My friends, if you had the pleasure to watch this DEBATE, you have to know that we just witnessed something very special.
They continually resisted attempts from the moderators to drag them into the mud. Some perceive this to be weakness (spin), but I think it is the greatest achievement in the campaign thus far. The best campaign EVER, in my estimation.
They debated the issues in a mature, concise, and intellectual manner. And they articulated their ideals, and how to achieve those goals, brilliantly. They clearly have the American peoples interest at the forefront of BOTH campaigns.
A lot of people are resigned to the fact that this is beyond their control, and we will always be screwed in the end, but one thing is for sure, if we continue to remove ourselves from the process, we have no RIGHT to complain about ANYTHING.
This is clearly a historical moment, in one of the most difficult periods in our history. Contrary to popular belief, we do have the power to affect change. Either one of these candidates are clearly better than the alternative.
Again, get out and vote. I am a registered Independent. I did this on purpose, because I wanted to hear what everyone had to say. That being said, both candidates expressed themselves passionately, and whoever gets the nomination, they will have my vote, and I hope they have yours too.
I'm glad they brought up the possibility of a Barack-Hillary, Hillary-Barack ticket, and if that's what we end up with, there will definitely be a new day in America. The road will be difficult, but the end result will be better quality of life for every single PERSON, regardless of race, sex, color, creed, sexual preference or otherwise.
Let's get it together people. The voting public is setting records in regards to the Democratic primary. Obviously, many are fed up with the status quo. Make your voices heard. All of our futures are swinging in the balance. I have never been prouder to be an American than I was this evening. God Bless you all..............................
Thursday, January 31, 2008
INSPIRATIONAL - RIVETING - VINDICATING
Please take time and skim over this at least, whenever you get a chance. I'm not trying to change your mind, or claim that I was right. I just love to dialogue, hear opposing views, and debate. I always knew he stepped away from this administration because in a sense he felt "used", but at least he owns up to the errors that "he" made, and he really didn't point the finger at anyone either.
If only others were so forthcoming, we could probably begin to heal some of the wounds and forge ahead to a better tomorrow for the human race, not just our country. Lead by example, don't promote fear based initiatives, accept other nations for what they are but hold them accountable "if/when" they infringe on the rights of others, and never ever take a position where we are above dialogue/diplomacy.On another note, I heard the firm has gone through another wave of layoffs today.... Bad business man. May God help us all.......... ***************************************************************************GQ ICON: COLIN POWELL
He was pushed aside in the run-up to war, but as he tells Walter Isaacson, he, too, bears some of the blame
Interview by Walter Isaacson; Photograph by Martin Schoeller
“I’m a former everything,” Colin Powell jokes as he relaxes in his office in Alexandria, just across the Potomac from Washington. Indeed, he is a former national-security adviser, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former secretary of state. But before he was a former, he was a first: the first black to serve in any of those roles. And he may also, still, be a future. He turned 70 this year and makes a solid living these days giving speeches and serving on advisory boards, but he does not rule out a return to public service.
As secretary of state, when he was caught in policy struggles with Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, his smile often looked tense, pasted on his face. But when he smiles now, his eyes smile as well, and he is clearly more relaxed, as though he realizes that history is proving him right about the bureaucratic battles he lost. When I came to visit him on a quiet Friday afternoon earlier this summer, he was more relaxed than I’ve ever seen him. He exudes the genial courtesy of someone who is comfortable in his own skin, and he has none of the insecurity that in Washington often gets displayed as assertions of ego. He settled in on a couch, produced a couple of cans of Diet Coke, and started talking about his life, the changes he’s seen in America, and the current situation in Iraq.
*****
In reflecting on the changes in America that have occurred in your lifetime, how important to you and the nation was President Truman’s executive order integrating the armed services in 1948? Black people had served for 300 years, going back to the early Massachusetts militia. They had served the nation even when the nation had not served them. They chose a way to show their commitment to the nation, and that was to shed the same red blood that their white fellow citizens had shed. They did it time after time, through every one of our wars. And they did it knowing that while in the military, they would be discriminated against.
Truman changed that by executive order, because he knew that Congress would not approve it. When I came along in 1958, I hit the right timing. The army was leading the nation in integration. I was from a diverse neighborhood where everybody was a minority, and so I didn’t feel like a minority. All of us were immigrant-family kids from the West Indies or Eastern Europe or the South or Puerto Rico. And we called each other by our minority names, which you can’t use anymore. So when I entered the army, which then had essentially a white Episcopalian power structure, I had an advantage over some of the blacks who came out of the South. These were young men who had never been around the white power structure except to say “yes, suh.” And they were suddenly in an integrated environment. For them, the cultural change and the power-relationship change was shocking. They had never been to a lunchroom counter or a workplace or a school that was not segregated. They had been raised in an environment where white was power and black was not. It was a lot harder for them, yet many prevailed. I had the right mixture of diversity and education to enter a system that now said, You can go wherever you want inside the army as long as you can perform.
Do you consider yourself a beneficiary of affirmative action?The army wouldn’t be what it is if it hadn’t practiced affirmative action. People ask me, “Did you make general on the basis of affirmative action?” No, I didn’t. I did so on my record. But Clifford Alexander [the first black secretary of the army] was pushing affirmative action, and I get tagged with it.
Tagged with it? Do you consider being the beneficiary of affirmative action a negative thing?No! When I got command of a brigade in the 101st Airborne, one of my white friends said, “Dammit, some of the guys are saying that you’re the only one of us who got a brigade, and you got it because you’re black.” And I said, “Don’t worry about it. I don’t care how I got it—I got it. And the only thing the army is going to measure me on is, am I a good brigade commander. And that’s all I ask.”
Do you still support affirmative action?I have always supported affirmative action. I believe there is still a place for it. I spoke at the 1996 Republican convention in San Diego with my friend Ward Connerly [a black opponent of affirmative action] sitting in the audience. He had warned me that he would walk out if I made any reference to affirmative action. And when I did express my support for it, I looked right at him, and he didn’t move. Affirmative action is a concept that is probably not a growth industry. I’m glad it will eventually go away. But when I go to these inner-city neighborhoods, including across the street here in the Washington area, you can’t tell me these kids have the same opportunity that other kids have or that my kids have. Is it because they’re black that these kids are at a disadvantage? To some extent no, to some extent yes. We can’t deny it. Therefore, to the extent that we still believe it appropriate to provide some way of balancing the legacy of the past, I think we have an obligation to do so.
Going back to Truman’s executive order that the armed services must not discriminate based on race, do you foresee a president being able to do the same for gays?The military is unique, and it has rules that are different from any other institution. We had a policy that did not permit gays and lesbians to serve. Then President Clinton came in and told us he wanted to take a look at it. He never told us to change it, despite what people think. I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and told him that we’re not just a bunch of old generals who cannot see the future. It’s more than that. It’s a problem with ministers in the armed services from denominations that have objections to homosexuality. Also, we will have problems in our housing communities. The military tells you who you’re going to share your bunk space with, and we’re having enough of a challenge with just two sexes, men and women. The armed forces are not ready for this.
We came up with “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which is still a discriminatory policy. It is prejudicial. But this is the army, this isn’t the Aspen Institute or a university or the State Department. Maybe it’s discriminatory, but that’s what we thought was best for good order and discipline.
