1. World Cup.  Alright, everyone’s got their vuvuzula stuff out of their system by now right?  I mean, this thing has been underway for a while and the competition is heating up.  There are bad ref calls and whatever.  What I just learned is that the United States wants to host the Cup in the future.  Why?  While the US Team is doing fine and dandy, people don’t really care.  They may pretend to care just like they pretend to like classic films like Casablanca when they haven’t ever really seen it.  I’m more than okay letting the world enjoy their World Cup without America feeling like she has to get all into it.

2. Oil Spill. OMFG, is that shit still going on? You know, when I made my first Facebook post about that, it was already two weeks old. Now it’s more than two MONTHS old. Beaches are getting trashed, lives are being devastated, and it’s become quite the nightmare environmental scenario. Worse, the relief wells are still not due to be complete for over another month and you know, I am not all that confident that’ll fix things either. This situation cannot be minimized. It really is THE most important thing in America right now. It practically screams what’s wrong with our government, our industry, and our energy policy what with all the corruption and inaction across the board.

3. Afghan War. A big time general got kicked out because he said lots of negative things about those in charge in an article published in Rolling Stone. First, Rolling Stone still exists? Secondly, I want to know why we’re still in Afghanistan. It ain’t to fight Al Qeada like was originally planned. They’ve moved on to Pakistan. Is it to fight the Taliban? Is it to fight people that only fight us because we’re there fighting them fighting us? I thought I elected Obama to get us out of these wars. Wait, that brings me to…

4. President Obama. He hasn’t closed down Gitmo. He hasn’t brought home our troops. He hasn’t really done a very good job at bringing our economy back. He kept many of the Bush era policies of warrant-less wiretapping and secret prisons. He’s half-assed the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. He’s half-assed nominated liberalish people to the Supreme Court. I’m going to say what many of my liberal friends won’t… he’s not been an effective leader. Yes, I know it’s only been such and such many months. Yes, I know he inherited many problems. But he’s had plenty of time to suck on his own. He completely has bungled the Oil Spill. He continues to not be a good leader in economic policies that reform the way things are done. Handing out cash isn’t a solution. His one big win of Health Care isn’t even really that impressive considering it lacks a Public Option and the implementation of the effects are all way diluted with time. He has squandered a majority in the house and senate and now with mid-term elections looming, under his leadership or lack thereof, there are overwhelming predictions that Republicans (and even more terrifying Tea Party members) are going to be roaring back. Son, I am disappoint.

5. “Later, Skater: On Tour!” Buy your copy for summer reading today. Sales haven’t been great, which is confusing me. I mean, I sold and gave away lots and lots of copies of the original “Later, Skater” The sequel is bigger and better and downloadable for instant gratification for only 5 dollars. FIVE DOLLARS! Get it today to help keep me encouraged about my writing.

Sitting cross-legged on the cushioned floor of a family friend’s house, Mohammed Jawad furrowed his brow and fidgeted nervously as he struggled to explain his extraordinary ordeal over the past seven years.

In December 2002, when he says he was only 12, he was arrested on suspicion of throwing a grenade into a Jeep carrying US special forces soldiers through Kabul, wounding two of them and an interpreter. He was taken first to an airbase north of Kabul, then to the US prison in Guantánamo Bay, where he remained until his release a few days ago after a ruling by a US judge that his confession had been obtained by force.

One of the youngest and most controversial prisoners in Guantánamo, Mr Jawad is now finally a free man after being flown back to Kabul on Monday and reunited with his family and friends.

But after seven years in custody — six of them in Guantánamo — he faces a long struggle to pick up the pieces of his lost childhood and teenage years, and to build a future for himself in a country still at war with the Taleban.

“This is one of the happiest moments in my life — to be back in Afghanistan after all this time,” he told The Times.

“I hadn’t done anything — they took me for nothing. All I could do was hope that one day I’d be free and back home in Afghanistan with my mother.”

When he was reunited with her, she refused initially to believe he was her son because he had changed so much, and fainted in a fit of hysterics, according to a family friend. Only when she came round and checked for a distinctive bump on the back of his head, did she embrace him as her offspring, said Sher Khan Jalalkhil, a close friend of Mr Jawad’s father.

Mr Jawad is not the first Afghan prisoner to be released from the Guantánamo prison. But he is believed to be the youngest — although the Pentagon says that bone scans indicated that he was 18 when sent to Guantánamo in 2003.

He has thus become a cause célèbre for human rights activists … and something of a celebrity in Afghanistan. President Karzai even offered to give him a house in Kabul when he met him on Monday night. The Defence Minister, Abdul Rakhim Wardak, offered to pay for him to study overseas.

When Mr Jawad was arrested, he was living with his mother in Kabul — his father having been killed fighting the Soviets in the 1980s.

