]]> contain anything like the quotes Smith attributes to Podesta. Smith's description of the phone calls mirrors the selectively edited excerpts released by House Government Reform and Oversight Committee chairman Dan Burton's (R-IN) staff. Burton's chief investigator. David Bossie over the controversy that ensued after it was revealed that the edited transcripts omitted exculpatory comments such as Webster Hubbell's statement that Hillary Clinton "." 4. Haircut myth: On Page 101. Smith writes. "Bill was caught by White House reporters holding up traffic at Los Angeles International Airport for forty-five minutes while he got a two-hundred-dollar haircut on Air Force One from... Hollywood stylist. Christophe Schatteman." In fact. In an endnote. Smith appears to cite several sources for her false claim including Page 144 of All Too Human by George Stephanopoulos. But in fact. Stephanopoulos writes on that page: "The truth is that while the reporters traveling with the president were delayed no other air traffic at LAX was affected." 5. Trouble with quotes: According to a New York Times by New York magazine contributor Lloyd Grove. Smith "also gets a few nuances slightly wrong -- for example crediting Hillary's confidante Susan Thomases with coining the epithet 'white boys,' [Page 65] which by the time Thomases used it to deride her male counterparts in the 1992 campaign had been in circulation for several election cycles. Smith misstates what she calls 'the second-most famous quotation' of the Clinton presidency as 'It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" means,' [Page 337] substituting 'means' for 'is.' " Additionally. Smith substituted "upon" for "on" -- meaning that she got wrong two of the 11 words in what she described as the "second-most famous quotation" of Clinton's presidency. 6. Gennifer Flowers: On Page 295. Smith claims that during his deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Bill Clinton "admitted sexual intercourse with Gennifer Flowers." She repeats the claim that Clinton "confirm[ed]" that he had "sexual intercourse with Gennifer Flowers" on Page 325. In fact during the deposition. Clinton only to having had "sexual relations" with Flowers once in 1977. Under the definition of "sexual relations" that was in effect for the deposition -- a definition that had been created by the Jones attorneys not by Clinton -- the phrase included a wide range of actions that do not constitute "sexual intercourse," including "contact with the.. inner thigh." Smith knew how broad the definition was; she actually quotes it on Page 295 in the very paragraph in which she falsely claimed Clinton had admitted to "sexual intercourse." 7. Al Gore: On Page 386. Smith claims that prior to his June 1999 presidential campaign announcement then-Vice President Al Gore "had expressed his dismay about Bill's conduct to a small circle of advisors but had kept quiet publicly." This is false. Smith cites a 1999 Washington Post article by Ceci Connolly but much of Connolly's reporting about Gore was wrong. Gore had publicly expressed his dismay about the president's conduct on numerous occasions. Indeed. Connolly herself wrote a September 1998 article that quoted Gore describing Clinton's conduct as "indefensible." On his blog The Daily Howler. Bob Somerby this falsehood in detail. 8. Harold Ickes: On Page 390. Smith writes that Hillary Clinton "thought it best to keep Bill away from the event" kicking off her Senate campaign at then-Sen. Daniel Patrick Pat Moynihan's (D-NY) farm. "but somewhat surprisingly she also excluded Harold Ickes because he was 'too liberal.' " The confusing nature of Smith's endnotes make it difficult to determine which citation applies to this claim; either "NYT. July 8. 1999; LH p. 507" or "NYT. Nov. 8. 2000." What is clear is that no New York Times article from July 8. 1999 or November 8. 2000 includes a description of Ickes as having been "too liberal" to attend the event. Nor does Hillary Clinton's biography. Living History. 9. Naomi Wolf: On Page 420. Smith claims that "feminist author Naomi Wolf.. had advised [Gore] to wear 'earth tones'..." Smith cites "NYT. Nov. 3. 1999 and Vanity Fair. July 2001." Neither of those sources directly supports Smith's claim. The Vanity Fair article which is reprinted in the book The Woman At the Washington Zoo by Marjorie Williams and Timothy Noah that "political reporters discovered that Wolf had been handsomely paid to advise Gore that he needed to.. adopt warm earth tones for his wardrobe." There is no November 3. 