Aren’t some of these arguments similar to those Truman probably heard, and rejected, from military leaders who wanted to retain racial discrimination?I think skin color is a rather benign characteristic which defines us one way, but I think our sex characteristic is far more fundamental and more difficult to reconcile in the context of barracks living. And we are not getting all of our recruits from the most, shall we say, liberal and open-minded parts of our society.
It’s now fourteen years later, the country has changed, and the day may well come when it will not be a problem any longer. But I’m not sure that day has come, and I have to rely on the judgment of the officers who are running our armed forces.
But do you think that day will come?I think sooner or later it will come.
Your hero General George Marshall, when he was secretary of state, oversaw the creation of amazing new institutions and doctrines—NATO, the Marshall Plan—to deal with the global threat posed by Soviet Communism. Now that we’re faced with new global threats, what type of creative responses would he and his wise men be devising?To some extent, he faced a more dangerous threat, and it was an easier one to work with. There was one identifiable enemy that was on the other side of an identifiable terrain feature. It was state versus state. They were able to put in place state-based structures.
Isn’t the new global threat we face even more dangerous?What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?
I would approach this differently, in almost Marshall-like terms. What are the great opportunities out there—ones that we can take advantage of? It should not be just about creating alliances to deal with a guy in a cave in Pakistan. It should be about how do we create institutions that keep the world moving down a path of wealth creation, of increasing respect for human rights, creating democratic institutions, and increasing the efficiency and power of market economies? This is perhaps the most effective way to go after terrorists.
So you think we are getting too hunkered down and scared?Yes! We are taking too much counsel of our fears.
This doesn’t mean there isn’t a terrorist threat. There is a threat. And we should send in military forces when we have a target to deal with. We should also secure our airports, if that makes us safer. But let’s welcome every foreign student we can get our hands on. Let’s make sure that foreigners come to the Mayo Clinic here, and not the Mayo facility in Dubai or somewhere else. Let’s make sure people come to Disney World and not throw them up against the wall in Orlando simply because they have a Muslim name. Let’s also remember that this country was created by immigrants and thrives as a result of immigration, and we need a sound immigration policy.
Let’s show the world a face of openness and what a democratic system can do. That’s why I want to see Guantánamo closed. It’s so harmful to what we stand for. We literally bang ourselves in the head by having that place. What are we doing this to ourselves for? Because we’re worried about the 380 guys there? Bring them here! Give them lawyers and habeas corpus. We can deal with them. We are paying a price when the rest of the world sees an America that seems to be afraid and is not the America they remember.
You can drive up the road from here and come to a spot where there is a megachurch over here, a little Episcopal church over there, a Catholic church around the corner that’s almost cathedral-size, and between them is a huge Hindu temple. There are no police needed to guard any of this. There are not many places in the world where you would see that. Yes, there are a few dangerous nuts in Brooklyn and New Jersey who want to blow up Kennedy Airport and Fort Dix. These are dangerous criminals, and we must deal with them. But come on, this is not a threat to our survival! The only thing that can really destroy us is us. We shouldn’t do it to ourselves, and we shouldn’t use fear for political purposes—scaring people to death so they will vote for you, or scaring people to death so that we create a terror-industrial complex.
One of your legacies to history will be what’s known as the Powell Doctrine. How do you define it?Essentially it says: Avoid war—and if that’s not possible, and it’s necessary to use arms to solve a political problem, then do it in a decisive way. You remove as much doubt as you can about the outcome. In addition, you need to have a clearly defined mission, and you must have some understanding of how it’s going to end.
When the first Gulf War came along, I told President Bush [the elder] that when we had 250,000 troops in the region, we could defend Saudi Arabia from an Iraqi invasion. But if he wanted to kick the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, then General Schwarzkopf will need an additional 250,000 troops. Everybody gasped. And I told the president exactly how we would use them all, and he agreed.
We also had a clear mission, which was to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait. And that’s how we built a coalition with almost every other country in the world. We thought through where it was going to end. We said we wanted to leave Iraq with enough of an army so that it is not threatened by Iran. And we want to accomplish the mission we were given, which is getting the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. We were not interested in taking down the government. It was never our mission to go to Baghdad. For twelve years, I had to listen to criticism about that part of the plan. I don’t hear it criticized too much now.
The current Iraq war seems to have violated almost all of these precepts. We talked about this before the war.The military presented its plans, and I was secretary of state, so it wasn’t really my role, but I said it didn’t seem to me that the plans called for enough force to impose our will or enough troops to deal with the problems that might come up. After one of the meetings, I felt strongly enough about it that I took the liberty to call General Tommy Franks [the regional commander] directly—something I shouldn’t have done, but I did. I said, “Let’s talk general-to-general.” I said, “I have my doubts as to whether or not you have enough force to execute.” And Tommy said, “Well, I think we do, Mr. Secretary.” And then he immediately called Don Rumsfeld, which he should have. And Don correctly said, “It’s good that Colin has been up-front, and now let’s discuss it in front of the president.” And we did. The president heard from his military commanders and his joint chiefs of staff and his secretary of defense that they felt they had enough troops.
Were they right?They were right for the first part, the capture of Baghdad. And I never really had any question about the force needed for that. My question had been, “Have you guys really thought through the aftermath?” That’s what we hadn’t done. That was the big mistake. Don had written a list of the worst things that could happen, but we didn’t do the contingency planning on what we would do about it. So we watched those buildings get burned down, and nobody told the divisions, “Hey, go in there and declare martial law and whack a few people and it will stop.”
Then the insurgency started, and we didn’t acknowledge it. They said it wasn’t an insurgency. They looked up the definition. They said it was a few dead-enders! And so we didn’t respond in a way that might have stopped it. And then the civil war started at the beginning of last year. I call it a civil war, but some say no, it’s not a civil war, it’s a war against civilians. In fact, we have total civil disorder.
Do you think the surge makes sense?You can surge all of the American troops you want, but they can’t stop this. Suppose I’m a battalion commander. My troops ask, “What do I do today, boss?” “Let’s go fight the Shia militias!” “What do I do tomorrow?” “Let’s go fight the Sunni insurgents!” “What do I do the day after tomorrow?” “Let’s go chase Al Qaeda!” “What do we do the day after that?” “We’re going to guard streets!” Our kids are fantastic. But this is not sustainable. Our surge can work only with an Iraqi political and military surge.
Are you sorry you didn’t question things more forcefully?At the time, when I felt the president might not have focused on all the potential consequences, I said I needed to see him. I went to the White House and had a private session with him. I told him that we could knock over Saddam’s regime but he needed to understand what we would be faced with once we had done that. It was my “When you break it, you own it” speech. I said that this invasion would tie up the better part of 40 percent of our army for an indefinite period of time. It will be hugely expensive. You will be dealing with this for a long time to come. I said, “Take it to the U.N. See if we can get something from the U.N. that might allow us to avoid this war.” He said, “Let’s share this with the others.” And a few days later, we had a discussion with everyone, some by videoconference. They eventually agreed that we should take it to the U.N., some more willingly than others. Dick [Cheney] didn’t think it would work, and Don [Rumsfeld] I was not sure about, because you couldn’t always tell his opinion. Had I done my duty? I think so.
Do you feel responsible for giving the U.N. flawed intelligence?I didn’t know it was flawed. Everybody was using it. The CIA was saying the same thing for two years. I gave perhaps the most accurate presentation of the intelligence as we knew it—without any of the “Mushroom clouds are going to show up tomorrow morning” and all the rest of that stuff. But the fact of the matter is that a good part of it was wrong, and I am sorry that it was wrong.
