Don’t Laugh. Paris Is Right.

For you G OLD P dudes, Paris Hilton is the cats pajamas!

Ron Suskind Must be the only real journalist left in this country but I guess its just the "Way of the World"


By Ron Suskind
What just happened? Evidence. A secret that has been judiciously kept for five years just spilled out. All of what follows is new, never reported in any way:

The Iraq Intelligence Chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush -- a man still carrying a $1 million reward for capture, the Jack of Diamonds in Bush's famous deck of wanted men -- has been America's secret source on Iraq. Starting in January of 2003, with Blair and Bush watching, his secret reports began to flow to officials on both sides of the Atlantic, saying that there were no WMD and that Hussein was acting so odd because of fear that the Iranians would find out he was a toothless tiger. The U.S. deep-sixed the intelligence report in February, "resettled" Habbush to a safe house in Jordan during the invasion and then paid him $5 million in what could only be considered hush money.

In the fall of 2003, after the world learned there were no WMD -- as Habbush had foretold -- the White House ordered the CIA to carry out a deception. The mission: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and the Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a "small team from the al Qaeda organization."

The mission was carried out, the letter was created, popped up in Baghdad, and roiled the global newcycles in December, 2003 (conning even venerable journalists like Tom Brokaw). The mission is a statutory violation of the charter of the CIA, and amendments added in 1991, prohibiting the CIA from conducting disinformation campaigns on U.S. soil.

So, here we go again: the administration is in full attack mode, calling me names, George Tenet is claiming he doesn't remember any such thing -- just like he couldn't remember "slam dunk" -- and reporters are scratching their heads. Everything in my book is on the record, with many sources. And so, we watch and wait....

There will be more falling by the wayside after this book is read and there may be an impeachment in the works. Wait there already is! This will give it lots of strength. If you are a patriotic American write all of your congressmen/women and senators and ask them what's up with this.

Fineman, how disingenuous can you be? Throughout your article you imply that neither candidate is willing to compromise in favor of an energy plan that incorporates strategies from both sides of the fence. Then, at the end of your article, you grudgingly half-admit that Obama's plan IS the combination of ideas that you say is the ideal.

"In his original proposal, Obama flatly opposed opening up new offshore areas to oil exploration, too."

Yes, and if your article had been written at that time it would have made sense. But I'm perplexed by the media bandwagon praising the "Paris Hilton Plan" over that of either of the candidates, when it's basically already what Obama is offering.

Yes, I know it's "cute" to report that some born-rich bimbo has better ideas than the two Presidential candidates (as if she wrote the script for that commercial herself). But I would think your goal would be to be insightful, intelligent, thought-provoking, and original. Not "cute".

This is your top story for politics? You idiots.

Fineman,

Clearly there are two Americas- the one that wants government to do everything and the one that understands that it???s individuals and entrepeneurship that makes things happen in this country.

Fineman, like the idiot PC crowd who didn???t get the New Yorkers satirical cover of Obama and his wife, take literally the claim that government must ???do something??? about the energy problem. He doesn???t see that what the government must ???do??? is actually to stop ???doing!???

McCain is the only one advocating the ???stop doing??? of government. Stop the moratorium on drilling, stop spending so much, stop taxing so much, stop creating more government! All of this inaction by the government will actually be the best approach toward achieving more oil supply and more alternative sources of energy.

This is consistent with what has happened in America over an over again. When American industry is left alone, it prospers (Roaring 20???s). When it???s poked, prodded and obstructed (smoot Hawley, antitrust, New Deal) industry struggles and as a result so do Americans.

The ???doing??? should be more about actually to stop ???doing??? and get out of the way.

Don't laugh? Hey stupid. Don't make ME laugh. Why do you suppose, Howard, that we have to get 70% of our oil from overseas? C'mon. I know that you're an ultra partisan Dem HACK Idiot, but even YOU should be able to figure this one out. Economics 101, jackass. DEMAND has gone up. And what has SUPPLY done? Hmmm? Have we been PRODUCING more since then? Or have we been STOPPED from producing more? Have we been more WORRIED about our ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, or a bunch of DEER and BEARS and FISH? What do you think, Howard? The LEFT cries the loudest when it comes to our "Addiction" to oil. Butwe DON'T HAVE an addiction to that. We NEED OIL. And we NEED our OWN oil. We've had 35 years, since the oil embargo of 1973, and we've done NOTHING. And why? Because the latte` sipping, friends of idiots like Howard, are always mucking it up. Do something USEFULL. Howie. Go check your tires. Actually, maybe you should find a MAN to do it. We wouldn't want you to break a nail.

We need to remember that the President and our federal government are not all-powerful. In fact, in most instances, the private sector is more powerful and better equipped to solve the problems we face. Remember, the fed govt has two great strenghts - the power to tax and the power to enforce unified action. That's great for things like national defense where unity is crucial and free market funding has obvious problems. It's great when it comes to externalities like pollution and its regulation where free markets allow private individuals to externalize costs. it's of no particular benefit when it comes to things like finding new sources of energy.

So kudos to McCain for talking about repealing the govt's ban on offshore drilling. The govt he hopes to lead plays a crucial role there. No kudos for Obama for largely wasting his breath when he talks about filling his tires - a good idea, but not one we need the President worrying about.

What's really dangerous is all this talk about tax incentives to encourage innovation. Remember, Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers didn't need federal incentives. Tax policy didn't fuel either the oil boom or the tech revolution. Government can play two roles here: protect patent rights and get the heck out of the way.