“We searched for him for nine months,” said Mr Jalalkhil. “We didn’t know if he had been killed, or kidnapped, or got lost. His mother went crazy.” Finally, a member of the International Committee of the Red Cross visited their house to show them documents proving that Mr Jawad was in Guantánamo.

They were relieved at first to hear he was alive, but then they started to hear reports about conditions there.

Since returning, Mr Jawad has accused his captors of torturing prisoners, depriving them of food and sleep, and insulting Islam and the Koran.

He has described having his hands bound and stretched behind his back, and being forced to eat by bending over and putting his mouth into a plate of food.

Yesterday he was reluctant to go into details, saying that he would describe everything in full at a press conference in Kabul today. “It was a jail and I wasn’t happy there — I didn’t feel very good,” he said, shrugging his shoulders. “They threatened me a little. I will tell all of this tomorrow.” Human rights activists say that he was moved around often, and in one seven-day period was subjected to 152 episodes of mistreatment.

Eric Montalzo, his lawyer, says that he was treated like an adult despite his young age. “He has been in a cage for seven years. So it’s very difficult for him,” Mr Montalzo said. “He is a fragile human being and we need to protect him and his interests.”

Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that there should be compensation for prisoners such as Mr Jawad, and no immunity from prosecution for the torture of terror suspects.

Some human rights activists accept the Pentagon’s assertion that Mr Jawad was 16 or 17 when arrested. But they also say that it could take years for him to recover from the trauma of being detained in such a way for so many of his formative years.

Mr Jawad, meanwhile, is making plans to resume his studies — first in Afghanistan, then maybe overseas — and train to become a doctor.

Asked if he would consider studying in the United States, he hesitated and looked to the assembled elders for advice, before answering: “I have not made any plans yet.” As the interview began, the elders had asked him teasingly whether he learnt English in Guantánamo. He said no and spoke only in his native Pashto during the interview.

But when thanked at the end, he smiled shyly and said, with only a slight accent: “No problem.”

The link says: “VIDEO: Watch Obama Kill Fly During Interview…”
Where was the one that said: “VIDEO: Watch G.W.B Kill Thousands During Iraq War…”

I admit, I used to visit the Drudge Report a few times a day to gleam off some of the more unusual or interesting stories. Sadly, it’s become nothing but an anti-Obama machine.

And while I, OF COURSE, have some issues with our current administration, and I, OF COURSE, had some issues with the previous one, a non-stop blah blah blah is never interesting.

>>> John McCain suspended his Presidential campaign today because he feels he needs to go back to Washington and help work on The Big Bailout™ that doesn’t seem to be what anyone wants.

>>> Except Bush. And Paulson, the guy who’s running the Treasury. Especially since the initial plan was to have no oversight.

>>> Obama still wants to debate on Friday, but is going to visit with Bush and McCain at the White House tomorrow.

>>> Did I mention that neither many Republicans nor Democrats are liking The Big Bailout™ plan that may not even really work and doesn’t address the core issues that created the financial mess?

WASHINGTON (AP) – Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke bluntly warned reluctant lawmakers Tuesday they risk a recession with higher unemployment and increased home foreclosures unless they act on the Bush administration’s $700 billion plan to bail out the financial industry.

Despite the warning, influential lawmakers in both parties demanded changes in the White House-backed proposal, and conservative Republicans recoiled at the prospect of federal intervention into private capital markets.
Six weeks before the elections, both major party presidential contenders also insisted on alterations in the administration’s prescription for the worst financial crisis in decades.

Bernanke’s remarks about the risk of recession came in response to a question from Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who seemed eager to hear a strong rationale for lawmakers to act swiftly on the administration’s unprecedented request.

“The financial markets are in quite fragile condition and I think absent a plan they will get worse,” Bernanke said.

Ominously, he added, “I believe if the credit markets are not functioning, that jobs will be lost, that our credit rate will rise, more houses will be foreclosed upon, GDP will contract, that the economy will just not be able to recover in a normal, healthy way.”

GDP is a measure of growth, and a decline correlates with a recession.
Dodd later spoke disparagingly of the administration’s proposal. “What they have sent us is not acceptable,” he told reporters after presiding over a lengthy Senate Banking Committee hearing at which Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urged swift action by Congress.

Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the panel’s senior Republican, added, “We have got to look at some alternatives” to the administration’s plan.

The legislation that the administration is seeking would allow the government to buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets held by endangered banks and financial institutions.

Getting those debts off their books should bolster the institutions’ balance sheets, making them more inclined to lend and easing one of the biggest choke points in the credit crisis. If the plan works, it could help lift a major weight off the sputtering national economy.

The White House and key lawmakers have been in negotiations since the weekend on terms of the legislation. It was not clear what impact the new congressional complaints would have on the discussions.

“Nobody is happy” about the bailout request, said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., although he spoke of possible passage of legislation by the weekend.

“Nobody wants to have to do this,” agreed Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader. He said he was hopeful of a quick agreement.

“I understand speed is important, but I’m far more interested in whether or not we get this right,” Dodd said at the hearing.