1999. New York Times article that makes reference to Gore. Wolf and "earth tones." That day the Times did publish a column by Maureen Dowd that did so. Dowd : "Time magazine revealed that Al Gore hired Ms. Wolf who has written extensively on women and sexual power as a $15,000-a-month consultant to help him with everything from his shift to earth tones to his efforts to break with Bill Clinton." Dowd simply wasn't telling the truth: The Time magazine article she described did not contain the words "earth tones." In a to a later article the Times acknowledged that Wolf "was a consultant on women's issues and outreach to young voters; she was not Mr. Gore's image consultant and was not involved in his decision to wear earth-toned clothing." Curiously. Smith did not cite the first news report that mentioned Gore. Wolf and "earth tones" -- a November 1. 1999. Washington Post article in which Connolly wrote that Dick "Morris speculated that Wolf who has long contended that earth tones are more 'reassuring' to audiences is the person behind Gore's recent wardrobe change. Others confirmed that she has supported the vice president's shift to brown olive green and tan shades." In short: Smith's endnotes indicate that she based her claim on 1) a Vanity Fair article that contains no independent verification of the earth tones story and 2) a New York Times article that was really a Maureen Dowd column that falsely claimed that Time magazine had reported the earth tones story. Had Smith quoted the first news report that actually mentioned earth tones readers would have seen that the. 10. Travelgate: On Page 101. Smith claims regarding the firing of White House Travel Office employees that the "precipitous and amateurish dismissals [of the employees] became a damaging test of Hillary's honesty under oath before federal investigators." Smith continues: "She [Hillary Clinton] insisted that she did not know the 'origin of the decision' to remove the employees that she had 'no role in the decision,' and that she 'did not direct that any action be taken.' But her recollection was a at odds with a report issued in October 2000 after a lengthy investigation by the Office of the Independent Counsel which concluded that her statements had been 'factually false' and that there was 'overwhelming evidence that she in fact did have a role in the decision to fire the employees.' " However. Smith failed to note that Independent Counsel Robert Ray's report also stated. "[T]here is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton's statements to this Office or to Congress were knowingly false." From Ray's : With respect to Mrs. Clinton the overwhelming evidence establishes that she played a role in the decision to fire the employees and provided input into that decision to [former White House aide David] Watkins. [former White House chief of staff Thomas F. "Mack"] McLarty. [former deputy White House counsel Vince] Foster and [Clinton friend Harry] Thomason. Thus her statement to the contrary under oath to this Office was factually false. The evidence however is insufficient to show that Mrs. Clinton knowingly intended to influence the Travel Office decision or was aware that she had such influence at this early stage of the Administration. To a real degree her interest in the matter was first generated by Thomason's intervention and then overstated by him to others. Thus absent persuasive corroborated and admissible evidence to the contrary there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton's statements to this Office or to Congress were knowingly false.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://mediamatters.org/items/rss/200712120002 ]]> ]]> contain anything like the quotes Smith attributes to Podesta. Smith's description of the phone calls mirrors the selectively edited excerpts released by House Government Reform and Oversight Committee chairman Dan Burton's (R-IN) staff. Burton's chief investigator. David Bossie over the controversy that ensued after it was revealed that the edited transcripts omitted exculpatory comments such as Webster Hubbell's statement that Hillary Clinton "." 4. Haircut myth: On Page 101. Smith writes. "Bill was caught by White House reporters holding up traffic at Los Angeles International Airport for forty-five minutes while he got a two-hundred-dollar haircut on Air Force One from... Hollywood stylist. Christophe Schatteman." In fact. In an endnote. Smith appears to cite several sources for her false claim including Page 144 of All Too Human by George Stephanopoulos. But in fact. Stephanopoulos writes on that page: "The truth is that while the reporters traveling with the president were delayed no other air traffic at LAX was affected." 5. Trouble with quotes: According to a New York Times by New York magazine contributor Lloyd Grove. Smith "also gets a few nuances slightly wrong -- for example crediting Hillary's confidante Susan Thomases with coining the epithet 'white boys,' [Page 65] which by the time Thomases used it to deride her male counterparts in the 1992 campaign had been in circulation for several election cycles. Smith misstates what she calls 'the second-most famous quotation' of the Clinton presidency as 'It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" means,' [Page 337] substituting 'means' for 'is.' " Additionally. Smith substituted "upon" for "on" -- meaning that she got wrong two of the 11 words in what she described as the "second-most famous quotation" of Clinton's presidency. 