John McCain's strategy has been say yes to everything people say. He knows this is his last shot at becoming president and he has been the biggest compromiser. He has all through his career compromised to everything that Democrats have demanded.

Remember this is his third attempt for the nomination for John McCain. Republicans chose G.W.Bush over him because republicans thought he was better. Now they say he is going to be better than Bush and all the talk show hosts wants us to belive that. C'mon. See where the country is right now.

If you listen to people on the Radio, I could hear most of the talk show hosts telling you how oil is imported to the US and we need to stop our dependence on foreign oil ? Most of the countries around the world auction their oil fields for very long term lease terms because they dont have the right technology to extract oil effectively. Say an American oil company could have leased an oil field when the oil cost was $50 a barrel and still getting oil from there, but why have the prices gone up ? its controlled by futures trading ? its controlled by men who work for these oil firms who bid on the oil futures prices. It works like any other business. We need to stop all these fake men conrolling the oil prices. Spend less on unncessary war and billions to Africa for Aids and improve the public transport system instead. Why unncessary war ? the shias and sunni's hate each other, remember but they both hate you even more because they are Muslims after all.

I am not saying its time for change like the dumb Obama supporters, rather it is time for a reality check Unless people demand better education and stop the export of well paid Middle Class jobs and impose tariffs on imports to help the American Manufacturers grow in the domestic market there is going to be no change in this country and we need to stop illegals getting more benefits than citizens. John McCain still wants his idiotic comprehensive immigration plan.

All I hear on Radio is how bad Obama is going to be if he becomes president., but we dont seem to bother a thing about whatever George Bush does. Everyone is talking like we dont have a president right now and that he doesnt really need to do anything good.

God knows how the next 4 years are going to be. Wether its McCain or Obama, I can guarantee its going to be worse than the last 8 yrs.

The 'transfer of wealth" theme is transparently fallacious. We didn't just give the money away, and it wasn't stolen from us, like the gold was taken by the conquistadores. We bought oil with it, oil we used to make our economy the largest, most prosperous in the history of man. It's no more a transfer of wealth than buying a hammer at Home Depot, whether or not it was made in China.

Is it possible Howard Fineman doesn't know that Paris Hilton's plan IS John McCain's plan? i.e., do everything.

Obama isn't a good celebrity because he's not inclusive enough. Just like his arguing with John McCain's "let's do everything" energy policy, where we drill offshore for oil, invest in renewable energy, conserve and build nuclear power plants. Obama just wants what is in his comfort zone.

Paris Hilton has a better energy policy, a better celebrity personality and, despite what Maureen Dowd says, Paris Hilton is hot but Obama is not.

As a celebrity, as a policy leader, as a man planning a party (convention), Obama's not inclusive, he's divisive and he comes off more like a controlling narcissist than a leader.

As a celebrity and a prospective leader, Obama could be more "Hiltonian".

Why in the Lord's name is name is drilling for oil here at home "rapacious"?

The media bias on this issue is outstanding.

Putting aside tune ups and tire guages, we are decades away from windmills as the means of powering our cars, but we will be using oil for the foreseeable future. Anyone, including Fineman (Press Agent for DNC) who tells you otherwise is lying to you and is simply shilling for the far left wind environmentalists who control the Democrat party. Can anyone say George Soros and MoveOn.Org?

Wake up, these people are trying to take over our lives. Their candidate, Obama, sings a Siren song that will only dash us on the rocks!

In fact, McCain has a comprehensive energy plan and Obama does not. Obama confuses the issue of global warming with that of energy independence. The McCain plan recognizes the problem of global warming, but focuses on both short-term as well as long-term solutions to the immediate problem of attaining energy independence. Obama seems to be the one who is both willing to start from a position of rejecting out-of-hand certain realities about the availability of natural resources--coal and off-shore oil--which have to be part of the current mix in obtaining independence, to deny that France seems to have adopted a nuclear energy strategy that has proven safe, reliable, and turned that country from an electricity importer to an electricity exporter. Obama panders (to Iowa ethanol interests) and offers short-term gimmicks ($1000 checks). McCain acknowledges the contribution of Gore to the energy debate. McCain does offer an "all of the above" solution, which, by the way, was FDR's approach to the Great Depression (Try Something). Obama is the Herbert Hoover of Energy Independence.

Is leadership really based on "all of the above" options / solutions to a problem just because it doesn't leave anything out even if what it left out has no intrinsic or real value. Yes, to the Manhattan project, but what you fail to understand is that the Manhattan project was strategic (focused) and it was a much simpler, build an atomic bomb. You're article really appears to be premised on the idea that Paris would be a good story to build something around, in this case an energy policy. Too cute by half ...

Is leadership really based on "all of the above" options / solutions to a problem just because it doesn't leave anything out even if what it left out has no intrinsic or real value. Yes, to the Manhattan project, but what you fail to understand is that the Manhattan project was strategic (focused) and it was a much simpler, build an atomic bomb. You're article really appears to be premised on the idea that Paris would be a good story to build something around, in this case an energy policy. Too cute by half ...

Were laughing at you for the ridiculous notion that Paris Hilton came up with a single idea in her ad. Paris isn't 'right', she's barely conscience. The people who put the words in her mouth that she hasd to memorized maybe right, but to claim she as an individual developed an energy plan is just as absurd as Obama claiming he never knew Reverend Wrights views.

Were laughing at you for the ridiculous notion that Paris Hilton came up with a single idea in her ad. Paris isn't 'right', she's barely conscience. The people who put the words in her mouth that she hasd to memorized maybe right, but to claim she as an individual developed an energy plan is just as absurd as Obama claiming he never knew Reverend Wrights views.