Later, he told reporters he hopes for legislation soon.

“But it is not going to be a blank check or a simple signing on to a bill that sends a blank check to this secretary or any other secretary.” He noted that either Obama or McCain would probably be appointing a new treasury secretary after he takes over in the White House.

Across the Capitol complex, Vice President Dick Cheney and Jim Nussle, the administration’s budget director, met privately with restive House Republicans, some of whom emerged from the session unpersuaded.

“Just because God created the world in seven days doesn’t mean we have to pass this bill in seven days,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.

Added Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., “I am emphatically against it.”
Still, prospects for legislation seemed strong, with lawmakers eager to adjourn this week or next for the elections.

Differences include a demand from many Democrats and some Republicans to strip executives at failing financial firms of lucrative “golden parachutes” on their way out the door.

The administration balked at another key Democratic demand: allowing judges to rewrite bankrupt homeowners’ mortgages so they could avoid foreclosure.

Paulson, seated next to Bernanke at the committee hearing, objected strongly when Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., asked if $150 billion might be enough to get the program started, with a promise of more to come.

Paulson said that would be a “grave mistake,” and would fail to give the markets the confidence they need to rebound.

Paulson repeatedly fielded questions from committee members asking why taxpayers should accept the burdens of a bailout.

“You worry about taxpayers being on the hook?” he replied at one point. “Guess what – they’re already on the hook.” Paulson suggested that the fallout from the credit crisis would hit everyone’s pocketbook unless forceful action was taken. Moreover, a flawed and outdated regulatory system, which didn’t catch abuses, needed to be overhauled, he said.

Despite the unresolved issues, President Bush predicted the Democratic-controlled Congress would soon pass a “a robust plan to deal with serious problems.” He spoke before the United Nations General Assembly.

In his testimony before the Banking Committee, Paulson told senators that quick passage of the administration’s plan is “the single most effective thing we can do to help homeowners, the American people and stimulate our economy.”

But even before Paulson could speak, lawmakers expressed unhappiness, criticism of the plan and – in the case of some conservative Republicans – outright opposition.
“This massive bailout is not a solution. It is financial socialism and it’s un-American,” said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.

All hell continued to break loose in the United State’s financial markets. More investment banks failed (Lehman Brothers). Others were quickly married to other banks (Bank of America / Merrill Lynch). Oh, and still others are teetering on the edge of failing as well (AIG, WaMu, Wachovia.)

The Dow dropped over 500 points.

The Fed pumped in another 70 Billion. Not that that money actually exists in any real sense of the word.

Pretty much devastation every where you look. But hey, McCain says the fundamentals of the economy are strong. ORLY?

Meanwhile, oil prices continue to go down, not that it will help much at the pumps. Refining capacity continued to be at a declined pace due to the fallout destruction from Hurricane Ike. The price at the pump in much of the Southeast is well above the highest rates in history.

Speaking of Ike. There are around 37,000 people in Galveston that are overcrowding shelters that are low on food and water and other resources. While many are to blame for not heeding the evacuations in the first place, it does beg the question were any lessons learned from Katrina?

At this rate we won’t need the colliders in France to create black holes in late October to ruin everything.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Five years after launching the invasion of Iraq, President Bush strongly signaled Wednesday that he won’t order troop withdrawals beyond those already planned because he refuses to “jeopardize the hard-fought gains” of the past year.

As anti-war activists demonstrated around downtown Washington, the president spoke at the Pentagon to mark the anniversary of a war that has cost nearly 4,000 U.S. lives and roughly $500 billion. The president’s address was part of a series of events the White House planned around the anniversary and next month’s report from the top U.S. figures in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. That report will be the basis for Bush’s first troop-level decision in seven months.

“The battle in Iraq has been longer and harder and more costly than we anticipated,” Bush said.

But, he added, before an audience of Pentagon brass, soldiers and diplomats: “The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage, the battle in Iraq will end in victory.”

Democrats took issue with Bush’s stay-the-course suggestion.

“With the war in Iraq entering its sixth year, Americans are rightly concerned about how much longer our nation must continue to sacrifice our security for the sake of an Iraqi government that is unwilling or unable to secure its own future,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “Democrats will continue to push for an end to the war in Iraq and increased oversight of that war.”

Bush repeatedly and directly linked the Iraq fight to the global battle against the al Qaida terror network. And he made some of his most expansive claims of success. He said the increase of 30,000 troops that he ordered to Iraq last year has turned “the situation in Iraq around.” He also said that “Iraq has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al Qaida out.”

“The surge … has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror,” the president said. “We are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his terror network. And the significance of this development cannot be overstated.”

Bush appeared to be referring to recent cooperation by local Iraqis with the U.S. military against the group known as al-Qaida in Iraq, a mostly homegrown, though foreign-led, Sunni-based insurgency. Experts question how closely—or even whether—the group is connected to the international al-Qaida network. As for bin Laden, he is rarely heard from and is believed to be hiding in Pakistan.