6. Gennifer Flowers: On Page 295. Smith claims that during his deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Bill Clinton "admitted sexual intercourse with Gennifer Flowers." She repeats the claim that Clinton "confirm[ed]" that he had "sexual intercourse with Gennifer Flowers" on Page 325. In fact during the deposition. Clinton only to having had "sexual relations" with Flowers once in 1977. Under the definition of "sexual relations" that was in effect for the deposition -- a definition that had been created by the Jones attorneys not by Clinton -- the phrase included a wide range of actions that do not constitute "sexual intercourse," including "contact with the.. inner thigh." Smith knew how broad the definition was; she actually quotes it on Page 295 in the very paragraph in which she falsely claimed Clinton had admitted to "sexual intercourse." 7. Al Gore: On Page 386. Smith claims that prior to his June 1999 presidential campaign announcement then-Vice President Al Gore "had expressed his dismay about Bill's conduct to a small circle of advisors but had kept quiet publicly." This is false. Smith cites a 1999 Washington Post article by Ceci Connolly but much of Connolly's reporting about Gore was wrong. Gore had publicly expressed his dismay about the president's conduct on numerous occasions. Indeed. Connolly herself wrote a September 1998 article that quoted Gore describing Clinton's conduct as "indefensible." On his blog The Daily Howler. Bob Somerby this falsehood in detail. 8. Harold Ickes: On Page 390. Smith writes that Hillary Clinton "thought it best to keep Bill away from the event" kicking off her Senate campaign at then-Sen. Daniel Patrick Pat Moynihan's (D-NY) farm. "but somewhat surprisingly she also excluded Harold Ickes because he was 'too liberal.' " The confusing nature of Smith's endnotes make it difficult to determine which citation applies to this claim; either "NYT. July 8. 1999; LH p. 507" or "NYT. Nov. 8. 2000." What is clear is that no New York Times article from July 8. 1999 or November 8. 2000 includes a description of Ickes as having been "too liberal" to attend the event. Nor does Hillary Clinton's biography. Living History. 9. Naomi Wolf: On Page 420. Smith claims that "feminist author Naomi Wolf.. had advised [Gore] to wear 'earth tones'..." Smith cites "NYT. Nov. 3. 1999 and Vanity Fair. July 2001." Neither of those sources directly supports Smith's claim. The Vanity Fair article which is reprinted in the book The Woman At the Washington Zoo by Marjorie Williams and Timothy Noah that "political reporters discovered that Wolf had been handsomely paid to advise Gore that he needed to.. adopt warm earth tones for his wardrobe." There is no November 3. 1999. New York Times article that makes reference to Gore. Wolf and "earth tones." That day the Times did publish a column by Maureen Dowd that did so. Dowd : "Time magazine revealed that Al Gore hired Ms. Wolf who has written extensively on women and sexual power as a $15,000-a-month consultant to help him with everything from his shift to earth tones to his efforts to break with Bill Clinton." Dowd simply wasn't telling the truth: The Time magazine article she described did not contain the words "earth tones." In a to a later article the Times acknowledged that Wolf "was a consultant on women's issues and outreach to young voters; she was not Mr. Gore's image consultant and was not involved in his decision to wear earth-toned clothing." Curiously. Smith did not cite the first news report that mentioned Gore. Wolf and "earth tones" -- a November 1. 1999. Washington Post article in which Connolly wrote that Dick "Morris speculated that Wolf who has long contended that earth tones are more 'reassuring' to audiences is the person behind Gore's recent wardrobe change. Others confirmed that she has supported the vice president's shift to brown olive green and tan shades." In short: Smith's endnotes indicate that she based her claim on 1) a Vanity Fair article that contains no independent verification of the earth tones story and 2) a New York Times article that was really a Maureen Dowd column that falsely claimed that Time magazine had reported the earth tones story. Had Smith quoted the first news report that actually mentioned earth tones readers would have seen that the. 10. Travelgate: On Page 101. Smith claims regarding the firing of White House Travel Office employees that the "precipitous and amateurish dismissals [of the employees] became a damaging test of Hillary's honesty under oath before federal investigators." Smith continues: "She [Hillary Clinton] insisted that she did not know the 'origin of the decision' to remove the employees that she had 'no role in the decision,' and that she 'did not direct that any action be taken.' But her recollection was a at odds with a report issued in October 2000 after a lengthy investigation by the Office of the Independent Counsel which concluded that her statements had been 'factually false' and that there was 'overwhelming evidence that she in fact did have a role in the decision to fire the employees.' " However. Smith failed to note that Independent Counsel Robert Ray's report also stated. "[T]here is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton's statements to this Office or to Congress were knowingly false." From Ray's : With respect to Mrs. Clinton the overwhelming evidence establishes that she played a role in the decision to fire the employees and provided input into that decision to [former White House aide David] Watkins. [former White House chief of staff Thomas F. "Mack"] McLarty. [former deputy White House counsel Vince] Foster and [Clinton friend Harry] Thomason. Thus her statement to the contrary under oath to this Office was factually false. The evidence however is insufficient to show that Mrs. Clinton knowingly intended to influence the Travel Office decision or was aware that she had such influence at this early stage of the Administration. To a real degree her interest in the matter was first generated by Thomason's intervention and then overstated by him to others. Thus absent persuasive corroborated and admissible evidence to the contrary there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton's statements to this Office or to Congress were knowingly false.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://mediamatters.org/items/rss/200712120002 ]]> ]]> lately on my blog there's a spectrum of the NewAtheists. Dawkins. Harris. Hitchens and Dennett may have been labeledunder the same banner but their views and approaches to religionvary. So to say that the New Atheists are fundamentalists,reductionists and are only talking about the mythic God are naivesweeping generalizations. It's very different from Richard Dawkins's (anti-theist) approach and Sam Harris's approach. Dennett is a proud and avowed atheist but he doesn't want toexterminate religions. He just wants to undergo the "toxic" versionsexpunged via comparative religious education--where religion is taughtas a natural phenomenon similar to language or music. For example although Dennett might not accept with the fact that Dowd is ,I don't think Dennett would undergo a big air with it. It would be coolto hear a dialogue or friendly debate between Dennett and Dowd though. In the meantime. Michael Dowd is raving "" That said. IMHO a more integral response to the New Atheists is toacknowledge their partial truths accept or constructively critiquetheir proposals set them on an integral framework and talk to them In the meantime. Michael Dowd seems to be filling in that "integral" dialogue by meeting people where they're at. analyse out this quote : The New Atheists and Young-Earth creationists are both playingvital necessary roles in furthering the evolution of religiousperspectives. The New Atheists are assisting the evolution ofreligion by ridiculing trivial uninspiring notions of God; theYoung-Earth Creationists are doing their move by ridiculing trivial,uninspiring notions of evolution." Good post. I just got Dennett's schedule and I'm looking send to reading it. I've always liked him (change surface though some of his ideas seem reductionist to me desire all neuroscientists). But in terms of the "new atheists," he is definitely different than Harris who has different ideas than Dawkins and then there's Hitchens who is mostly just entertaining because of his wit. I think as integral thinkers we be to support Harris and Dennett as much as possible since they undergo the beat chance of having an force on the wider culture especially Dennett. I can totally support his teaching religions ideas -- I've been advocating that for years. And I'm ordering Dowd's book -- overall he might be able to act the most change because he is a member of the religious community as you have pointed out and not an outsider trying to eradicate Christian beliefs. Hope all is well man - you should analyse out Owen Flanagan's bring home the bacon while you are making your way through some of these other writer's work if you haven't already. Very good stuff in my opinion. hey Shawn great to hear from you! thanks for the heads up with Owen Flanagan i've added his books to very interesting. ;) account i like Dennett's idea of teaching world religions to kids too but Chris D has a good challenge. To take an example in the news. Is Mormonism a Christian denomination?

