Hope Springs Eternal is leaking!

Political issues that need to be debated, and to this date, have been avoided are:

a) What do we do about the Social Security debacle down the road? Bush offered a plan that was a start, it was quickly shot down and nothing offered by way of a replacement. I Give him credit for touching the third rail at least.

b) What do we do about Iran. Nothing has been forthcoming and the current administration is seeking more inadequate sanctions and seemingly has been crippled by the NIE Report from taking stronger action.

c) If we bring the troops home how much of a dividend will actually happen if, at the same, time, we expand our military force structure and replace equipment? A good bit of any continuing cost relates to troops pay etc. The Cold War Dividend was largely wasted and spent before it was ever pocketed.

d) How do you grow the economy by raising taxes and re-distributing wealth? Never has worked in the past.

e) How do you maintain a strong dollar in the face of increasing trades deficits, domestic budget imbalances and low interest rates? The Fed was created so Congress could continue to spend and offload its profligacy onto another agency. Do we really need the Fed anymore? If we do, are Fed tools inadequate considering the Fed can no longer control long rates?

f) How does America control atmospheric conditions at a cost that is not crippling when other emerging nations continue to pollute?

g) How do national campaigners avoid pandering when they have to appeal to voters in 50 states which have different issues and needs? Ohio is trying to save industrial jobs while Georgia is actually expanding, for instance.

h) If government is inefficient and cannot control its own appetite why do we constantly seek government solutions to problems? Is not government much of the problem and if so why do we believe more government is better?

i) Why do we care about being loved and respected when Socialist European nations, that are on the outs with us, are sinking into their own Muslim mudslide, are unwilling to send troops to Afghanistan to flesh our their NATO commitments and both Germany and France have recently begun to swing back around to embrace us?

j) Carry "i" one step further and I pose, do we want to be loved and respected by the U.N.? If so, what radical changes would we have to make? Do our principles of freedom, capitalism and voting accord with those nations that control virtually all of the U.N.'s various missions and departments?

k) What is a balanced approach towards thwarting radical Islamists? Should we simply hunker down and become isolationists - Pax Americana? Does it really matter whether we maintain any world influence since the cost of doing so is enormous, causes great angst at home and lives lost overseas and what can we point to to as justification?

I have heard the argument that we should have stayed in Afghanistan and not gone into Iraq. Had we done so would the media have relented on their continuous casualty count? I doubt it. Most media elites are apologists and,like Michelle Obama, are not particularly proud of our nation as evidenced by their slanted reporting.

I do not believe it takes a rocket scientist to ask these questions but it sure takes a genius to solve them and I doubt any of the major candidates could be classified as geniuses. If that is a reasonable statement then where does Obama come up with all this "hope" and "we can" stuff? Where does Hillary come up with all the money to do what she promises to do? Where does McCain even begin to have any clout in a Pelosi- Reid controlled Congress?

Except for the saying "hope springs eternal" why should one, thinking rationally, be overly upbeat until they hear some hard answers to some serious questions and a plan for approaching them is offered that holds water?

Have I gone overly "water-boarding?" Tom Purcell even has some reservations of his own. (See 1 below.)

Has a lone Brit Diplomat come up with something we overlooked? (See 2 below.)

Palestinian Education Minister submits his resignation because of the complications of presiding over a schism. He said nothing about the caliber of lies his department feeds their children every day in their school texts and classrooms. (See 3 below.)

Abbas seeks more help from the U.S. so he does not have to make concessions which he could not enforce. And so it goes!(See 4 below.)

Dick

1) For the love of Obama
By Tom Purcell


I was so overcome with emotion, I nearly passed out.

Passed out? What are you talking about?

The wife and I have been following Barack Obama around the country at various campaign appearances. Every time he enters a room, the wife collapses into my arms. I have to use smelling salts to bring her out of it.

I see.




He's quite a presence, that Obama. As president, he's not only going to change America -- he's going to change the world!

Change? What kind of change?

The kind of change in which he's going to do things differently -- differently than they've ever been done before. There'll be no more same old same old with Obama.

What will his change accomplish?

It will give us hope -- lots and lots of hope.

Hope is good. But what will this hope accomplish?

Haven't you been paying attention? It will help us believe in change! Obama wants us to believe in our own ability to bring about change.

But if you already believe in your own ability to bring about change, why do you need Obama?

Because of the future! Obama is going to make the future bright -- he won't fail as our past leaders have.

Look, it's true that Obama has charisma and charm. He's an articulate fellow and he gives an inspiring speech. But before you elect him president, may I ask you some hypothetical questions?

Bring it on.

Would you rather have a president who believes that individuals will drive America 's success or one who puts all of his hope in the government?

That's easy. Individual Americans are the reason we've got where we are.

Would you prefer a candidate who promises to initiate several new government programs or one who promises to restrain government growth?

That's easy, too. If our government keeps growing, we'll end up with more regulations and higher taxes and our economy will become as stagnant as the one in France .

Very good. Would you prefer a president who will lower taxes for everyone or a president who says he will raise income and capital-gains taxes?

I'd go with the low-tax guy. Isn't it obvious by now that low taxes unleash investment and economic growth, which is good for all income levels?

Congratulations. You just voted AGAINST Barack Obama.

I did?

Look, Obama has been getting a free pass on his policies. Nobody seems to care what they are, but when they are examined in detail, the picture is not very pretty.