The U.S. has about 158,000 troops in Iraq. That number is expected to drop to 140,000 by summer in drawdowns meant to erase all but about 8,000 troops from last year’s increase.

Bush, who has successfully defied efforts by the Democratic-led Congress to force larger and faster withdrawals, said they could unravel recent progress. “Having come so far and achieved so much, we are not going to let this happen,” he said.

He criticized those who “still call for retreat” in the face of what he called undeniable successes.

“The challenge in the period ahead is to consolidate the gains we have made and seal the extremists’ defeat,” he said. “We have learned through hard experience what happens when we pull our forces back too fast—the terrorists and extremists step in, fill the vacuum, establish safe havens and use them to spread chaos and carnage.”

This sort of cautionary rhetoric is consistent with all the president’s recent statements about Iraq.

It has been widely believed for weeks that Bush will endorse an expected recommendation from Petraeus next month for no additional troop reductions, beyond those already scheduled, until at least September. This so-called pause in drawdowns would be designed to assess the impact of this round before allowing more.

The surge was meant to tamp down sectarian violence in Iraq so that the country’s leaders would have time to advance legislation considered key to reconciliation between rival Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities. But the gains on the battlefield have not been matched by dramatic political progress, and violence again may be increasing.

With just 10 months before he hands off the war to a new president, Bush is concerned about his legacy on Iraq.

Both Democratic candidates have said they would begin withdrawing forces quickly if elected. Only expected GOP nominee John McCain has indicated he planned to continue Bush’s strategy of bringing troops home only as conditions warrant.

Vice President Dick Cheney, who just completed a two-day visit to Iraq, said the administration won’t “be blown off course” by continued strong opposition to the war in the United States.

Cheney compared the administration’s task now to Abraham Lincoln’s during the Civil War. “He never would have succeeded if he hadn’t had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there,” Cheney said of Lincoln in an interview broadcast Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

As of Tuesday, at least 3,990 members of the U.S. military have died in the war, which has cost the U.S. roughly $500 billion. Nobel Prize- winning economist Joseph E. Stiglizt and Harvard University public finance expert Linda Bilmes have estimated the eventual cost at $3 trillion when all the expenses, including long-term care for veterans, are calculated.

Without specifics, Bush decried those who have “exaggerated estimates of the costs of this war.”

“War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much,” he said.

Apparently on Wednesday night there is a total lunar eclipse that will be seen people in the Rocky Mountains in North America, as well as in all of Central and South America, West Africa and Western Europe.

It will be in partial eclipse visible west of the Rockies and from the eastern Pacific, and across the rest of Africa and Europe and much of South and West Asia.

Times vary in your area. Check here for details.

Oh yeah, and the space shuttle is coming back home on Wednesday as well. This is probably a very good idea considering the US Navy is planning on shooting missiles in the air trying to down a spy satellite on Thursday.

Because the 5,000-pound satellite malfunctioned immediately after launch in December 2006, it has a full tank of fuel. It would likely survive re-entry and disperse potentially deadly fumes over an area the size of two football fields, officials have said.

Apparently not satisfied in wasting money in Iraq and also running out of things he can get away with blowing up, Bush is going to spend 50 million in the destruction of the satellite.

NASA Administrator, a very well educated man and yet surprisingly naive, Michael Griffin said there’s nothing the military can do to make the outcome worse.

Yeah, right.

Rumors are flying that filmmaker Morgan Spurlock of “Super Size Me” fame may have done what the United States government has failed to do for the last six years — find Osama bin Laden.

The speculation first began at the Berlin International Film Festival in February, where Spurlock showed a select group of potential buyers 15 minutes of footage from his new documentary, “Where in the World Is Osama bin Laden?” The film follows Spurlock through the Middle East in his search for the elusive leader of al-Qaida. According to Slashfilm.com, The Weinstein Co. quickly snapped up the picture after seeing the clips.

Adding to the belief, Daniel Marracino, the film’s director of photography, is quoted in Variety, saying of the movie, “We’ve definitely got the Holy Grail.”

Whether this is just a genius publicity ploy or if Spurlock actually found bin Laden has yet to be revealed, but the answer should come next year, when the documentary is slated to premiere at the Sundance Film Festival.

WASHINGTON – Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen. It’s expanding by about $1.4 billion a day — or nearly $1 million a minute.

What’s that mean to you?

It means almost $30,000 in debt for each man, woman, child and infant in the United States.

Even if you’ve escaped the recent housing and credit crunches and are coping with rising fuel prices, you may still be headed for economic misery, along with the rest of the country. That’s because the government is fast straining resources needed to meet interest payments on the national debt, which stands at a mind-numbing $9.13 trillion.

And like homeowners who took out adjustable-rate mortgages, the government faces the prospect of seeing this debt — now at relatively low interest rates — rolling over to higher rates, multiplying the financial pain.