Was it twisted?Not by me. What I used was the intelligence that was also available to everyone in the administration and to the Congress. Some of these senators are now presidential candidates who are saying they didn’t read the National Intelligence Estimate they had asked for. It is fair, however, to say that some members of the administration took the intelligence to a higher plane than it deserved.
You’ve met with Barack Obama a couple of times and given him advice. Is it possible that you will support him?I will give advice to any of the principal candidates. I’ve met with others, including John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Barack called me and came by, and we had a long talk. Right before he decided to run, we talked again about the presidency and the type of decisions and problems that come in the middle of the night. I think he’s a very impressive man, I think he’s very smart, and I think he’s going to be a formidable candidate.
Do you think he’d be a good president?I don’t want to start saying who would be a good president and who wouldn’t. I will say that I don’t see any among the major candidates who I think is unqualified to be president.
Would you be tempted to support Obama, even though he’s a Democrat, because he would be transformational?He is transformational because he is a black man who has become one of the leading candidates of a major party. That is exciting. It’s transformational. But am I going to support him? I am going to be for who I think is the best person. Not the best Republican, not the best Democrat, not the best black guy or the best woman. I’m going to try to figure out who could best serve this country. And that’s who I will be voting for.
You did not say that you would be inclined to support the Republican candidate.That’s right. I did not. Because I’ve been voting now for almost fifty years, and I’ve always supported the person I thought was best. I’ve voted Democratic, I’ve voted Republican. I’m going to vote for the best person.
Might you ever go back into public service, even as something such as education secretary?I’m not looking for work. I have a terrific life. But I could see going back into government again. I can see doing such things as chairing a commission. Just not anything that involves elective politics.
You’ve been involved with a lot of people doing business in China. Do you worry that the absence of democracy and the suppression of individual rights there make them more of a potential adversary than a partner?My friends in China tell me, “We know you love the idea of Jeffersonian democracy, but we don’t know how to manage 1.3 billion people using such a system, and we’re not going to try.” Their political system will become more liberal over time. But in my lifetime, it will not become what we call a democracy. And I’m not sure I lose any sleep over that. I want the 1.3 billion Chinese people under some kind of control that allows them to better their lives economically and not fall apart. We need to be patient.
Would you really bet on a country that feels it necessary to censor Google?China will not be censoring Google forever, and most Chinese teenagers know how to go to proxy servers, anyway. The Chinese leaders know they can’t block full access to the Internet forever, but they’re trying to control it.
Do you think that the Indian model, which is more democratic and allows more free thought, will end up working better?The Indians have had a democracy for the past sixty years. And they’re now starting to realize what it takes to be successful economically. They can’t move as fast as the Chinese, because they are such a great, large democracy. Great democracies have a lot of constituents that have to be heard and dealt with.
This seems to put you solidly in what is called the realist camp, rather than the idealistic school, of foreign policy.Yes. I can give you a lesson on Jeffersonian democracy that will bring tears to your eyes, but when I was doing business as the secretary of state, the word I used was reform, less so than democracy. When I dealt with the Arab world, we had several conferences on reform. The word democracy frightened them. As a Saudi leader said to me, “Colin, please, give us a break. Do you really want to see Jeffersonian democracy in Saudi Arabia? Do you know what would happen? Fundamentalists would win, and there wouldn’t be any more elections.” President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt would say the same thing. They all were saying, “Take a look at our history and where we are. You can talk to us about reform, but don’t tell us to become Jeffersonian democracies tomorrow. It’s not possible.”
So you think we should be a bit more on guard against arrogance when we pursue a democracy agenda?[laughs] Very good, very good. We have a tendency to lecture and perhaps not think things through. We have to be careful what we wish for. Are we happy with the democracy that Hamas gave us? There are some places that are not ready for the kind of democracy we find so attractive for ourselves. They are not culturally ready for it, they are not historically ready for it, and they don’t have the needed institutions.
How can we restore America’s image?We should remember what that image was, back after World War II. It was the image of a generous country that sought not to impose its will on other countries or even to impose its values. But it showed the way, and it helped other countries, and it opened its doors to people—visitors and refugees and immigrants.
America could not survive without immigration. Even the undocumented immigrants are contributing to our economy. That’s the country my parents came to. That’s the image we have to portray to the rest of the world: kind, generous, a nation of nations, touched by every nation, and we touch every nation in return. That’s what people still want to believe about us. They still want to come here. We’ve lost a bit of the image, but we haven’t lost the reality yet. And we can fix the image by reflecting a welcoming attitude—and by not taking counsel of our fears and scaring ourselves to death that everybody coming in is going to blow up something. It ain’t the case.
Walter Isaacson is CEO of the Aspen Institute and the author of Einstein: His Life and Universe, among other books.
back to intro >
If only others were so forthcoming, we could probably begin to heal some of the wounds and forge ahead to a better tomorrow for the human race, not just our country. Lead by example, don't promote fear based initiatives, accept other nations for what they are but hold them accountable "if/when" they infringe on the rights of others, and never ever take a position where we are above dialogue/diplomacy.On another note, I heard the firm has gone through another wave of layoffs today.... Bad business man. May God help us all.......... ***************************************************************************GQ ICON: COLIN POWELL
He was pushed aside in the run-up to war, but as he tells Walter Isaacson, he, too, bears some of the blame
Interview by Walter Isaacson; Photograph by Martin Schoeller
“I’m a former everything,” Colin Powell jokes as he relaxes in his office in Alexandria, just across the Potomac from Washington. Indeed, he is a former national-security adviser, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former secretary of state. But before he was a former, he was a first: the first black to serve in any of those roles. And he may also, still, be a future. He turned 70 this year and makes a solid living these days giving speeches and serving on advisory boards, but he does not rule out a return to public service.
As secretary of state, when he was caught in policy struggles with Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, his smile often looked tense, pasted on his face. But when he smiles now, his eyes smile as well, and he is clearly more relaxed, as though he realizes that history is proving him right about the bureaucratic battles he lost. When I came to visit him on a quiet Friday afternoon earlier this summer, he was more relaxed than I’ve ever seen him. He exudes the genial courtesy of someone who is comfortable in his own skin, and he has none of the insecurity that in Washington often gets displayed as assertions of ego. He settled in on a couch, produced a couple of cans of Diet Coke, and started talking about his life, the changes he’s seen in America, and the current situation in Iraq.
*****
In reflecting on the changes in America that have occurred in your lifetime, how important to you and the nation was President Truman’s executive order integrating the armed services in 1948? Black people had served for 300 years, going back to the early Massachusetts militia. They had served the nation even when the nation had not served them. They chose a way to show their commitment to the nation, and that was to shed the same red blood that their white fellow citizens had shed. They did it time after time, through every one of our wars. And they did it knowing that while in the military, they would be discriminated against.
Truman changed that by executive order, because he knew that Congress would not approve it. When I came along in 1958, I hit the right timing. The army was leading the nation in integration. I was from a diverse neighborhood where everybody was a minority, and so I didn’t feel like a minority. All of us were immigrant-family kids from the West Indies or Eastern Europe or the South or Puerto Rico. And we called each other by our minority names, which you can’t use anymore. So when I entered the army, which then had essentially a white Episcopalian power structure, I had an advantage over some of the blacks who came out of the South. These were young men who had never been around the white power structure except to say “yes, suh.” And they were suddenly in an integrated environment. For them, the cultural change and the power-relationship change was shocking. They had never been to a lunchroom counter or a workplace or a school that was not segregated. They had been raised in an environment where white was power and black was not. It was a lot harder for them, yet many prevailed. I had the right mixture of diversity and education to enter a system that now said, You can go wherever you want inside the army as long as you can perform.
