs and Border Control, and the Transportation Security Administration to name a few. Although the department has had much success in the last few years, it is not without its own problems.
There is much confusion over what the definition of the Department of Homeland Security is. According to Jonathan White, the confusion stems from the fact that the United States is dealing with a new concept. In the past, homeland security was considered a military responsibility. Through our military might and unique capability to project power around the globe, the United States Armed Forces were seen as the most potent weapon in protecting the homeland. However, the world has changed and the methods of protecting the Continental U.S have had to adapt as well. We are no longer fighting a war with a specific state or country; we are fighting a faceless enemy that acts under a flag and ideology of their own. This has led to an increased need for information sharing between existing agencies and the ability to react quickly through advanced communication. The purpose of the Department of Homeland Security is to create a network, so that our agencies will become interoperable and can react to terrorist threats swiftly and decisively.
Perhaps one of the most controversial policies created by the Bush Administration after the September 11 attacks is the Patriot Act. The intention of the Act is to help cut out the bureaucratic red tape, that very often hinders investigations, and to allow authorities to gain sensitive information from sources, that without the Patriot Act, might take months to receive. The act allows us to be able to move on information quickly, which is essential when dealing with these dynamic terrorist groups. However, there are people who are weary about the extended power the government has under the act. “Much controversy has arisen over section 215, which allows judges to grant government investigators ex parte orders to look into personal records (including financial, medical, phone, Internet, student or library records) on the basis of being “relevant for an on going investigation concerning international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities”, rather than probable cause as outlined in the fourth amendment”(White). People who are skeptical about the act state that the Patriot Act will lead to an infringement of civil liberties such as; freedom of speech, human rights, and the right to privacy. True as this may be, it may be necessary to combat the threat of terrorism within the United States.
The 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan marked the opening shots of the United States “War on Terrorism.” The purpose of the invasion was to seek and destroy Al Qaeda warriors operating in the region, and to oust the Taliban Government that had supplied and funded Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The attack commenced on October 7th when American and British forces began raining down Tomahawk Missiles on Al Qaeda training camps and air defense systems throughout the country. “The strikes initially focused on the area in and around the cities of Kabul, Jalalabad, and Kandahar. Within a few days, most al-Qaeda training sites had been severely damaged and the Taliban’s air defenses had been destroyed” (Wikipedia). The Taliban forces quickly fell to the superior firepower of the United States and by November 2nd ,most of the Taliban forces had been completely decimated. However, this did not mean the fighting was over and in fact, is still going on. It is widely accepted that the U.S invasion has done wonders in the “War on Terrorism.” The idea behind it is that if the terrorists are on the run and are loosing their footing in their own homeland, they will not be able to plan and carry out future attacks on the United States and her allies. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those that say the invasion has made us less safe. Their thinking is that by attacking Afghanistan, we have done nothing more than enrage the Arab world, which in turn, will lead to more terrorist attacks on the United States.
On March 17 2003, President Bush addressed the nation and the world. As part of the ongoing “War on Terrorism,” he announced that war with Iraq was virtually immanent. Under the premise that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda, the United States felt it was necessary to remove Saddam from power. The President stated in his address that, “All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing (George Bush).” The attack began shortly after the deadline passed. Within two hours of the expired deadline, explosions could be heard in Baghdad. The opening attack was called “Shock and Awe,” an idea loosely based of the German Blitzkrieg. It was thought that overwhelming fire power would shatter the resistance’s will to fight and would allow for a quick take over of the country. Within three weeks, the Iraqi government fell and most of the Iraqi Armed Forces were either killed, captured, left combat ineffective, or defected from their army. Major combat operations were declared over on May 1st 2003. However, the fighting was long from over and coalition forces are still engaged in combat with insurgents.