So long as somebody is willing to keep loaning the U.S. government money, the debt is largely out of sight, out of mind.

But the interest payments keep compounding, and could in time squeeze out most other government spending — leading to sharply higher taxes or a cut in basic services like Social Security and other government benefit programs. Or all of the above.

A major economic slowdown, as some economists suggest may be looming, could hasten the day of reckoning.

The national debt — the total accumulation of annual budget deficits — is up from $5.7 trillion when President Bush took office in January 2001 and it will top $10 trillion sometime right before or right after he leaves in January 2009.

That’s $10,000,000,000,000.00, or one digit more than an odometer-style “national debt clock” near New York’s Times Square can handle. When the privately owned automated clock was activated in 1989, the national debt was $2.7 trillion.

It only gets worse.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Several thousand anti-war demonstrators marched through downtown Washington on Saturday, clashing with police at the foot of the Capitol steps where more than 190 protesters were arrested.

The group marched from the White House to the Capitol to demand an end to the Iraq war. Their numbers stretched for blocks along Pennsylvania Avenue, and they held banners and signs and chanted, “What do we want? Troops out. When do we want it? Now.”

Army veteran Justin Cliburn, 25, of Lawton, Okla., was among a contingent of Iraq veterans in attendance.

“We’re occupying a people who do not want us there,” Cliburn said of Iraq. “We’re here to show that it isn’t just a bunch of old hippies from the 60s who are against this war.”

Counterprotesters lined the sidewalks behind metal barricades. There were some heated shouting matches between the two sides.

The arrests came after protesters lay down on the Capitol lawn in what they called a “die in” – with signs on top of their bodies to represent soldiers killed in Iraq. When police took no action, some of the protesters started climbing over a barricade at the foot of the Capitol steps.

Many were arrested without a struggle after they jumped over the waist-high barrier. But some grew angry as police with shields and riot gear attempted to push them back. At least two people were showered with chemical spray. Protesters responded by throwing signs and chanting: “Shame on you.”

The number of arrests by Capitol Police on Saturday was much higher than previous anti-war rallies in Washington this year. Five people were arrested at a protest outside the Pentagon in March when they walked onto a bridge that had been closed off to accommodate the demonstration, then refused to leave. And at a rally in January, about 50 demonstrators blocked a street near the Capitol, but they were dispersed without arrests.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 — When top Democratic leaders visited him at the White House this week, President Bush told them he wanted to “find common ground” on Iraq. But when the president said he planned to “start doing some redeployment,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, cut him off.

“No you’re not, Mr. President,” Ms. Pelosi interjected. “You’re just going back to the presurge level.”

The testy exchange, recounted by three people who attended the session or were briefed on it, provides a peek into how Mr. Bush will try to sell Americans on his Iraq strategy when he addresses the nation at 9 p.m. Thursday. With lawmakers openly skeptical of his troop buildup, Mr. Bush will cast his plan for a gradual, limited withdrawal as a way to bring a divided America together — even as he resists demands from those who want him to move much faster.

The prime-time address will be the eighth by Mr. Bush on Iraq since the invasion in March 2003, the latest iteration of his efforts to sketch what he calls “the way forward.” It will be the first time he has described a plan for troop reductions, a radical departure for a president who has repeatedly defied his critics’ calls to bring the troops home.

Yet as the president outlines his plan, his critics say he is trying to have it both ways. He is, they say, taking credit for a drawdown that has been envisioned since he first announced the current buildup on Jan. 10 — a withdrawal that had to be carried out unless he was willing to take the politically unpalatable step of extending soldiers’ tours further.

The White House declined on Wednesday to preview Mr. Bush’s speech, but one senior administration official, speaking anonymously to avoid upstaging the president, said the reductions would be heavily conditioned on the situation in Iraq and would fall far short of the rapid withdrawal Democrats want.

Under the plan, at least 130,000 American troops would remain in Iraq next July, down from more than 160,000, decreasing to about the same level as before the buildup began, with any decisions on further withdrawals likely to be postponed until at least next March. The planned drawdowns between now and July 2008 are expected to be of the 30,000 that many assumed the president would suggest after this week’s testimony by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq. But, the senior official said, Mr. Bush’s ultimate goal would be a sustainable force of around 10 combat brigades, down from 20 now, at the end of his presidency, though a large number of support troops would also still be required.

“We want bipartisanship,” said this official, “but not to the point where it sacrifices success.”

Mr. Bush has repeatedly asked Americans to give him another chance in Iraq, and Thursday night will be no different. “His main goal at this critical juncture,” said another senior official, also speaking anonymously, “is to ask Americans to stop and take a fresh look.”

Whether they will take that look remains to be seen. This week’s Congressional testimony from General Petraeus was supposed to be a defining moment in Washington’s debate over the war.