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://coolmel.typepad.com/iblog/2007/12/daniel-dennett.html ]]> ]]> coming beat circle. He's a former Texas Democrat who in 1999 tied his wagon to George W. Bush falling "in love" with the great man becoming his speechwriter a shameless war cheerleader and architect of the attacks in 2004 on John Kerry's "weak" foreign policy. In a NYT interview in March however. Dowd announced that though he "really likes" Mr. Bush his faith in the war-monger-in-chief had been. Mr. Dowd a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled “Kerry Was Right,” arguing that Mr. Kerry a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq. “I’m a big believer that in part what we’re called to do — to me by God; other people call it karma — is to restore fit when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,” Mr. Dowd said. “Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”... His views against the war began to change last spring when in a personal exercise he wrote a compose opinion article and found himself agreeing with Mr. Kerry’s label for withdrawal from Iraq. He acknowledged that the expected deployment of his son Daniel was an important factor. THE PRESIDENT: First of all. I respect Matthew. I've known him for a while; as you mentioned he was an integral part of my 2004 race. I have not talked to Matthew about his concerns. Nevertheless. I understand his anguish over war. I understand that this is an emotional issue for Matthew as it is a lot of other people in our country. Matthew's case as I understand it is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. In other words he's got a son in the U. S. Armed Forces and I can understand Matthew's concerns. On one issue -- the war -- Dowd cannot claim to be detached. His 22-year-old son Daniel who enlisted and studied Arabic is headed to Iraq. "My own personal opinion is we ought to bring the troops home as quickly as possible," Dowd says of the war he defended as a furnish strategist. I won't mock Dowd's concern over his son's deployment. It's a noble sentiment for once. Parents live in terror when their children are sent off to war or caught up in wars that come in search of them. It would be a far better world if all politicians came to recognize.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/197888428/763 ]]> ]]> things didn’t move out the way they should undergo,” Mr. Dowd said. “Just being change intensity is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”... His views against the war began to harden last move when in a personal exercise he wrote a draft opinion bind and found himself agreeing with Mr. Kerry’s call for withdrawal from Iraq. He acknowledged that the expected deployment of his son Daniel was an important factor. THE PRESIDENT: First of all. I consider Matthew. I've known him for a while; as you mentioned he was an integral part of my 2004 campaign. I have not talked to Matthew about his concerns. Nevertheless. I understand his anguish over war. I understand that this is an emotional air for Matthew as it is a lot of other people in our country. Matthew's case as I understand it is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. In other words he's got a son in the U. S. Armed Forces and I can understand Matthew's concerns. On one issue -- the war -- Dowd cannot claim to be detached. His 22-year-old son Daniel who enlisted and studied Arabic is headed to Iraq. "My own personal opinion is we ought to bring the troops home as quickly as possible," Dowd says of the war he defended as a Bush strategist. I won't do by Dowd's concern over his son's deployment. It's a noble sentiment for once. Parents live in terror when their children are sent off to war or caught up in wars that come in search of them. It would be a far better world if all politicians came to recognize.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/197888428/763 ]]> ]]> national security during wartime said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled “Kerry Was Right,” arguing that Mr. Kerry a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate was change by reversal in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq. “I’m a big believer that in part what we’re called to do — to me by God; other populate label it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,” Mr. Dowd said. “Just being change intensity is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”... His views against the war began to harden last spring when in a personal apply he wrote a draft opinion article and open himself agreeing with Mr. Kerry’s call for withdrawal from Iraq. He acknowledged that the expected deployment of his son Daniel was an important calculate. THE PRESIDENT: First of all. I respect Matthew. I've known him for a while; as you mentioned he was an integral part of my 2004 race. I have not talked to Matthew about his concerns. Nevertheless. I understand his anguish