All three networks — ABC CBS NBC — sent their anchors with Obama on his trip — and now the New York Times!
My God!
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.

The actual website his website
Jeff Paul Scam
Jeff Paul ’s magic system is not a scam .
Jeff Paul ’s money making system cannot be a scam .
These days at late night when your favorite soap goes on for commercials suddenly you see two women talking about Jeff Paul ’s great magic system that guarantees you of earning thousands of dollars everyday. To an average person it seems tempting but at the end it will still be called a scam .
Of course you would think like that but actually people have misunderstood the whole idea and concept of Jeff Paul ’s system. It seems that people are not applying his system according to what Jeff Paul has explained maybe because the greed of earning good cash, and later when the system does not give the actual output or very eager to get early results, the term ‘ scam ‘ does not take long to come into the picture.
As you may have heard from various anonymous sources that Jeff Paul in was a Direct Marketer in the early 90s, and his earning was not satisfying him and his family from hand to mouth. He did have computer knowledge at that time. He then later on formulated an excellent technique of internet marketing which earned him millions. It won’t be a scam because Jeff Paul used his strategy and his months of internet marketing labor that got him reach on top.
Today, Jeff Paul is a self-proclaimed internet marketing guru teaching and revealing his secret of success to all men and women including young IT students with a purpose of helping the IT community to also reach to a level where he is, and not with a purpose of scam .
It is a strong fact that there are no shortcuts to reach to the highest point without hard work. Jeff Paul ’s system also requires hard work and dedication to achieve the desired results. The system does not trick or scam but teaches the right strategies and steps to achieve that highest point.
Even when Jeff Paul’s discovery was tested and implemented by his close friends, it took about 4-5 months to get that valuable profit with using the simple steps used by Jeff Paul and mentioned in his systems. None of his closest friends felt like a scam or a trick because Jeff Paul was personally helping them use his systems.
The reason for this accusation of Jeff Paul ’s system being a scam could be a strategy of other competitors trying to degrade Jeff Paul’s system to promote their products; it could also be a jealous scheme of Jeff Paul’s rival of spreading the word of his product being a total scam .
But the other cause of Jeff Paul’s system being blacklisted is people are being misled and people not using his system according to the instructions.
Scam News
If you watch late night TV you have most likely came across Jeff Paul Internet Millions Shortcuts infomercial. In fact, you either got very excited about it and decided to continue your research about the program on the internet… or you got very sceptical about the far fetched promises and once again, opened up an internet browser to research about Jeff’s shortcuts.
If one would think about it logically he would see a little problem with this system. Imagine you stumble upon an easy way of making millions on the internet with only “3 simple clicks”, as Jeff’s shortcut to millions system claims, would you sell it to the whole North America for only $40? Probably not…
The truth is, making money online is possible. In fact, many people have made and keep on making fortunes online but these people know that “3 simple clicks” just isn’t enough. You too can become successful and wealthy but only after you learn about Internet Marketing and apply the knowledge properly.
Jeff Paul Internet Millions Shortcuts system does not cost $40. This is the fee for a “start-up package” which doesn’t really tell you much… except the same old outrageous claims of how easy it is to make one million bucks in a week without knowing or doing anything, if it was this easy, don’t you think everyone would be doing it by now? Let’s continue. Once you receive the start-up kit, your phone will start ringing and the telemarketers who say they work for Jeff Paul will try to up-sell you expensive packages for $5,000, $10,000 and so on, they claim you need these packages if you are serious about making money online.
To be honest, there is no magic system to making millions on the internet. There are great coaching programs and online communities that will teach you about marketing online and these programs cost as little as one buck per day without any up-sells and other marketing tricks intended to rip you off, such programs also do not claim how much money you will make and how easy it is, because it will take time and effort from your side. You can start a successful business online with very little to none budget at all, however, you will only succeed if you are wiling to learn and put in some effort.
So if you are determined to succeed, You probably will as long as you get the ri

The Los Angeles Times continues its reporting on Hillary Clinton’s epic fundraising. At this point in the election cycle, Hillary has raised more money than any candidate in American history, and she’s getting it from an unlikely source: the poorest sections of…Chinatown (you just knew another Clinton fundraising scandal would involve China somehow.) Of course, there’s much of the same shadiness going on with these contributions as there was with the Norman Hsu scandal: poor immigrant donors who have no discernible way to make the contributions they have, donors who cannot be tracked down, donors who’s neighbors don’t even know they exist, donors who don’t even know why they’re donating, and, my personal fav, donors who donated because a Chinese neighborhood organization formally involved in human trafficking told them to:
Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton’s campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2005, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.
At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. Those dishwashers, waiters and street hawkers are part of the reason. And Clinton’s success in gathering money from Chinatown’s least-affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategy: mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups, and appeals to the hopes an dreams of people now consigned to the margins.
Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Funjian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards.
Read the whole article. Clinton’s “two-pronged” strategy is known best by the term “flat-out exploitation.” Here’s the other “prong”:
The other piece of the strategy involves holding out hope that, if Clinton becomes president, she will move quickly to reunite families and help illegal residents move toward citizenship. As New York’s junior senator, Clinton has expressed support for immigrants and greater family reunification. She is also benefiting from Chinese donors’ naive notions of what she could do in the White House.
I’m both surprised and pleased that the LA Times is continuing with its examination of Hillary’s fundraising exploits, which, in this instance, again include improper donations. I wonder, however, like Macranger does, if the Times is covering the story so diligently now so that it’s old news by the time the primaries roll around. That may well be true, but it seems like under each new rock you turn over, a new Clintonian scandal crawls out. Will it hurt her? Unfortunately, probably not. It’s been this way for yearshttp://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-…