But in fact, as was suggested by the Pelosi-Bush exchange during the White House meeting on Tuesday, very few minds have been changed.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Gen. David Petraeus told Congress on Monday he envisions the withdrawal of roughly 30,000 U.S. troops by next summer, beginning with a Marine contingent later this month.

In long-awaited testimony, the commanding general of the war said last winter’s buildup in U.S. troops had met its military objectives “in large measure.”

As a result, he told a congressional hearing and a nationwide television audience, “I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level … by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains we have fought so hard to achieve.”

Testifying in a military uniform bearing four general’s stars and a chestful of medals, Petraeus said he had already provided his views to the military chain of command.

Rebutting charges that he was merely doing the White House’s bidding, he said firmly, “I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by nor shared with anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress.”

His testimony came at a politically pivotal moment in the war, with the Democratic-controlled Congress pressing for a troop withdrawal deadline and the Bush administration hoping to prevent wholesale Republican defections on the issue.

Petraeus said that a unit of about 2,000 Marines will depart Iraq later this month, beginning a drawdown that would be followed in mid- December with the departure of an Army brigade numbering 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers.

After that, another four brigades would be withdrawn by July 2008, he said. That would leave the United States with about 130,000 troops in Iraq, roughly the number stationed there last winter when President Bush decided to dispatch additional forces.

He said he believes withdrawals could continue even after the 30,000 extra troops go home, but added that it would be premature to make any further recommendations.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Alberto Gonzales, the nation’s first Hispanic attorney general, announced his resignation Monday, driven from office after a wrenching standoff with congressional critics over his honesty and competence.

Republicans and Democrats alike had demanded his departure over the botched handling of FBI terror investigations and the firings of U.S. attorneys, but President Bush had defiantly stood by his Texas friend for months until accepting his resignation last Friday.

“After months of unfair treatment that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department, Judge Gonzales decided to resign his position and I accept his decision,” Bush said from Texas, where he is vacationing.

Solicitor General Paul Clement will be acting attorney general until a replacement is found and confirmed by the Senate, Bush said.

Karl Rove, the political adviser who masterminded President George W. Bush’s two winning presidential campaigns and secured his own place in history as a political strategist with extraordinary influence within the White House, announced on Monday that he would resign at the end of the month.

In an unusually emotional appearance with President Bush on the South Lawn of the White House, Mr. Rove cited a desire to “start thinking about the next chapter in our family’s life.” His decision was also forced when the White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, recently told senior aides that if they stayed past Labor Day he would expect them to stay through the remaining 17 months of Mr. Bush’s term.

Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush, who said they had known “each other as youngsters” interested in politics, first discussed his departure last summer, Mr. Rove said, his voice breaking at times. Instead he stayed on, through the midterm elections last fall, which put Democrats in control of Congress and tempered Mr. Rove’s reputation as a political genius who had ushered in an enduring Republican majority.

“It always seemed there was a better time to leave out there in the future,” Mr. Rove said, “but now is the time.”

His standing had already diminished considerably. Since the midterm elections, Mr. Bush’s political problems have mounted in Iraq, his pursuit of a new immigration policy failed in Congress and the White House has had to defend its actions in the dismissals of United States attorneys, among other issues. Mr. Rove, 56, survived an investigation into the leak of the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative only to face a flurry of subpoenas from Democratic-controlled committees on Capitol Hill that he has so far rebuffed, citing executive privilege.

To his critics, and there are many, Mr. Rove embodied the Bush administration’s mode of politics: aggressive, combative, secretive. Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, said that the Congressional investigations swirling around Mr. Rove and others in the White House would continue, regardless of his resignation.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush’s new war adviser said Friday.

“I think it makes sense to certainly consider it,” Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered.”

“And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation’s security by one means or another,” Lute added in his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.

President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a “major policy shift” and Bush has made it clear that he doesn’t think it’s necessary.

The repeated deployments affect not only the troops but their families, who can influence whether a service member decides to stay in the military, Lute said.

“There’s both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families,” he said. “And ultimately, the health of the all- volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions.”

The military conducted a draft during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. The Selective Service System, re- established in 1980, maintains a registry of 18-year-old men.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has called for reinstating the draft as a way to end the Iraq war.

Bush picked Lute in mid-May as a deputy national security adviser with responsibility for ensuring efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are coordinated with policymakers in Washington. Lute, an active-duty general, was chosen after several retired generals turned down the job.

The Republican rebellion against the war in Iraq widened over the weekend as more of the party’s senators voiced dissent from President George W. Bush’s strategy.

Republican unity on Iraq has shattered in recent weeks, amid mounting pessimism about the ability of US forces to bring stability to the country.

Weakening Republican support for the war has left Mr Bush increasingly isolated as congressional Democrats prepare for a fresh barrage of votes aimed at forcing a US withdrawal.

Three more Republican senators have called for a change of course recently, adding to a steady trickle of defections since Richard Lugar became the most senior to break from Mr Bush over the war last month.

