<$BlogRSDURL$>

Sunday, March 28, 2004

Where do I start? 

Log on.

Engage browser.

Check email.

Log on to Yahoo.com news page. Check headlines.

Decide which one to use. Can't. Use all three.


Rice Rejects Calls for Public Testimony

By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

CRAWFORD, Texas - White House allies and Republicans investigating the Sept. 11 attacks pressed Sunday to hear open testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, with one commissioner calling her refusal a "political blunder of the first order."

Rice said in a TV interview that she wants to meet with the families of the Sept. 11 victims because she knows they are disappointed she cannot testify publicly.

"Nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify," Rice told CBS's "60 Minutes." "I would really like to do that. But there is an important principle involved here: It is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress."



EEEEEEEHHHHH! Wrong answer, Condi. Zbigniew Brzinski testified before Congress; so did Sandy Berger. Guess what party their Presidents belonged to? The Party of open, honest government.

NOT the Republicans.

And guess how many National Security advisors and their aides have REFUSED to testify before Congress, even when subpoenaed? Five. Which President appointed FOUR of those five? Richard M. Nixon.

Try again, Condi.


U.S. Gas Prices Hit New Record High

By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES - Gasoline prices across the country climbed another 3 cents in the past two weeks to a record-high average of $1.80 per gallon for all grades, according to a study released Sunday.


I remember during Campaign 2000 when gas prices spiked. Clinton decided to release emergency reserves of oil, in order to ease the prices. Republicans and conservatives of every stripe decried the action, saying it was helping Gore and basely political. Truck drivers threatened to strike, claiming they would be put out of business by prices that climbed to about $1.40 a gallon. THOSE were the days!

Now Bush has a different problem. The truth of the matter is, prices are over a DOLLAR a gallon higher than they were about seven years ago. That's a more than 100% increase. I have the receipt to prove it; I paid $.69 a gallon for one fillup during the Clinton Boom, and could hardly believe that prices were so low.

So SOMEBODY'S cleaning up. Could it be the oil companies and the energy business in general? Because these prices sure aren't the results of HIGHER TAXES ON GASOLINE, that's for sure.

For my money? I'd rather we DID pay fifty cents a gallon in extra taxes than see it go to either OPEC or Exxon. At least we'd get SOMETHING for our money--maybe a little relief for the states in deficit right now?

Makes too much sense. They'll never do it.


Rumsfeld Clears Musharraf of Nuclear Trafficking

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Sunday he had no reason to suspect President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan of past involvement in an international nuclear black market but declined to rule out other possible high-level military complicity.

"I do not believe that there's any evidence or any suggestion that President Musharraf was involved," Rumsfeld said in an interview on the ABC program "This Week."

Abdul Qader Khan, the so-called father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, admitted in February to having given nuclear weapons know-how and equipment to Iran, Libya and North Korea, saying he had done so without Pakistani government authorization.

"I'm not going to say that," Rumsfeld replied when asked whether he was confident there had been no other "high-level military" involvement in Pakistan.

"You can't prove a negative," he added. "You can't say that I know that every person connected with the Pakistani military over some sustained period of time had no knowledge or participation whatsoever. That's silly. I couldn't do that."



At this point, there's only one real way to respond to this story:

ha ha

We're going to die in a nuclear conflagration, thanks to Musharraf, Bush, Rumsfeld, Condi and Wolfowitz--directly. They might as well be setting off the devices themselves. It's better to laugh than to cry. Won't you join me?

ha ha

You can't prove a negative? Then why did they demand that Saddam disarm? He couldn't prove THAT negative, either! If they ever used it--this administration has abandoned all logic. If their lips are moving...

BushWhackedUSA.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com