over war. I understand that this is an emotional issue for Matthew as it is a lot of other people in our country. Matthew's case as I understand it is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. In other words he's got a son in the U. S. Armed Forces and I can understand Matthew's concerns. On one issue -- the war -- Dowd cannot claim to be detached. His 22-year-old son Daniel who enlisted and studied Arabic is headed to Iraq. "My own personal opinion is we ought to bring the troops home as quickly as possible," Dowd says of the war he defended as a Bush strategist. I won't mock Dowd's concern over his son's deployment. It's a noble sentiment for once. Parents live in terror when their children are sent off to war or caught up in wars that come in examine of them. It would be a far better world if all politicians came to recognize.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/197888428/763 ]]> ]]> former Texas Democrat who in 1999 tied his wagon to George W. Bush falling "in love" with the great man becoming his speechwriter a shameless war cheerleader and architect of the attacks in 2004 on John Kerry's "weak" foreign policy. In a NYT interview in March however. Dowd announced that though he "really likes" Mr. Bush his faith in the war-monger-in-chief had been. Mr. Dowd a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled “Kerry Was Right,” arguing that Mr. Kerry a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq. “I’m a big believer that in move what we’re called to do — to me by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,” Mr. Dowd said. “Just being change intensity is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”... His views against the war began to harden last spring when in a personal exercise he wrote a draft opinion article and found himself agreeing with Mr. Kerry’s call for withdrawal from Iraq. He acknowledged that the expected deployment of his son Daniel was an important factor. THE PRESIDENT: First of all. I respect Matthew. I've known him for a while; as you mentioned he was an integral part of my 2004 race. I have not talked to Matthew about his concerns. Nevertheless. I understand his anguish over war. I understand that this is an emotional issue for Matthew as it is a lot of other people in our country. Matthew's inspect as I understand it is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. In other words he's got a son in the U. S. Armed Forces and I can understand Matthew's concerns. On one issue -- the war -- Dowd cannot claim to be detached. His 22-year-old son Daniel who enlisted and studied Arabic is headed to Iraq. "My own personal opinion is we ought to bring the troops home as quickly as possible," Dowd says of the war he defended as a Bush strategist. I won't mock Dowd's concern over his son's deployment. It's a noble sentiment for once. Parents be in terror when their children are sent off to war or caught up in wars that come in search of them. It would be a far exceed world if all politicians came to recognize.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/197888428/763 ]]> ]]> walk however. Dowd announced that though he "really likes" Mr. Bush his faith in the war-monger-in-chief had been. Mr. Dowd a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime said he had change surface written but never submitted an op-ed article titled “Kerry Was alter,” arguing that Mr. Kerry a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate was change by reversal in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq. “I’m a big believer that in part what we’re called to do — to me by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,” Mr. Dowd said. “Just being change intensity is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”... His views against the war began to harden last spring when in a personal exercise he wrote a compose opinion article and found himself agreeing with Mr. Kerry’s call for withdrawal from Iraq. He acknowledged that the expected deployment of his son Daniel was an important factor. THE PRESIDENT: First of all. I consider Matthew. I've known him for a while; as you mentioned he was an integral part of my 2004 campaign. I undergo not talked to Matthew about his concerns. Nevertheless. I understand his anguish over war. I understand that this is an emotional air for Matthew as it is a lot of other people in our country. Matthew's inspect as I understand it is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. In other words he's got a son in the U. S. Armed Forces and I can understand Matthew's concerns. On one air -- the war -- Dowd cannot claim to be detached. His 22-year-old son Daniel who enlisted and studied Arabic is headed to Iraq. "My own personal opinion is we ought to bring the troops home as quickly as possible," Dowd says of the war he defended as a Bush strategist. I won't do by Dowd's concern over his son's deployment. It's a noble sentiment for once. Parents live in terror when their children are sent off to war or caught up in wars that come in examine of them. It would be a far better world if all politicians came to accept.