“It should be clear to the president that there needs to be a new strategy,” Lamar Alexander of Tennessee told the Los Angeles Times on Saturday.

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire told the same newspaper that efforts to quell the violence in Iraq by increasing US troop numbers “don’t seem to be making a lot of progress” and called for “a clear blueprint” to end the war.

The comments came two days after Pete Domenici of New Mexico, said he could no longer support current strategy.

The three senators are among six Republicans who have voiced support for bipartisan legislation that aims to prepare the ground for US troops to start leaving Iraq by March next year. The measure is among the more moderate of several proposals for troop withdrawal and limits on war spending set for debate in Congress over the next few weeks, as Democrats launch a fresh push to end the war.

The White House has appealed for Republicans to withhold judgment until September, when Gen David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, is scheduled to deliver a progress report to Congress.

But Chuck Hagel, the moderate Republican senator from Nebraska and a longstanding critic of the war, on Sunday warned that the party’s patience was wearing thin.

“If we do not see this administration take some initiatives to make some changes, significant strategic policy changes over the next 90 days, then of course it will be forced on [Mr Bush],” he told NBC’s Meet the Press.

The most urgent calls for a policy change are coming from Republicans facing tough re-election battles in 2008, highlighting concern throughout the party about the impact of the war on next year’s congressional and presidential polls.

Charles Schumer, Democratic senator for New York, said Republicans were “getting hammered” by their constituents over the war, and predicted the trickle of defections would soon turn into a torrent. “I think the dam is about to burst,” he told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. “By September there will be real change forced upon the president by a bipartisan Senate.”

Mr Bush last week re-newed his warning against a hasty exit from Iraq, arguing that a withdrawal “based on politics, not on the advice and recommendations of our military commanders, would not be in our national interest”.

US and coalition casualties in Iraq have increased to an average of about 3.5 a day since Mr Bush took his decision to increase troop numbers in January – the highest sustained rate since the end of the initial invasion in 2003. More than 3,600 US troops have died since the war began.

President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case.

Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

Bush’s move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That decision put the pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby’s allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Libby was convicted in March of lying to authorities and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative’s identity. He was the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.

WASHINGTON – Courting the anti-war constituency, Democratic presidential rivals
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against legislation that pays for the Iraq war but lacks a timeline for troop withdrawal.

“I fully support our troops” but the measure “fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq,” said Clinton, a New York senator.

“Enough is enough,” Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that
President Bush should not get “a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path.”

Their votes Thursday night continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal.

On a vote of 80-14, the Senate cleared the measure and sent it to Bush.

Bush approval rating all-time low due to Iraq, Immigration

RAPID CITY — Heather Moriah loves the personalized license plates on her silver Prius encouraging the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

But somebody doesn’t agree. And that somebody complained to the state. Now, the South Dakota Division of Motor Vehicles is trying to recall the plates — which read MPEACHW. And if Moriah doesn’t turn them in voluntarily, the state might send law-enforcement officers to pick them up.

Even so, she’s not immediately inclined to cooperate.

“I don’t think I’m going to play,” Moriah said Thursday afternoon. “The plate isn’t in poor taste. It‘s not sexual in nature or pornographic. To me, a political message should not be considered offensive.”

But Division of Motor Vehicles director Deb Hillmer said Thursday that the law clearly gives the state authority to recall the plates and have them forcibly removed if necessary. And although only one person complained about Moriah’s political statement, that’s all it takes to recall a set of vanity plates, Hillmer said.

“I’m following the letter of the law,” she said. “It’s offensive to someone and not in good taste and decency. And the plates are the property of the state of South Dakota.”

State law declares motor vehicle licenses plates to be the property of the state as long as the plates are valid. The law also allows personalized plates with as many as seven letters for an extra $25 fee. But it gives DMV officials the right to refuse to issue “any letter combination which carries connotations offensive to good taste and decency.”

Hillmer said MPEACHW meets that criterion. The plates never would have been issued if DMV officials had caught their meaning at the time Moriah applied, Hillmer said.

“This was one that we apparently missed when it came through originally, and we received a complaint from an individual that found it offensive,” she said, declining to identify the individual or provide the contents of the complaint. “I don’t think we ever would have issued it if we’d have picked up on what it was inferring.”

Moriah said she bought the 2005 Prius late last summer and fitted it with personalized plates similar to those her partner, Curt Finnegan, had on his blue 2004 Prius. His plates actually read: IMPCH-W.

Moriah said has received plenty of positive reactions in public to her plates and that negative responses have been rare. So she was surprised to receive the April 18 letter from the DMV announcing the recall and giving her 10 days to turn in the plates at the Pennington County Treasurer’s Office or the DMV office in Pierre.

The letter said DMV would issue a refund on the months remaining on Moriah’s license.

She is hesitant to give up the plates, however, because she believes her free-speech rights are being unnecessarily limited.