Do you consider yourself a beneficiary of affirmative action?The army wouldn’t be what it is if it hadn’t practiced affirmative action. People ask me, “Did you make general on the basis of affirmative action?” No, I didn’t. I did so on my record. But Clifford Alexander [the first black secretary of the army] was pushing affirmative action, and I get tagged with it.
Tagged with it? Do you consider being the beneficiary of affirmative action a negative thing?No! When I got command of a brigade in the 101st Airborne, one of my white friends said, “Dammit, some of the guys are saying that you’re the only one of us who got a brigade, and you got it because you’re black.” And I said, “Don’t worry about it. I don’t care how I got it—I got it. And the only thing the army is going to measure me on is, am I a good brigade commander. And that’s all I ask.”
Do you still support affirmative action?I have always supported affirmative action. I believe there is still a place for it. I spoke at the 1996 Republican convention in San Diego with my friend Ward Connerly [a black opponent of affirmative action] sitting in the audience. He had warned me that he would walk out if I made any reference to affirmative action. And when I did express my support for it, I looked right at him, and he didn’t move. Affirmative action is a concept that is probably not a growth industry. I’m glad it will eventually go away. But when I go to these inner-city neighborhoods, including across the street here in the Washington area, you can’t tell me these kids have the same opportunity that other kids have or that my kids have. Is it because they’re black that these kids are at a disadvantage? To some extent no, to some extent yes. We can’t deny it. Therefore, to the extent that we still believe it appropriate to provide some way of balancing the legacy of the past, I think we have an obligation to do so.
Going back to Truman’s executive order that the armed services must not discriminate based on race, do you foresee a president being able to do the same for gays?The military is unique, and it has rules that are different from any other institution. We had a policy that did not permit gays and lesbians to serve. Then President Clinton came in and told us he wanted to take a look at it. He never told us to change it, despite what people think. I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and told him that we’re not just a bunch of old generals who cannot see the future. It’s more than that. It’s a problem with ministers in the armed services from denominations that have objections to homosexuality. Also, we will have problems in our housing communities. The military tells you who you’re going to share your bunk space with, and we’re having enough of a challenge with just two sexes, men and women. The armed forces are not ready for this.
We came up with “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which is still a discriminatory policy. It is prejudicial. But this is the army, this isn’t the Aspen Institute or a university or the State Department. Maybe it’s discriminatory, but that’s what we thought was best for good order and discipline.
Aren’t some of these arguments similar to those Truman probably heard, and rejected, from military leaders who wanted to retain racial discrimination?I think skin color is a rather benign characteristic which defines us one way, but I think our sex characteristic is far more fundamental and more difficult to reconcile in the context of barracks living. And we are not getting all of our recruits from the most, shall we say, liberal and open-minded parts of our society.
It’s now fourteen years later, the country has changed, and the day may well come when it will not be a problem any longer. But I’m not sure that day has come, and I have to rely on the judgment of the officers who are running our armed forces.
But do you think that day will come?I think sooner or later it will come.
Your hero General George Marshall, when he was secretary of state, oversaw the creation of amazing new institutions and doctrines—NATO, the Marshall Plan—to deal with the global threat posed by Soviet Communism. Now that we’re faced with new global threats, what type of creative responses would he and his wise men be devising?To some extent, he faced a more dangerous threat, and it was an easier one to work with. There was one identifiable enemy that was on the other side of an identifiable terrain feature. It was state versus state. They were able to put in place state-based structures.
Isn’t the new global threat we face even more dangerous?What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?
I would approach this differently, in almost Marshall-like terms. What are the great opportunities out there—ones that we can take advantage of? It should not be just about creating alliances to deal with a guy in a cave in Pakistan. It should be about how do we create institutions that keep the world moving down a path of wealth creation, of increasing respect for human rights, creating democratic institutions, and increasing the efficiency and power of market economies? This is perhaps the most effective way to go after terrorists.
So you think we are getting too hunkered down and scared?Yes! We are taking too much counsel of our fears.
This doesn’t mean there isn’t a terrorist threat. There is a threat. And we should send in military forces when we have a target to deal with. We should also secure our airports, if that makes us safer. But let’s welcome every foreign student we can get our hands on. Let’s make sure that foreigners come to the Mayo Clinic here, and not the Mayo facility in Dubai or somewhere else. Let’s make sure people come to Disney World and not throw them up against the wall in Orlando simply because they have a Muslim name. Let’s also remember that this country was created by immigrants and thrives as a result of immigration, and we need a sound immigration policy.
Let’s show the world a face of openness and what a democratic system can do. That’s why I want to see Guantánamo closed. It’s so harmful to what we stand for. We literally bang ourselves in the head by having that place. What are we doing this to ourselves for? Because we’re worried about the 380 guys there? Bring them here! Give them lawyers and habeas corpus. We can deal with them. We are paying a price when the rest of the world sees an America that seems to be afraid and is not the America they remember.
You can drive up the road from here and come to a spot where there is a megachurch over here, a little Episcopal church over there, a Catholic church around the corner that’s almost cathedral-size, and between them is a huge Hindu temple. There are no police needed to guard any of this. There are not many places in the world where you would see that. Yes, there are a few dangerous nuts in Brooklyn and New Jersey who want to blow up Kennedy Airport and Fort Dix. These are dangerous criminals, and we must deal with them. But come on, this is not a threat to our survival! The only thing that can really destroy us is us. We shouldn’t do it to ourselves, and we shouldn’t use fear for political purposes—scaring people to death so they will vote for you, or scaring people to death so that we create a terror-industrial complex.
One of your legacies to history will be what’s known as the Powell Doctrine. How do you define it?Essentially it says: Avoid war—and if that’s not possible, and it’s necessary to use arms to solve a political problem, then do it in a decisive way. You remove as much doubt as you can about the outcome. In addition, you need to have a clearly defined mission, and you must have some understanding of how it’s going to end.
When the first Gulf War came along, I told President Bush [the elder] that when we had 250,000 troops in the region, we could defend Saudi Arabia from an Iraqi invasion. But if he wanted to kick the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, then General Schwarzkopf will need an additional 250,000 troops. Everybody gasped. And I told the president exactly how we would use them all, and he agreed.
We also had a clear mission, which was to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait. And that’s how we built a coalition with almost every other country in the world. We thought through where it was going to end. We said we wanted to leave Iraq with enough of an army so that it is not threatened by Iran. And we want to accomplish the mission we were given, which is getting the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. We were not interested in taking down the government. It was never our mission to go to Baghdad. For twelve years, I had to listen to criticism about that part of the plan. I don’t hear it criticized too much now.
The current Iraq war seems to have violated almost all of these precepts. We talked about this before the war.The military presented its plans, and I was secretary of state, so it wasn’t really my role, but I said it didn’t seem to me that the plans called for enough force to impose our will or enough troops to deal with the problems that might come up. After one of the meetings, I felt strongly enough about it that I took the liberty to call General Tommy Franks [the regional commander] directly—something I shouldn’t have done, but I did. I said, “Let’s talk general-to-general.” I said, “I have my doubts as to whether or not you have enough force to execute.” And Tommy said, “Well, I think we do, Mr. Secretary.” And then he immediately called Don Rumsfeld, which he should have. And Don correctly said, “It’s good that Colin has been up-front, and now let’s discuss it in front of the president.” And we did. The president heard from his military commanders and his joint chiefs of staff and his secretary of defense that they felt they had enough troops.