Supposedly, the invasion of Iraq was intended; to remove a vicious dictator who wielded WMD, liberate an oppressed people, and create a safer America in doing said objectives. According to government reports, nary a weapon of mass destruction was found, further decreasing U.S approval and support throughout the world. The War in Iraq was met with strong criticism from the very beginning. Cries of human rights abuses were heard and the fact that “the Bush administration failed to get a U.N. endorsement for war against Iraq on March 17, 2003 and began the invasion on March 20, 2003, which is seen by many as a violation of international law, breaking the UN Charter”(Wikipedia). This led to many people being against the war. Just like the war in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq was intended to make America safer. Though much of the country is now against the war, there are still many who believe we are safer for it.
PERSONAL RESPONSE
September 11 2001, was an incredibly powerful and devastating event that has affected, and will continue to affect the United States and the world as a whole. The ramifications of that day reverberate in the day-to-day events; most of us took for granted, before the attacks. The paranoia and uncertainty that was felt in the wake of the attacks was unparalleled, and for once, Americans felt unsafe in their own country. This of course, was completely unacceptable and measures had to be taken to rectify the situation. Among these measures were the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. All of which fall under the scope of initiatives created by the United States to wage a “War on Terrorism.”
There is no doubt that the Department of Homeland Security is a beneficial agency for protecting the United States against terrorist activity. One of our major weaknesses against preventing terrorist attacks came from the inability to coordinate strategic operations with coexisting agencies. Quite simply, the Department of Homeland Security paved the way for this unity. All of our agencies working independently proved to be far less affective than when they work together. This is why a system was devised to bring the agencies together. For example, it is argued by some that the police force is our most important and effective weapon in combating terrorism. Their unique ability to respond to calls of terrorist activity or attacks rapidly is unmatched by any other agency involved in homeland security. The police are more likely to come across terrorists than anyone else is because they are constantly, “out in the mix,” so to speak. When you unite a group like this with other agencies involved with homeland security priorities, you increase the effectiveness and power the two groups’ project. The same goes for all of the other agencies in the web of the Homeland Security initiative.
There is no doubt that the Patriot Act is somewhat of a hypocritical policy, in terms of what the U.S Constitution states. It does allow the government to pry into peoples affairs and does allow them to invade people’s privacy. The main reason the act has caught so much criticism is because of the increased power the government now holds because of it. In my opinion, the Patriot Act is not a threat to the typical American citizen and is probably a necessity in giving authorities the ability to respond to imminent attacks before they happen. The Patriot Act does not affect law-biding citizens and for that matter, does not effect minor criminals either. The purpose of the act is to give the freedom to investigate and too monitor known terrorist threats. The Patriot Act, properly administered, will assist in the prevention of future terrorist attacks on the homeland, creating a safer climate for all of us to live in.
Perhaps the most controversial and extreme efforts inspired by the “War on Terrorism,” are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Above all other initiatives implemented by the Bush Administration, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are the most direct approaches the United States has taken toward combating terrorism. It is my contention that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made the United States safer from terrorist attacks. By going after the terrorists, instead of letting them come to you, you keep them on the run and effectively limit their ability to plan and carry out terrorist attacks. The fact of the matter is, that the terrorists are to busy fighting the U.S, to strike us again. This is not to say that they are unable to hit us, but the war makes it considerably more difficult for the terrorists to carry out an offensive. Ultimately, the United States will prevail in Iraq and lay a foundation for a democratic Iraqi Government. Once this is achieved, the terrorist networks will begin to unfold and the likelihood of attacks will decrease. It will take patients, but at the end of the day, the world will be a safer place for having dismantled two terrorist countries.

Republicans on Bosnia:
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
-then Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
“You can support the troops but not the president.”
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
source: http://www.theothernews.com/article.asp?…
why do they hate America so much that they embolden the enemy?

The Global War on Terrorism
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the United States found itself caught in a precarious position. All of a sudden, the country was no longer safe, and steps had to be taken to assure the safety of the American people. On September 18, 2001, the U.S Congress authorized the president to: “use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons” (U.S Congress). The Bush Administration took initiatives in securing the safety of the country by creating the Department of Homeland Security, implementing the Patriot Act, invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq in 2003. This paper entails information on the “War on Terrorism” and isolates objectives, strategies, and preventative measures taken in the aftermath of September 11.