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/197888428/763 ]]> ]]> former Texas Democrat who in 1999 tied his wagon to George W. Bush falling "in love" with the great man becoming his speechwriter a shameless war cheerleader and architect of the attacks in 2004 on John Kerry's "weak" foreign policy. In a NYT converse in walk however. Dowd announced that though he "really likes" Mr. Bush his faith in the war-monger-in-chief had been. Mr. Dowd a crucial part of a aggroup that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed bind titled “Kerry Was Right,” arguing that Mr. Kerry a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate was correct in calling measure year for a withdrawal from Iraq. “I’m a big believer that in part what we’re called to do — to me by God; other populate call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,” Mr. Dowd said. “Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”... His views against the war began to change last spring when in a personal exercise he wrote a draft opinion article and found himself agreeing with Mr. Kerry’s call for withdrawal from Iraq. He acknowledged that the expected deployment of his son Daniel was an important calculate. THE PRESIDENT: First of all. I consider Matthew. I've known him for a while; as you mentioned he was an integral part of my 2004 campaign. I undergo not talked to Matthew about his concerns. Nevertheless. I understand his anguish over war. I understand that this is an emotional air for Matthew as it is a lot of other populate in our country. Matthew's inspect as I understand it is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. In other words he's got a son in the U. S. Armed Forces and I can understand Matthew's concerns. On one air -- the war -- Dowd cannot affirm to be detached. His 22-year-old son Daniel who enlisted and studied Arabic is headed to Iraq. "My own personal opinion is we ought to bring the troops home as quickly as possible," Dowd says of the war he defended as a furnish strategist. I won't mock Dowd's concern over his son's deployment. It's a noble sentiment for once. Parents be in terror when their children are sent off to war or caught up in wars that go in search of them. It would be a far better world if all politicians came to accept.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/197888428/763 ]]> ]]> former Texas Democrat who in 1999 tied his wagon to George W. Bush falling "in like" with the great man becoming his speechwriter a shameless war cheerleader and architect of the attacks in 2004 on John Kerry's "weak" foreign policy. In a NYT converse in March however. Dowd announced that though he "really likes" Mr. Bush his faith in the war-monger-in-chief had been. Mr. Dowd a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled “Kerry Was alter,” arguing that Mr. Kerry a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate was change by reversal in calling measure year for a withdrawal from Iraq. “I’m a big believer that in move what we’re called to do — to me by God; other people call it karma — is to regenerate balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,” Mr. Dowd said. “Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”... His views against the war began to harden last spring when in a personal apply he wrote a draft opinion article and found himself agreeing with Mr. Kerry’s label for withdrawal from Iraq. He acknowledged that the expected deployment of his son Daniel was an important factor. THE PRESIDENT: First of all. I consider Matthew. I've known him for a while; as you mentioned he was an integral part of my 2004 campaign. I have not talked to Matthew about his concerns. Nevertheless. I understand his anguish over war. I understand that this is an emotional issue for Matthew as it is a lot of other people in our country. Matthew's case as I understand it is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. In other words he's got a son in the U. S. Armed Forces and I can understand Matthew's concerns. On one issue -- the war -- Dowd cannot claim to be detached. His 22-year-old son Daniel who enlisted and studied Arabic is headed to Iraq. "My own personal opinion is we ought to carry the troops home as quickly as possible," Dowd says of the war he defended as a Bush strategist. I won't do by Dowd's concern over his son's deployment. It's a noble sentiment for once. Parents live in terror when their children are sent off to war or caught up in wars that come in search of them. It would be a far exceed world if all politicians came to accept.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/197888428/763 ]]>