Were they right?They were right for the first part, the capture of Baghdad. And I never really had any question about the force needed for that. My question had been, “Have you guys really thought through the aftermath?” That’s what we hadn’t done. That was the big mistake. Don had written a list of the worst things that could happen, but we didn’t do the contingency planning on what we would do about it. So we watched those buildings get burned down, and nobody told the divisions, “Hey, go in there and declare martial law and whack a few people and it will stop.”
Then the insurgency started, and we didn’t acknowledge it. They said it wasn’t an insurgency. They looked up the definition. They said it was a few dead-enders! And so we didn’t respond in a way that might have stopped it. And then the civil war started at the beginning of last year. I call it a civil war, but some say no, it’s not a civil war, it’s a war against civilians. In fact, we have total civil disorder.
Do you think the surge makes sense?You can surge all of the American troops you want, but they can’t stop this. Suppose I’m a battalion commander. My troops ask, “What do I do today, boss?” “Let’s go fight the Shia militias!” “What do I do tomorrow?” “Let’s go fight the Sunni insurgents!” “What do I do the day after tomorrow?” “Let’s go chase Al Qaeda!” “What do we do the day after that?” “We’re going to guard streets!” Our kids are fantastic. But this is not sustainable. Our surge can work only with an Iraqi political and military surge.
Are you sorry you didn’t question things more forcefully?At the time, when I felt the president might not have focused on all the potential consequences, I said I needed to see him. I went to the White House and had a private session with him. I told him that we could knock over Saddam’s regime but he needed to understand what we would be faced with once we had done that. It was my “When you break it, you own it” speech. I said that this invasion would tie up the better part of 40 percent of our army for an indefinite period of time. It will be hugely expensive. You will be dealing with this for a long time to come. I said, “Take it to the U.N. See if we can get something from the U.N. that might allow us to avoid this war.” He said, “Let’s share this with the others.” And a few days later, we had a discussion with everyone, some by videoconference. They eventually agreed that we should take it to the U.N., some more willingly than others. Dick [Cheney] didn’t think it would work, and Don [Rumsfeld] I was not sure about, because you couldn’t always tell his opinion. Had I done my duty? I think so.
Do you feel responsible for giving the U.N. flawed intelligence?I didn’t know it was flawed. Everybody was using it. The CIA was saying the same thing for two years. I gave perhaps the most accurate presentation of the intelligence as we knew it—without any of the “Mushroom clouds are going to show up tomorrow morning” and all the rest of that stuff. But the fact of the matter is that a good part of it was wrong, and I am sorry that it was wrong.
Was it twisted?Not by me. What I used was the intelligence that was also available to everyone in the administration and to the Congress. Some of these senators are now presidential candidates who are saying they didn’t read the National Intelligence Estimate they had asked for. It is fair, however, to say that some members of the administration took the intelligence to a higher plane than it deserved.
You’ve met with Barack Obama a couple of times and given him advice. Is it possible that you will support him?I will give advice to any of the principal candidates. I’ve met with others, including John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Barack called me and came by, and we had a long talk. Right before he decided to run, we talked again about the presidency and the type of decisions and problems that come in the middle of the night. I think he’s a very impressive man, I think he’s very smart, and I think he’s going to be a formidable candidate.
Do you think he’d be a good president?I don’t want to start saying who would be a good president and who wouldn’t. I will say that I don’t see any among the major candidates who I think is unqualified to be president.
Would you be tempted to support Obama, even though he’s a Democrat, because he would be transformational?He is transformational because he is a black man who has become one of the leading candidates of a major party. That is exciting. It’s transformational. But am I going to support him? I am going to be for who I think is the best person. Not the best Republican, not the best Democrat, not the best black guy or the best woman. I’m going to try to figure out who could best serve this country. And that’s who I will be voting for.
You did not say that you would be inclined to support the Republican candidate.That’s right. I did not. Because I’ve been voting now for almost fifty years, and I’ve always supported the person I thought was best. I’ve voted Democratic, I’ve voted Republican. I’m going to vote for the best person.
Might you ever go back into public service, even as something such as education secretary?I’m not looking for work. I have a terrific life. But I could see going back into government again. I can see doing such things as chairing a commission. Just not anything that involves elective politics.
You’ve been involved with a lot of people doing business in China. Do you worry that the absence of democracy and the suppression of individual rights there make them more of a potential adversary than a partner?My friends in China tell me, “We know you love the idea of Jeffersonian democracy, but we don’t know how to manage 1.3 billion people using such a system, and we’re not going to try.” Their political system will become more liberal over time. But in my lifetime, it will not become what we call a democracy. And I’m not sure I lose any sleep over that. I want the 1.3 billion Chinese people under some kind of control that allows them to better their lives economically and not fall apart. We need to be patient.
Would you really bet on a country that feels it necessary to censor Google?China will not be censoring Google forever, and most Chinese teenagers know how to go to proxy servers, anyway. The Chinese leaders know they can’t block full access to the Internet forever, but they’re trying to control it.
Do you think that the Indian model, which is more democratic and allows more free thought, will end up working better?The Indians have had a democracy for the past sixty years. And they’re now starting to realize what it takes to be successful economically. They can’t move as fast as the Chinese, because they are such a great, large democracy. Great democracies have a lot of constituents that have to be heard and dealt with.
This seems to put you solidly in what is called the realist camp, rather than the idealistic school, of foreign policy.Yes. I can give you a lesson on Jeffersonian democracy that will bring tears to your eyes, but when I was doing business as the secretary of state, the word I used was reform, less so than democracy. When I dealt with the Arab world, we had several conferences on reform. The word democracy frightened them. As a Saudi leader said to me, “Colin, please, give us a break. Do you really want to see Jeffersonian democracy in Saudi Arabia? Do you know what would happen? Fundamentalists would win, and there wouldn’t be any more elections.” President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt would say the same thing. They all were saying, “Take a look at our history and where we are. You can talk to us about reform, but don’t tell us to become Jeffersonian democracies tomorrow. It’s not possible.”
So you think we should be a bit more on guard against arrogance when we pursue a democracy agenda?[laughs] Very good, very good. We have a tendency to lecture and perhaps not think things through. We have to be careful what we wish for. Are we happy with the democracy that Hamas gave us? There are some places that are not ready for the kind of democracy we find so attractive for ourselves. They are not culturally ready for it, they are not historically ready for it, and they don’t have the needed institutions.
How can we restore America’s image?We should remember what that image was, back after World War II. It was the image of a generous country that sought not to impose its will on other countries or even to impose its values. But it showed the way, and it helped other countries, and it opened its doors to people—visitors and refugees and immigrants.
America could not survive without immigration. Even the undocumented immigrants are contributing to our economy. That’s the country my parents came to. That’s the image we have to portray to the rest of the world: kind, generous, a nation of nations, touched by every nation, and we touch every nation in return. That’s what people still want to believe about us. They still want to come here. We’ve lost a bit of the image, but we haven’t lost the reality yet. And we can fix the image by reflecting a welcoming attitude—and by not taking counsel of our fears and scaring ourselves to death that everybody coming in is going to blow up something. It ain’t the case.