Israel’s Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabbin first coined the phrase, “War on Terrorism” in 1992 to describe the conflict with Palestinian nationalism. However, there is a problem with the phrase “War on Terrorism,” stemming from the confusion and controversy surrounding the word “terrorism.” There are a multitude of definitions that describe terrorism yet some of them are in direct conflict with one another. The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (FBI 1999). Another similar definition comes from the UN, whom describes terrorism as, “the act of destroying or injuring civilian lives or the act of destroying or damaging civilian or government property without the expressly chartered permission of a specific government, thus, by individuals or groups acting independently or governments on their own accord and belief in an attempt to effect some political goals” (White). The definitions are very much the same but are also very distinct in context. The UN’s definition of terrorism is very specific in describing the context of terrorism while the FBI’s definition is relatively vague and lacks the necessary detail in defining the threat. According to the FBI, almost any act of aggression could be deemed as terrorism. It does not specify whether the use of force is coming from; civilians, the domestic government, or another country. Inevitably, this will lead to confusion over which events could be considered terrorist attacks and which ones cannot. The UN on the other hand makes very clear who the force has to come from, leading to less confusion, when identifying terrorist attacks. The point that is trying to be made here is that there are many different perceptions of terrorism and what it is. Different definitions of the term create confusion over how to handle the situation as well as confusion over who the terrorists really are.
One of the first initiatives the Bush Administration took in response to the September 11 attacks was the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The department was created nine days after the attacks on America. The government stated that, “the mission of the Office will be to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks. The Office will coordinate the executive branch’s efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United States”(Wikipedia). The department is comprised of 22 agencies already in existence. The idea behind creating the department was to increase interoperability between agencies and increase information sharing among the various groups. The agencies under the Department of Homeland Security umbrella include the U.S Coast Guard, the U.S Secret Service, U.S Customs and Border Control, and the Transportation Security Administration to name a few. Although the department has had much success in the last few years, it is not without its own problems.
There is much confusion over what the definition of the Department of Homeland Security is. According to Jonathan White, the confusion stems from the fact that the United States is dealing with a new concept. In the past, homeland security was considered a military responsibility. Through our military might and unique capability to project power around the globe, the United States Armed Forces were seen as the most potent weapon in protecting the homeland. However, the world has changed and the methods of protecting the Continental U.S have had to adapt as well. We are no longer fighting a war with a specific state or country; we are fighting a faceless enemy that acts under a flag and ideology of their own. This has led to an increased need for information sharing between existing agencies and the ability to react quickly through advanced communication. The purpose of the Department of Homeland Security is to create a network, so that our agencies will become interoperable and can react to terrorist threats swiftly and decisively.
Perhaps one of the most controversial policies created by the Bush Administration after the September 11 attacks is the Patriot Act. The intention of the Act is to help cut out the bureaucratic red tape, that very often hinders investigations, and to allow authorities to gain sensitive information from sources, that without the Patriot Act, might take months to receive. The act allows us to be able to move on information quickly, which is essential when dealing with these dynamic terrorist groups. However, there are people who are weary about the extended power the government has under the act. “Much controversy has arisen over section 215, which allows judges to grant government investigators ex parte orders to look into personal records (including financial, medical, phone, Internet, student or library records) on the basis of being “relevant for an on going investigation concerning international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities”, rather than probable cause as outlined in the fourth amendment”(White). People who are skeptical about the act state that the Patriot Act will lead to an infringement of civil liberties such as; freedom of speech, human rights, and the right to privacy. True as this may be, it may be necessary to combat the threat of terrorism within the United States.