WP Robot for Wordpress

I just got this and I’m still trying to get a link, so you guys be patient.
Subject; JOE BIDEN WILL BE KICKED OUT
> The “DEMS” know they’re in big trouble since Sarah Palin and I’ve
> heard,
> from other sources, this is what they are planning to do about it. J.M.
> …from excellent sources within the DNC:
> On or about October 5th, Biden will excuse himself from the ticket,
> citing
> health problems, and he will be replaced by Hillary. This is timed to
> occur after the VP debate on 10/2.
>
> I have already seen a few short blurbs about this – the “health
> problem”
> cited in those articles was aneurysm. probably many of you have heard
> the
> same rumblings. However, at this point, with this inside info from the
>
> DNC, it looks like this Obama strategy will be a go. Therefore, it
> seems
> that the best strategy is to get out in front of this obama maneuver,
> spell it out in detail, and thereby expose it for the grand
> manipulation
> that it is.

i’ve to submitt a case study which i couldn’t do for some reasons all this while.could u please gimme some substantial two three page covering matter on any of the following topics or name a specific site into it(please no google option,cuz i’ve already tried that n dint find anything there)
To study the environmental profile of a town(kanpur) in respect of:
1.population density and the sources of pollution
2.to study the social problems of a particular area
3.to study a programme pulse polio in a given area
4.to collect a data on monthly consumption of electricity and fuels from atleast and any two commercial establishments of a given locality.also plan the strategies to educate consumer to economize the consumption of elctricity.
6.conduct the survey of plants n trees in the locality and collect information about their cultural,economic,and medicinal values from local people and available literature
5.

The first thing I notice is she seems to support it but avoids saying straight up yes or no.
Thank you for contacting me about climate change and energy legislation. Your comments are important to me and I appreciate your taking the time to share them.
We need a bold, comprehensive energy strategy that reduces our dependence on foreign oil, protects our national security, and reduces our carbon emissions. Such a strategy should include increased offshore drilling and the development of new biofuels and other homegrown energy resources like hydro, geothermal and wind power. Moreover, it should include increased oil refining capacity, new coal technologies, safe nuclear power, and increased research and development into long-term energy solutions that will eliminate carbon emissions. As we move forward with energy and climate change legislation, this comprehensive, balanced approach will be key.
In the short term, I am taking aim at financial speculators who have artificially inflated oil prices. The oil markets need a cop on the beat to return some order and fairness to the market. That is why I cosponsored and voted for both speculation bills that came to the Senate floor last summer (S. 3044 and S. 3268), which aimed to increase transparency and accountability in our energy markets by closing loopholes that currently allow energy traders to evade government oversight.
I am also a strong supporter of developing more fuel-efficient vehicles, as well as homegrown biofuels that benefit the farmers and workers of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels of the Middle East. In June 2008, I was pleased that the President signed the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, which included a provision that I authored to help lay the groundwork for developing the next generation of biofuels. The Farm-to-Fuel portion of the bill will support the transition of ethanol fuel to cellulosic sources such as switchgrass and prairie grass, and it will also promote the development of biomass energy sources from waste like timber residue.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. One of the most important parts of my job is listening to what the people of Minnesota have to say to me. I am here in our nation’s capital to do the public’s business and to serve the people of our state. I hope you will contact me again about matters of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Amy Klobuchar
United States Senator

I really an having trouble with this one, so any help is greatly needed. I am doing a current events research paper, and my subject is the War in Iraq. Now I know that the exit strategy on the war is probably the best bet to base my thesis on, especially with Obama’s recently announced plans.
But I just don’t know where to go from there; the paper has to have current sources, so I can’t just make assumptions. I’ve read many sources, and am still having trouble finding what to prove in my paper.
I was thinking of proposing an exit strategy of my own, but honestly, it will be somewhat close to Obama’s as is. Unless I lie about it and propose something totally different, but then I doubt I will have the interest in it.
So what I’m basically asking is, what should my thesis (thing I am trying to prove) be about on the current situation in Iraq, and how should I follow up in the paper?

I was listening in on the radio and I heard something that was quite disturbing and also funny at the same time involving us Americans. Seems to be that the Germans have invested in U.S. death through the, “Deutsche Bank” and other financial institutions.
These establishments, ” manage complex funds that buy up Americans’ life insurance policies and pay their premiums in return for their payouts. But angry German investors are finding that Americans aren’t dying as quickly as expected – and that only the bankers are making a buck.” —- From the Free Internet Press.http://www.freeinternetpress.com/story.p…
I don’t particularly care for news outlets, or those news outlets that are funded by the, “GLUE” (General Liberals Utopian Exchequer–My creative generalization of any one random support system for left-wing appropriations). If you find this biased based on a media perspective, this information is also available as follows:http://www.spiegel.de/international/busi…
The above however, is from a German News perspective on the failed strategy for this argument. Pretty much worded exactly as the former posted source.
–Rob USMC

So, what do YOU suggest?
”
Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory
CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus, supported by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to pullout all US combat troops from Iraq within 18 months at an Oval Office meeting on January 21, sources have said.
But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.
Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’ recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including General Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.
A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilizing public opinion against Obama’s decision.
Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying: “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”
Obama, who was never even a boy scout, has the arrogance to believe he knows better than his generals. He prefers to take his military strategy from the likes of Cindy Sheehan and Media Benjamin.”
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=99076

Personal model of crisis or time limited counselling?
1. what is the role of teh internal ( personal, intrapsychic)
2. The role of the external (social structures, culture)
3. the role of teh counsellor
4. the role of the client?
5. the theraputic relationship
6. the role of assessment
7. the key theoretical concepts
8. what you see as the sources of the clients problems
9. Major strategies
What is worell and remer’s model of intervention for woman experiencing depression?
what do you think fits into a crisis intervention approach? how might feminist principles be included? what might not fit?