Walter Isaacson is CEO of the Aspen Institute and the author of Einstein: His Life and Universe, among other books.
back to intro >
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Predictions...... Worthless!!
Plax, for the love of the game, please refrain from saying anything that could potentially give the Pats a psychological advantage, bulletin board material, or haunt you throughout the off season in the event we are not triumphant on Sun.
Predictions mean nothing, and they are unnecessary. If the "TEAM" executes the game plan to perfection, you will be hoisting that trophy Sun night. You will have ample time to gloat and celebrate at that time. But that course of action will not be warranted if you are truly the classy competitor I believe you to be.
The media has a job to do, but you do not have to give them an assist selling papers by making outlandish statements. The game is played between the lines. That's the way it has always been, and rightfully, that's the way it will always be. Any misguided statements you make now can only hurt the team. And the media will surely grill your every word with a fine tooth comb, if you are not victorious.
I applaud, and salute the squad for coming together this season and accomplishing what "very few" thought would have been possible. The "Shut Up & Play" mantra has been oh so appropriate. Just think how Tiki must feel at this very moment. He should be one of the primary commentators on Sun, but his words have condemned him as well.
I have been a staunch supporter of this team throughout my lifetime, and throughout this season, even when it seemed bleak. I have always used "cautious" optimism when forecasting Big Blue potential, but I'm on the sidelines, and I still exercised respectful restraint.
I like the solidarity, and unity this team has displayed. Focus hard in practice all week. Games like this can turn on a dime, and get out of control. An emphasis must be put on FOCUS, CONCENTRATION, & EXECUTION. Be complimentary to the media, but only say the things that will encourage your team to be at their best on Sun. That being said, I believe we have an excellent opportunity to be victorious, but it wont be easy, and talking will have no affect on the outcome.
GO BIG BLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Predictions mean nothing, and they are unnecessary. If the "TEAM" executes the game plan to perfection, you will be hoisting that trophy Sun night. You will have ample time to gloat and celebrate at that time. But that course of action will not be warranted if you are truly the classy competitor I believe you to be.
The media has a job to do, but you do not have to give them an assist selling papers by making outlandish statements. The game is played between the lines. That's the way it has always been, and rightfully, that's the way it will always be. Any misguided statements you make now can only hurt the team. And the media will surely grill your every word with a fine tooth comb, if you are not victorious.
I applaud, and salute the squad for coming together this season and accomplishing what "very few" thought would have been possible. The "Shut Up & Play" mantra has been oh so appropriate. Just think how Tiki must feel at this very moment. He should be one of the primary commentators on Sun, but his words have condemned him as well.
I have been a staunch supporter of this team throughout my lifetime, and throughout this season, even when it seemed bleak. I have always used "cautious" optimism when forecasting Big Blue potential, but I'm on the sidelines, and I still exercised respectful restraint.
I like the solidarity, and unity this team has displayed. Focus hard in practice all week. Games like this can turn on a dime, and get out of control. An emphasis must be put on FOCUS, CONCENTRATION, & EXECUTION. Be complimentary to the media, but only say the things that will encourage your team to be at their best on Sun. That being said, I believe we have an excellent opportunity to be victorious, but it wont be easy, and talking will have no affect on the outcome.
GO BIG BLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Friday, January 25, 2008
THE SET UP.........
Man... When I watched the news this morning, it sounded as if Plax was unecessarily attempting to get the Pats riled up, but after reading the entire article, it just seems that he was expressing confidence in his receiver corps, that's all.
I know the Pats will run with this and make it bulletin board material, so for the sake of keeping our focus on what we need to do, let's keep future comments to the press at a minimum.
Let em play the Brady&Seek game with Belichick, let our game do the talking on the field, and play the best game of your lives. If you're gonna beat the Pats, without a doubt, execution will be the key. Then you could talk all you want, but if you truly respect the game and what your team has accomplished, you probably won't do it then either.
I know the Pats will run with this and make it bulletin board material, so for the sake of keeping our focus on what we need to do, let's keep future comments to the press at a minimum.
Let em play the Brady&Seek game with Belichick, let our game do the talking on the field, and play the best game of your lives. If you're gonna beat the Pats, without a doubt, execution will be the key. Then you could talk all you want, but if you truly respect the game and what your team has accomplished, you probably won't do it then either.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
NOT A RECESSION... JUST GLOBALIZATION & GREED
What's happening to the economy now, should have been expected. The model of late has been get all you can get at any cost, which is capitalism at it's worst. Without question, capitalism is the best model when compared to the alternatives, but absolute power corrupts, absolutely, and that's exactly what's happening now. The endless pursuit of bottom line profitability has thrown true economic viability to the way side.
With all the dot com bombs, CEO Severances, mergers, buyouts, write offs, and the sub prime lending fiasco; none of this surprises me, at all. The never ending pursuit of increasing the bottom line has no limitations, and it is nothing short of waging a war against the American middle class. Whoever coined that phrase hit it right on the head.
But I can remember debating this very issue with my Economics teacher about 8 years ago, predicting just this type of fall out. Money almost always trickles up. Trickle down is nice in theory, but seldom does it work, nor is it practical.
Why does it make sense to an American business that is under performing to fire the CEO, give him a $100million+ package, take a cash infusion from foreign investors, then lay off workers, in an effort to kick up bigger profits to the shareholders? That would be the equivalent of someone with bad credit, unnecessarily claiming bankruptcy, getting a phat loan from the bank, then deserting his wife, and giving up all of his children up for adoption, in order to live a more affluent lifestyle. He may be well off now, but his entire family is suffering when he could have easily uplifted everyone, and secured his own future in the process as well.
The American middle class spends more than any other nation in the world. Efficiency should be the emphasis of every organization/individual, not downsizing. When those Americans don't have the money to go to theaters, shopping malls, restaurants, on vacations (domestic), put gas in the car, amusement parks, ball games, etc, etc... Although you might be seeing a bigger profit share now, it's bound to come back down once the projected sales figures come back. Only now, you have handicapped the spenders, so the only way for you to generate more income is to again restructure your company, make more cutbacks, and take money from investors (domestic/foreign) in order to retain your position in the financial markets. Again, how does that help America as a whole???????
That's why we have so many conspiracy theories. It seems the establishment is in bed with the very ones (i.e. SAUDIS) who wish to suppress this SUPERPOWER. If middle class Americans (the largest tax base in the country) are able to earn a "livable" wage, buy a home, buy a car, take a vacation (domestic), or just pay their bills on time; the profits will continue to pour in, just at a slower rate perhaps, but that's a small price to pay. A vast majority of borrowers, usually repay loans with interest, and it's usually carried out to term.
If I were running for president, I wouldn't insult Americans by giving them a $250 check. Each time they give a CEO a $100million pay day, that's the equivalent of giving over 48,000 working families a $1 an hour pay raise, based on a 40hr work week, which totals over $2K annually, each. Most of that $100 million would go directly back into the economy, as opposed to giving that money to one individual, who puts it in a tax free shelter, where it earns interest, and is only taxed when it is withdrawn, if it isn't protected by a loophole.
Let us work to restore the economy, don't give us a temporary hand out, that fixes nothing at the end of the day. I would encourage American businesses to retain jobs, by giving them a tax credit when they hire, and retain a certain percentage of American workers. The credit would be accrued, and paid out only after they retain at least 95% of that work force, and show significant progress reducing operating costs, for at least 4 years consecutively.