“It’s kind of sad to me,” she said. “For one person to be able to say they’re offended because it’s different from their political beliefs seems really arbitrary. And I don’t think the law is very clear about what ‘offensive’ means.”

Hillmer said the law gives the state great latitude in making that determination. Moriah is free to exercise her free-speech rights in ways that don’t involve state property or implied state sanction of a given message, Hillemr said.

“They have every right to use that free speech, but they need to do it with a bumper sticker,” she said. “That plate is property of South Dakota. And that (message) is not something the state should advocate.”

It wouldn’t matter if the political message or the president were different, it would be inappropriate on a state plate, Hillmer said.

Moriah has contacted the American Civil Liberties Union, which intends to protest the recall in a letter to the state. Moriah said it’s unlikely the ACLU will pursue legal action, in part because she is planning a move to Pennsylvanian in the next couple of months.

Finnegan already has moved there and replaced his South Dakota plates for Pennsylvania plates, Moriah said. Moriah hopes to leave in June or July, with her plates still intact. Hillmer said it might not work out that way.

“We may have law enforcement go pick them up if we receive more complaints about it,” she said. “If she returns them, we’ll make her new plates. If we have to go pick them up, we probably won’t.”

Hillmer has been with DMV for more than 20 years. She remembers five or six instances when so-called vanity plates were recalled. One of them said “SNIPER” and another “OLDFART.”

Moriah is the only person to complain about a recall, Hillmer said.

Rapid City lawyer Patrick Duffy said there’s plenty of reason to complain. Duffy, who has worked on key civil rights cases involving American Indian voting issues, said action by the state means that any personalized plate must be recalled because of a single complaint, no matter what the message.

“What this means is that every atheist can now wipe out anything that seems to refer to God,” Duffy said. “Will vanity plates for members of the armed forces suddenly be declared offensive if they offend a single pacifist? It’s absolutely preposterous.”

Even obscenity must be judged by the mores and standards of a community, not just one offended individual, Duffy said.

“Here, all we need is one lone citizen who is apparently invested with the complete authority to determine what is good taste and decency for all the rest of us,” he said. “It seems a little tyrannical to me.”

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq Tuesday night in a historic showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate.

In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

“This is a prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops,” Bush said in a nationally broadcast statement from the White House. He said the bill would “mandate a rigid and artificial deadline” for troop pullouts, and “it makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing.”

Democrats accused Bush of ignoring American’s desire to stop the war, which has claimed the lives of more than 3,350 members of the military.

“The president wants a blank check,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., moments after Bush’s appearance. “The Congress is not going to give it to him.” She said Congress would work with him to find common ground but added that there was “great distance” between them on Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Bush has an obligation to explain his plan for responsibly ending the war.

“If the president thinks by vetoing this bill, he’ll stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken,” Reid said.

Lacking the votes to override the president, Democratic leaders quietly considered what might be included or kept out of their next version of the $124 billion spending bill. Bush will meet with congressional leaders—Democrats and Republicans alike—on Wednesday to discuss a new bill.

Bush said Democrats had made a political statement by passing anti-war legislation. “They’ve sent their message, and now it’s time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds,” the president said.

He said the need to act is urgent because without a war-funding bill, the armed forces will have to consider cutting back on buying or repairing equipment.

“Our troops and their families deserve better, and their elected leaders can do better,” Bush said.

“Whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay,” the president said.

WASHINGTON (AP) – A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war.

At the White House, the president immediately promised a veto.

“It is amazing that legislation urgently needed to fund our troops took 80 days to make its way around the Capitol. But that’s where we are,” said deputy press secretary Dana Perino.

The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president’s threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.

“The president has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq,” said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He later added: “It’s time to bring our troops home from Iraq.”

The $124.2 billion bill requires troop withdrawals to begin Oct. 1, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The House passed the measure Wednesday by a 218-208 vote.

Across the Potomac River at the Pentagon, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, told reporters the war effort likely will “get harder before it gets easier.”

WASHINGTON – Beginning immediately, all active-duty Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will serve 15-month tours — three months longer than the usual standard, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

It was the latest move by the Pentagon to cope with the strains of fighting two wars simultaneously and maintaining a higher troop level in Iraq as part of President Bush’s revised strategy for stabilizing Baghdad.

“This policy is a difficult but necessary interim step,” Gates told a Pentagon news conference, adding that the goal is to eventually return to 12 months as the standard length of tour in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said the new policy does not affect the other main components of the U.S. ground force in Iraq: the Marines, whose standard tour is seven months, or the Army National Guard or Army Reserve, which will continue to serve 12-month tours.

Gates acknowledged that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are making life difficult for many in the military.

“Our forces are stretched, there’s no question about that,” Gates said.

He said the new policy also seeks to ensure that all active-duty Army units get at least 12 months at home between deployments. He said it would allow the Pentagon to maintain the current level of troops in Iraq for another year, although he added that there has been no decision on future troop levels.