It's not?

All you have to do is go to Obama's Web site BarackObama.com to see what he is promising to do. Take global warming. Obama believes man is the cause of it and he's got a host of ambitious programs he will push if he becomes president.

He does?

As for taxes, he says he'll lower them for working families but that he'll raise them on the "rich." The unfortunate reality, however, is that the "rich" are the ones who invest in new businesses. By raising their taxes, he will impede investment and impede growth.

He will?

Go ahead and visit his Web site and you'll see the word "expand" all over the place. He wants to expand numerous government programs and create several more.

I didn't know that.

There are some who are saying Obama is an empty suit -- a relatively young fellow whose work history has mostly been as a politician. But the truth of the matter is that he's not an empty suit at all.

What is he?

He's somebody who, if elected president, will have the power to turn America back to policies that just don't work. I really wish the press would focus on his ideas instead of his charisma. So do you still want to vote for Obama for president?

But he's tall and witty and dresses so well. He'll make a fine president.

2) U.K. diplomat: Iran may have continued nuclear arms work after 2003

A senior British diplomat says Iran may have continued work on nuclear weapons past 2003, the year U.S. intelligence says such activities stopped.

Simon Smith, the chief British delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency, commented after an IAEA presentation of documentation that - if accurate - would strongly back U.S. claims that Iran at one point worked on programs linked to attempts to make nuclear weapons.

That assertion was also made by a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, summarized and made public late last year said. That report also said, however, that the Iranians froze such work in 2003.

Asked whether the information presented to the IAEA's 35 board member nations indicated that Tehran continued such activities past that date, Smith said: "Certainly some of the dates ... went beyond 2003."

He did not elaborate. Another diplomat at the presentation, who asked for anonymity because the IAEA meeting was closed, said some of the documentation focused on a 2004 Iranian report on alleged weapons activities. But she said it was unclear whether the project was being actively worked on then.

A senior diplomat inside the meeting said that among the material shown was an Iranian video depicting mock-ups of a missile re-entry vehicle. He said IAEA Director General Oli Heinonen suggested the component - which brings missiles back from the stratosphere - was configured in a way that strongly suggests it was meant to carry a nuclear warhead.

Smith and the senior diplomat both said the material shown to the board members came from a multitude of sources, including information gathered by the agency and intelligence provided by the members themselves.

IAEA, the UN nuclear monitor, released a report last week saying that suspicions about most past Iranian nuclear activities had eased or been laid to rest.

But the report also noted that Iran had rejected documents that link it to missile and explosives experiments and other work connected to a possible nuclear weapons program, calling the information false and irrelevant.

The report called weaponization "the one major ... unsolved issue relevant to the nature of Iran's nuclear program."

Most of the material shown to Iran by the IAEA on alleged attempts to make nuclear arms came from Washington, though some was provided by U.S. allies, diplomats told the AP. The agency shared it with Tehran only after the nations gave their permission.

3) Palestinian education minister resigns


The Palestinian education minister in the Ramallah-based
caretaker government, Ibrahim Al-Abrash, told Ma'an on Monday that he
submitted his resignation to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas two weeks
ago.

He said that he has not yet received the president's response.

Al-Abrash said his resignation was related to what he views as a dire
situation in the Palestinian society arena in light of the political
separation between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as well as absence of
any hope for a peaceful settlement with Israel.

He said his resignation had nothing to do with rumored adjustments and
changes in the caretaker cabinet headed by Salam Fayyad,

There have been suggestions recently that the caretaker government will
become a permanent government after having a shuffling of cabinet ministers.

Abbas appointed the present government after firing the Hamas-Fatah unity
government in the wake of Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip in June 2007.
The president extended the term of the emergency cabinet after its one-month
term expired, calling it a caretaker government.

4) Abbas: If peace not achieved in 2008, it will never happen



Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas urged the US on Monday to make good on its promise to work for a Middle East peace settlement by the end of the year, warning that there would not be any future chances.


Abbas spoke following a closed door meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah in the Jordanian capital of Amman and warned that if the Bush administration didn't make good on its pledge to "make 2008 the year to broker peace, then there will never be any future chances to achieve this goal."

The Palestinians and Israelis are negotiating a final peace settlement, which the Bush administration hopes would lead to the creation of an independent Palestinian state later this year.

The US "must understand it is to play an active role, not just as a supervisor, by intervening directly to help make peace," Abbas told reporters. He also urged Israel "to stop escalating the situation in the Palestinian territories and stop all attacks in the Gaza Strip, including firing missiles there."

For his part, Abdullah expressed dismay over the rapidly deteriorating living conditions in Gaza and called for end to the economic blockade imposed there, according to a royal palace statement.

The king emphasized that Jordan refused any partial solution or unilateral actions on the Palestinian issue which would create "real obstacles to achieving tangible progress in the peace process," the statement said.

Gaza's battered economy has nearly collapsed under the weight of the closure and basic services to 1.4 million Palestinians - such as water, sewerage, medical care and education - have been crippled. "Gaza is on the edge of an explosion," Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas, warned Monday.

A separate palace statement announced that Abdullah and his Palestinian-born wife Queen Rania will visit the United States later this month for meetings with President George W. Bush and other administration officials on Mideast peacemaking. The statement did not give a specific date for the meeting with Bush, but said the visit would start Feb. 28