Have you tried calling your telephone company, tech support, or credit card company lately, especially after hours??? Chances are, those jobs have been exported. While that may be profitable in the short term, in the long run it's catastrophic, unless you can get those workers to adopt American spending habits as well. In the process you also lose a huge tax base. Customer service and tech jobs are essential pieces of the economy, especially since manufacturing is leaning heavily towards automation.
Overall, I think a flat tax on all goods and purchases, would be the fairest, and most efficient way to tax everyone equally and end the bickering. The IRS could be redeployed to enforce the flat tax instead of being bogged down trying to decipher thousands of tax codes and loopholes. No more payroll tax, no more itemized deductions, just a flat tax.
However, corruption is inevitable, and no system is fool proof. Globalization is needed to some extent, but what we really need is for everyone to stop being so d*&# greedy. Do we really need to have more than everyone else in order to feel successful? Learning to do more with less (EFFICIENCY) is key to the vitality of our economy, and I am afraid, to the vitality of mankind itself. Enable your citizens to earn a LIVABLE wage, and "WORK" their way out of debt, the benefits will be realized slowly, and steadily, but surely, without a doubt.
With all the dot com bombs, CEO Severances, mergers, buyouts, write offs, and the sub prime lending fiasco; none of this surprises me, at all. The never ending pursuit of increasing the bottom line has no limitations, and it is nothing short of waging a war against the American middle class. Whoever coined that phrase hit it right on the head.
But I can remember debating this very issue with my Economics teacher about 8 years ago, predicting just this type of fall out. Money almost always trickles up. Trickle down is nice in theory, but seldom does it work, nor is it practical.
Why does it make sense to an American business that is under performing to fire the CEO, give him a $100million+ package, take a cash infusion from foreign investors, then lay off workers, in an effort to kick up bigger profits to the shareholders? That would be the equivalent of someone with bad credit, unnecessarily claiming bankruptcy, getting a phat loan from the bank, then deserting his wife, and giving up all of his children up for adoption, in order to live a more affluent lifestyle. He may be well off now, but his entire family is suffering when he could have easily uplifted everyone, and secured his own future in the process as well.
The American middle class spends more than any other nation in the world. Efficiency should be the emphasis of every organization/individual, not downsizing. When those Americans don't have the money to go to theaters, shopping malls, restaurants, on vacations (domestic), put gas in the car, amusement parks, ball games, etc, etc... Although you might be seeing a bigger profit share now, it's bound to come back down once the projected sales figures come back. Only now, you have handicapped the spenders, so the only way for you to generate more income is to again restructure your company, make more cutbacks, and take money from investors (domestic/foreign) in order to retain your position in the financial markets. Again, how does that help America as a whole???????
That's why we have so many conspiracy theories. It seems the establishment is in bed with the very ones (i.e. SAUDIS) who wish to suppress this SUPERPOWER. If middle class Americans (the largest tax base in the country) are able to earn a "livable" wage, buy a home, buy a car, take a vacation (domestic), or just pay their bills on time; the profits will continue to pour in, just at a slower rate perhaps, but that's a small price to pay. A vast majority of borrowers, usually repay loans with interest, and it's usually carried out to term.
If I were running for president, I wouldn't insult Americans by giving them a $250 check. Each time they give a CEO a $100million pay day, that's the equivalent of giving over 48,000 working families a $1 an hour pay raise, based on a 40hr work week, which totals over $2K annually, each. Most of that $100 million would go directly back into the economy, as opposed to giving that money to one individual, who puts it in a tax free shelter, where it earns interest, and is only taxed when it is withdrawn, if it isn't protected by a loophole.
Let us work to restore the economy, don't give us a temporary hand out, that fixes nothing at the end of the day. I would encourage American businesses to retain jobs, by giving them a tax credit when they hire, and retain a certain percentage of American workers. The credit would be accrued, and paid out only after they retain at least 95% of that work force, and show significant progress reducing operating costs, for at least 4 years consecutively.
Have you tried calling your telephone company, tech support, or credit card company lately, especially after hours??? Chances are, those jobs have been exported. While that may be profitable in the short term, in the long run it's catastrophic, unless you can get those workers to adopt American spending habits as well. In the process you also lose a huge tax base. Customer service and tech jobs are essential pieces of the economy, especially since manufacturing is leaning heavily towards automation.
Overall, I think a flat tax on all goods and purchases, would be the fairest, and most efficient way to tax everyone equally and end the bickering. The IRS could be redeployed to enforce the flat tax instead of being bogged down trying to decipher thousands of tax codes and loopholes. No more payroll tax, no more itemized deductions, just a flat tax.
However, corruption is inevitable, and no system is fool proof. Globalization is needed to some extent, but what we really need is for everyone to stop being so d*&# greedy. Do we really need to have more than everyone else in order to feel successful? Learning to do more with less (EFFICIENCY) is key to the vitality of our economy, and I am afraid, to the vitality of mankind itself. Enable your citizens to earn a LIVABLE wage, and "WORK" their way out of debt, the benefits will be realized slowly, and steadily, but surely, without a doubt.
Monday, January 21, 2008
NO TIME 2 CELEBRATE
We are now on the cusp of greatness, perhaps the greatest post season run in NFL history, especially given what is at stake. Most of the critics didn't give us a chance, therefore, we must make a conscious effort and continue to carry that proverbial chip on our shoulders for 1 more game. This is no time for a let down game.
Eli has played excellent. I give him the utmost credit for continuing to do what I always knew he was capable of. As I said before, he does not need to "FORCE" anything!!! Stay within yourself and continue to take what the defense gives you.
I KNOW we have an excellent opportunity to "WIN" the championship. The difference in the game will be turnovers, and which team is successful putting pressure on the quarterback. We didn't get to Brady much, or any quarterback for that matter in the past several games, but our defense is way overdue for a breakout game.
Go forward with confidence BLUE, but don't get overconfident, or complacent. STAY HUMBLE..... You have taken the first big step, destiny is now in your hands. Let's go GIANTS!!!!!!!
Eli has played excellent. I give him the utmost credit for continuing to do what I always knew he was capable of. As I said before, he does not need to "FORCE" anything!!! Stay within yourself and continue to take what the defense gives you.
I KNOW we have an excellent opportunity to "WIN" the championship. The difference in the game will be turnovers, and which team is successful putting pressure on the quarterback. We didn't get to Brady much, or any quarterback for that matter in the past several games, but our defense is way overdue for a breakout game.
Go forward with confidence BLUE, but don't get overconfident, or complacent. STAY HUMBLE..... You have taken the first big step, destiny is now in your hands. Let's go GIANTS!!!!!!!
Thursday, January 17, 2008
BLUE AGAINST THE WORLD!!!!!!!!
Bob S is definitely on point with the statistics, but as I said before, what happened in the past has absolutely no bearing on what happens today. The cold, Lambeau field, Brett's star caliber, injuries, all factors, but we are still capable of playing well, and escaping with another captivating victory on the road.
A majority of the pundits are still waiting for the other shoe to drop, and betting against the Giants, in unison (Inside the NFL cast to name a few). I welcome the skepticism, it has seemed to give this squad a sense of determination, and solidarity (i.e. linemen vow to wear short sleeves), whenever they question this teams ability. I hope we stay on message, beat Green Bay and take that ideology with us all the way to a Superbowl victory. Wouldn't that be a comeback for the ages, as well as Eli's vindication party??? Time will tell...... One game at a time.... Go Big Blue!!!!!!!!!!!!
