So What's The Problem?

I've heard a lot of talk from the Democratic side of the Congress today regarding President Bush's comments to the Israeli Knesset today.  I've read what is available of his speech, and I've seen a video of that speech, and I fail to understand what the problem is.  President Bush said,

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.  We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Why are Senators Obama and Clinton so upset?  Both have said that they want to negotiate with terrorists.  So have members of some European Parliaments and the United Nations.  History has repeatedly shown that such negotiation does not work.  The United States has always had a policy of not negotiating with Terrorists.  And everything that President Bush said was absolutely valid and correct.  How does what he said in Israel inject him into the 2008  campaign?  He said nothing that he hasn't said before, and he hasn't named any names or made any accusations.  He has simply pointed out what has been historically the case.

Please!  Somebody tell me what has set the Dems off, and why do they think this is "a false political attack?"

Got A New Computer

A Toshiba Satellite A305.  Saved $300 on the deal.  It's a dual core system with two 1.8 Gig processors, 4 Gbytes of RAM memory, and a 320 Gbyte HD.  I haven't yet got it set up as I would like.  It will take time to load it up from my backup stuff.  And I may run into some trouble with some of my older programs, because it's running the Vista 64-bit OS.  Service Pack 1 has been applied, so I hoipe the problems will be minimal.

I Really Hate The Talking Head Media

Last night the talking heads once again dreamed up some new scenarios that must have come straight out of a swamp.  The big idea put forth was that Hillary Clinton is staying in the race to irritate Barack Obama, thereby gaining bargaining points that she can cashin for a reward when she drops out of the race.  One of the really nutty ideas they came up with is that Hillary might  drop out in exchange for a promise to appoint her to the Supreme Court when a position becomes available.

What nonsense!!!  In the first place, she's not qualified for the position, and neither is her disbarred husband.  In the second place, if word got out that the Supreme Court was for sale, there would be a massive backlash among the people.  Republicans and Independents, and many Democrats too, would respond by voting in mass for McCain.  And if Obama somehow got elected without the deal being made public, and then tried to appoint either Clinton to such a position, there would be cries for his immediate impeachment.  I don't believe even a corrupt congress would support the idea.

Are they completely insane?  Where do these talking heads come from?   And where do they get this stupid stuff from?  What makes them think that she has any bargaining chips to work with?  She's gonna lose the nomination flat out.  That much is obvious.  So why would Obama even feel that he needed to do a deal with her buy her off?

You Can Use Your Energy ...

You can use your energy to keep things the way they are, or
you can use your energy to change the way things are.

Still Sans Computer