UK Bombing

I know I'm rather late getting something up on this story. I haven't been sure what to think so I have delayed until I could come to some kind of a semi-conclusion anyway. The things that made it difficult for me were reports the Arabic on the website claiming responsibility was poor. An Islamic Fundamentalist group even said it didn't look like their people. Once the people were identified they seemed to be young, with families that loved them and not a family that would countenance religious hate. Some things are just not adding up for me. Now we have another piece of the puzzle and it appears there is a lot more to come on this situation. Read this.

So what's it all about Alphie? What's your speculation on what is happening?

More Misinformation

I'm really stunned at the latest wild ass spin on the Rove thing. Standard talking point. Trying to keep him from writing a story that wasn't true. Here is the story Joe Wilson wrote.

It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors Âs they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Right-O didn't happen/phony documents.

If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

Yep, they were making stuff up.

Here's something from the Washington Times. Not exactly your bastion of liberalism.

One official said that the documents were provided first to the Italians and then to journalists before they ended up in the hands of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which dismissed them as fakes.

Fake documents, really bad fake documents, didn't happen. Sounds like more than the essence of Mr. Wilsons findings were correct.

Other intelligence obtained by Britain is considered reliable and indicates Niger had tried to sell uranium ore to Saddam Hussein's government, said officials familiar with U.S. intelligence reports.

Notice it said "tried". Saddam didn't bite. Too bad so many gullible Americans did.

I know the heart of their "incorrect" story is the CIA didn'tnt send him his wife did. Vice President didn't request the information blah blah. They are trying to make it sound like what Wilson claimed about the overriding issue wasn't true. That would be incorrect sir.

Broken Records Are Irritating

Our caller from the right today clearly illustrates so many of the key idiocies of the true believers. They are so much like dear leader. No matter how much proof, how imperative it is to update your view in the face of a changing situation, they stay stuck in the mud. It's the same discredited points over and over and over. John Kerry a traitor!0%# . Why do they hate our troops? You know the ones willing to put their lives on the line to defend our country? Since when is a person a traitor because they disagree with Presidental policy? Oops, I forgot.
I particularly love the "well Bill Clinton lied/Bill Clinton did it too/look at the terrorist bombers, how many people they are killing!" Ok, one more time. Let's try it this way. You detest Clinton and the terrorists yet you try to justify your position by saying it's OK because they did it. Aren't you setting the bar a bit low? Wouldn't you like to think that the people you admire don't reach the depths of your most despised individuals? If they are no better than that what good is your point? Answer: It's worthless and has been through the ages. Or we could have a race to the bottom if you would like.
We also found that there, by God, were WMD in Iraq. They had all this time to get rid of them and ship them out of the country. Well, the actual investigation by men picked by your dear leader himself says no such thing and as a matter of fact says it's not likely. That's the reality. If you want to make stuff up go ahead but realize you are in the world of speculation and speculation is a bad thing to base policy on.
It was Pete Domenici who put the budget in balance not Bill Clinton. HUH? Budget from President to house and senate, conference committee then back to President for approval. The treasury secretary has a lot to do with it too... Treasury secretary's' job:
The Department of the Treasury is the primary federal agency responsible for the economic and financial prosperity and security of the United States, and as such is responsible for a wide range of activities including advising the President on economic and financial issues, promoting the President’s growth agenda, and enhancing corporate governance in financial institutions.
In the international arena, the Department of the Treasury works with other federal agencies, the governments of other nations, and the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) to encourage economic growth, raise standards of living, and predict and prevent, to the extent possible, economic and financial crises.
If the Republicans are so good with budgets how come things are worse with fewer Democrats, far worse. We are further in debt and more people get a lower portion of the benefits of a profitable economy. This is sound fiscal policy?
All the excuses and slogans are very tired and their inability to adjust to new circumstances really tests my patience. Who can move these people to the reality based world?

Alternative Energy

Europe leads as we follow.

.........In June, Shell WindEnergy, E.ON UK Renewables, and CORE, a joint venture of British and Danish wind power companies, unveiled a plan to build the world's largest wind farm 12 miles off the British coast, where the estuary of the Thames River flows into the North Sea. The ambitious $2.7 billion project will add 1,000 megawatts of capacity, enough to meet one-quarter of London's power needs, by 2010.

I have always said that the current energy companies have the best ability and most to gain (or lose) in the move to new energy. Cooperation between these companies, environmentalists and government can move us most quickly toward prosperity and eliminate dependence on foreign oil. We have to quit allowing these to be competing entities and find a way to help them cooperate to bring America back to it's leadership position.

wind power has been growing at an average annual rate of 28% since 1999 and now amounts to 48,000 Megawatts of installed capacity worldwide. Nearly three-fourths of that is in Europe, where governments have made investment in renewable energy sources a priority. Europe gets 2.5% of its electricity from wind power, more than twice the proportion in the U.S.

Proof that today America is not in the leadership position here.

wind power remains a more expensive alternative than natural gas or nuclear power, government incentives play a big role, too. It costs 4 cents to produce one kilowatt hour from a gas-fired or nuclear power plant, compared with between 7 cents and 10 cents for wind, according to Britain's Royal Academy of Engineering. In Germany, which has the largest installed wind-power capacity on the globe, operators are guaranteed a fixed price for every kilowatt they produce. Siemens (SI ), which acquired Danish wind turbine supplier Bonus Energy last year, is bullish on the business. Siemens Chief Executive Klaus Kleinfeld sees wind power as a "megatrend."

Are we willing to pay the price today to reap the benefits of tomorrow.

Britain's first wind farm consisted of 10 turbines, each producing 400 kilowatts of power. That was 14 years ago. Today, turbines have as much as 10 times that output, thanks to strides in engineering, design, and aerodynamics. Given such improvements, investment costs have been falling by some 3% to 5% a year since the 1980s, according to the European Wind Energy Assn., a trade group in Brussels.

The more we put into advancing these new technologies the quicker the price will come down.

Sorry to keep harping on this but I think this is an extreme priority in the world today. We can lead the way or we can follow. To me America is about leadership. No worry about oil if we don't need a lot of it. I'm not talking about just wind but in all possible alternatives. That's why I'm so embarrassed by our current "leader" who in reality couldn't lead a colony of ants. Ok, maybe that's too harsh. He actually has gotten dollars to follow him better than most anybody. We have to have some people with the "vision thing" again. And some people that can communicate it to the country. We (America) are in danger of becoming an also ran.