The 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan marked the opening shots of the United States “War on Terrorism.” The purpose of the invasion was to seek and destroy Al Qaeda warriors operating in the region, and to oust the Taliban Government that had supplied and funded Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The attack commenced on October 7th when American and British forces began raining down Tomahawk Missiles on Al Qaeda training camps and air defense systems throughout the country. “The strikes initially focused on the area in and around the cities of Kabul, Jalalabad, and Kandahar. Within a few days, most al-Qaeda training sites had been severely damaged and the Taliban’s air defenses had been destroyed” (Wikipedia). The Taliban forces quickly fell to the superior firepower of the United States and by November 2nd ,most of the Taliban forces had been completely decimated. However, this did not mean the fighting was over and in fact, is still going on. It is widely accepted that the U.S invasion has done wonders in the “War on Terrorism.” The idea behind it is that if the terrorists are on the run and are loosing their footing in their own homeland, they will not be able to plan and carry out future attacks on the United States and her allies. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those that say the invasion has made us less safe. Their thinking is that by attacking Afghanistan, we have done nothing more than enrage the Arab world, which in turn, will lead to more terrorist attacks on the United States.
On March 17 2003, President Bush addressed the nation and the world. As part of the ongoing “War on Terrorism,” he announced that war with Iraq was virtually immanent. Under the premise that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda, the United States felt it was necessary to remove Saddam from power. The President stated in his address that, “All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing (George Bush).” The attack began shortly after the deadline passed. Within two hours of the expired deadline, explosions could be heard in Baghdad. The opening attack was called “Shock and Awe,” an idea loosely based of the German Blitzkrieg. It was thought that overwhelming fire power would shatter the resistance’s will to fight and would allow for a quick take over of the country. Within three weeks, the Iraqi government fell and most of the Iraqi Armed Forces were either killed, captured, left combat ineffective, or defected from their army. Major combat operations were declared over on May 1st 2003. However, the fighting was long from over and coalition forces are still engaged in combat with insurgents.
Supposedly, the invasion of Iraq was intended; to remove a vicious dictator who wielded WMD, liberate an oppressed people, and create a safer America in doing said objectives. According to government reports, nary a weapon of mass destruction was found, further decreasing U.S approval and support throughout the world. The War in Iraq was met with strong criticism from the very beginning. Cries of human rights abuses were heard and the fact that “the Bush administration failed to get a U.N. endorsement for war against Iraq on March 17, 2003 and began the invasion on March 20, 2003, which is seen by many as a violation of international law, breaking the UN Charter”(Wikipedia). This led to many people being against the war. Just like the war in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq was intended to make America safer. Though much of the country is now against the war, there are still many who believe we are safer for it.
PERSONAL RESPONSE
September 11 2001, was an incredibly powerful and devastating event that has affected, and will continue to affect the United States and the world as a whole. The ramifications of that day reverberate in the day-to-day events; most of us took for granted, before the attacks. The paranoia and uncertainty that was felt in the wake of the attacks was unparalleled, and for once, Americans felt unsafe in their own country. This of course, was completely unacceptable and measures had to be taken to rectify the situation. Among these measures were the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. All of which fall under the scope of initiatives created by the United States to wage a “War on Terrorism.”
There is no doubt that the Department of Homeland Security is a beneficial agency for protecting the United States against terrorist activity. One of our major weaknesses against preventing terrorist attacks came from the inability to coordinate strategic operations with coexisting agencies. Quite simply, the Department of Homeland Security paved the way for this unity. All of our agencies working independently proved to be far less affective than when they work together. This is why a system was devised to bring the agencies together. For example, it is argued by some that the police force is our most important and effective weapon in combating terrorism. Their unique ability to respond to calls of terrorist activity or attacks rapidly is unmatched by any other agency involved in homeland security. The police are more likely to come across terrorists than anyone else is because they are constantly, “out in the mix,” so to speak. When you unite a group like this with other agencies involved with homeland security priorities, you increase the effectiveness and power the two groups’ project. The same goes for all of the other agencies in the web of the Homeland Security initiative.
There is no doubt that the Patriot Act is somewhat of a hypocritical policy, in terms of what the U.S Constitution states. It does allow the government to pry into peoples affairs and does allow them to invade people’s privacy. The main reason the act has caught so much criticism is because of the increased power the government now holds because of it. In my opinion, the Patriot Act is not a threat to the typical American citizen and is probably a necessity in giving authorities the ability to respond to imminent attacks before they happen. The Patriot Act does not affect law-biding citizens and for that matter, does not effect minor criminals either. The purpose of the act is to give the freedom to investigate and too monitor known terrorist threats. The Patriot Act, properly administered, will assist in the prevention of future terrorist attacks on the homeland, creating a safer climate for all of us to live in.
Perhaps the most controversial and extreme efforts inspired by the “War on Terrorism,” are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Above all other initiatives implemented by the Bush Administration, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are the most direct approaches the United States has taken toward combating terrorism. It is my contention that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made the United States safer from terrorist attacks. By going after the terrorists, instead of letting them come to you, you keep them on the run and effectively limit their ability to plan and carry out terrorist attacks. The fact of the matter is, that the terrorists are to busy fighting the U.S, to strike us again. This is not to say that they are unable to hit us, but the war makes it considerably more difficult for the terrorists to carry out an offensive. Ultimately, the United States will prevail in Iraq and lay a foundation for a democratic Iraqi Government. Once this is achieved, the terrorist networks will begin to unfold and the likelihood of attacks will decrease. It will take patients, but at the end of the day, the world will be a safer place for having dismantled two terrorist countries.

I am a veterinary nutritionist at a small boutique dog food company in Central Arizona. My company produces three kinds of biscuits, Barbecuits, Mighty Meaties and Carnivore Cravings. To create these biscuits, we blend two nutrient sources to provide appropriate amounts of carbohydrates, protein and calcium.
Each unit of Source I provides 6 grams of calcium, 6 grams of protein, and 7 grams of carbohydrates. Each unit of Source II provides 5 grams of calcium, 7 grams of protein and 7 grams of carbohydrates.
Barbecuits use 7.5 units of source I and 7.5 units of Source II. Mighty Meaties use 5 units of Source I and 10 units of Source II. Carnivore Cravings use 11 units of Source I and 4 units of Source II.
Based on this information, I would like you to calculate the total amount of calcium, protein and carbohydrates in each of the kinds of biscuits. To help you solve this problem, I am outlining a strategy which you should follow and document carefully.
1) Put the source and ingredient information in a matrix with the rows and columns labeled appropriately.
2) Put the biscuit and source information into a matrix with the rows and columns labeled appropriately.
3) Using the matrices from parts 1 and 2, use matrix multiplication to calculate the total amount of calcium, protein and carbohydrates in each of the kinds of biscuits. Label the rows and columns of the product.
correct answer gets points

Due to “extraordinary changes in the economic environment” (as Capital One’s notice to cardholders reads), interest rates on outstanding balances for purchases made with a Capital One one credit card (not balance transfers) will be going up come April 17, 2009. The amount of increase depends on the kind of Capital One card you have. I’m looking at one that is going up from 14.9% to 22.9% which is 8% and above the 6.94% increase a Capital One spokesperson claimed would be the limit (source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jan…
Mortgage rates are at historic lows. The Prime Lending rate is at 3.25% versus 6% a year ago (source: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/ratewatch/le… So the COST of funds is low, yet Capital One has decided to jack their rates up by an INCREDIBLE amount, thus sucking up cash from loyal customers even if they’ve been on-time payers throughout their credit history with Capital One.
My question is, who is next? Banks have herd mentality so I doubt Capital One is the only card who has decided to fund it’s problems on the backs of good customers who had nothing to do with Capital One’s slumping stock price or troubled debt portfolio.
Do you know of any other major credit cards who are choosing a strategy to charge their way out of their problems by stepping out with a huge rate hike on consumers through credit cards?
Please share who might be next on the list.

Heart Puzzle

Do you support President Bush’s “surge” strategy in Iraq? Will it work? If so, why? If not, why not and what are the alternatives? Which alternative do you support and why? In answering these questions consider the importance of Iraq in respect to the “war on terror,” a source of oil, regional stability, and our ability to deal with non-regional security issues

Most conservatives seem to be disinterested with the idea of finding alternative sources for energy, recycling, eliminating the need for fossil fuels, and adopting an earth-friendly strategy. Why is this??