A majority of the pundits are still waiting for the other shoe to drop, and betting against the Giants, in unison (Inside the NFL cast to name a few). I welcome the skepticism, it has seemed to give this squad a sense of determination, and solidarity (i.e. linemen vow to wear short sleeves), whenever they question this teams ability. I hope we stay on message, beat Green Bay and take that ideology with us all the way to a Superbowl victory. Wouldn't that be a comeback for the ages, as well as Eli's vindication party??? Time will tell...... One game at a time.... Go Big Blue!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's definitely a start..................
I always believed, and I always knew we had the ability to play together and win games. We definitely have talent, but "chemistry" is what gets a talented team over the hump. It has taken us longer than we would have liked, but this is obviously a building block for the Knicks, now they must remain consistent.
There is obviously a dark cloud in every silver lining, because it's interesting to see how everyone is prepared to throw Stephon under the bus. But how soon we forget that he was the catalyst in reviving the Knicks playoff hopes last year, before crucial injuries derailed that bid. Stephon doesn't always have the best attitude, but I never questioned his ability on the court, or his desire to "win". I'm glad the players are taking the high ground, and continuing to say the right things to the press. No need for a mutiny, or pettiness, in the midst of righting the ship.
And as far as Zach and Eddy not being compatible..... NONSENSE. Zach is one of the best passing bigs in the league. Their development was contingent on Eddy learning how to conform to the new offense, which I believe is more potent this season, and getting in "basketball" shape.
Every team has a weakness, but playing well "together" tends to mask those weaknesses. Again, I won't get too happy, or too upset about a victory/loss, but I could see us making a playoff run. Besides the Celts, no one has pulled away in the Atlantic. Consistency, health, and a little good luck will be the determining factors. Go Knicks!!!!!!!!!
There is obviously a dark cloud in every silver lining, because it's interesting to see how everyone is prepared to throw Stephon under the bus. But how soon we forget that he was the catalyst in reviving the Knicks playoff hopes last year, before crucial injuries derailed that bid. Stephon doesn't always have the best attitude, but I never questioned his ability on the court, or his desire to "win". I'm glad the players are taking the high ground, and continuing to say the right things to the press. No need for a mutiny, or pettiness, in the midst of righting the ship.
And as far as Zach and Eddy not being compatible..... NONSENSE. Zach is one of the best passing bigs in the league. Their development was contingent on Eddy learning how to conform to the new offense, which I believe is more potent this season, and getting in "basketball" shape.
Every team has a weakness, but playing well "together" tends to mask those weaknesses. Again, I won't get too happy, or too upset about a victory/loss, but I could see us making a playoff run. Besides the Celts, no one has pulled away in the Atlantic. Consistency, health, and a little good luck will be the determining factors. Go Knicks!!!!!!!!!
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
C'MON MAN!!!
The Knicks must find a way to string consecutive victories together. Without Marbury in the line up for the foreseeable future, Isiah needs to settle on a rotation, and manufacture some W's now. Although we played a road weary Pistons team, and as hard as it is to do, we need to carry over that momentum into tonight, and hopefully, for the next 3 games as well, if we're going to seriously make a playoff run. I know these guys are more talented than the record shows. Maybe not championship caliber, but definitely better than this.... Justify our (real Knick fans) existence as well as your own. You can do better, it's just a matter of proving it to the relentless cynics.
NO ROOM FOR THE FAKE & COWARDLY
Whether Sunday will be a frigid 10 degrees (sans wind chill), or not, the Giants have absolutely no excuses. Our road to redemption started against J. Garcia, was made official in Dallas, intensifies in G.B., but will be complete only if we are hoisting the Lombardy trophy in Feb (preferably after a victory against the Pats).
For the Dallas fans crying ("They we're the better team"), and for the "Add Water" Giant fans; now coming out the woodwork wearing Giant gear and talking smack; the simple fact is, the game is played between the lines, no one is guaranteed a victory, and all the teams remaining in contention have played one hell of a season.
True Giant fans, the ones who are perennial fans, know that a humble approach is ideal for any team playing in this market. "SHUT UP & PLAY" (Coughlin) has been the perfect theme, and "SHUT UP & WATCH" should be applied to the fans on both sides as well. I will remain a Giant fan regardless of the outcome on Sun. I love blogging, but it's always done with a level of respect, for everyone.
Enjoy the game ppl, no need to get nasty &/or ignorant. But if you're suffering from some "personal" insecurities/shortcomings, or if you just feel a need to put ppl down in order to feel better about yourself, you are hereby excused, but get the ^$%# off the bandwagon while you're at it. These guys are professionals, and this whirlwind, historic season exemplifies that fact. I applaud the NFL for creating a spectacular product this season. Just don't forget to take care of the "no name" players once they are injury plagued, or no longer productive$$$.
For the Dallas fans crying ("They we're the better team"), and for the "Add Water" Giant fans; now coming out the woodwork wearing Giant gear and talking smack; the simple fact is, the game is played between the lines, no one is guaranteed a victory, and all the teams remaining in contention have played one hell of a season.
True Giant fans, the ones who are perennial fans, know that a humble approach is ideal for any team playing in this market. "SHUT UP & PLAY" (Coughlin) has been the perfect theme, and "SHUT UP & WATCH" should be applied to the fans on both sides as well. I will remain a Giant fan regardless of the outcome on Sun. I love blogging, but it's always done with a level of respect, for everyone.
Enjoy the game ppl, no need to get nasty &/or ignorant. But if you're suffering from some "personal" insecurities/shortcomings, or if you just feel a need to put ppl down in order to feel better about yourself, you are hereby excused, but get the ^$%# off the bandwagon while you're at it. These guys are professionals, and this whirlwind, historic season exemplifies that fact. I applaud the NFL for creating a spectacular product this season. Just don't forget to take care of the "no name" players once they are injury plagued, or no longer productive$$$.
Monday, January 14, 2008
The road to redemption continues.........
That's two down, and two to go!! But ALL focus must be directed at GreenBay now. I suggest we practice in the most unaccommodating weather, all week. We should head to the Albany practice field, where we could prepare for some real game time situations; and pump up the loudspeaker system while we're at it.
Redemption road has officially been laid. By no means am I being cocky, and I hope the veteran leadership conveys that message to the younger guys as well, because you must focus more intently, every step forward.
We have finally beat J. Garcia in the playoffs, and we finally beat Dallas+T.O. this season (first playoff meeting ever). Contrary to popular opinion, Eli doesn't need to outplay Favre.. Just like he didn't need to outplay Romo this week. He just needs to stay within himself, read the defense, stay composed, throw it away if you have to, and just play like he has the past three weeks. The rest will be decided by our defense.
Win or lose, as long as we "play well", I am very satisfied with the Giants season thus far. Way to go Blue!!!!!!! I'm a proud Giants fan this morning.
Redemption road has officially been laid. By no means am I being cocky, and I hope the veteran leadership conveys that message to the younger guys as well, because you must focus more intently, every step forward.
We have finally beat J. Garcia in the playoffs, and we finally beat Dallas+T.O. this season (first playoff meeting ever). Contrary to popular opinion, Eli doesn't need to outplay Favre.. Just like he didn't need to outplay Romo this week. He just needs to stay within himself, read the defense, stay composed, throw it away if you have to, and just play like he has the past three weeks. The rest will be decided by our defense.
Win or lose, as long as we "play well", I am very satisfied with the Giants season thus far. Way to go Blue!!!!!!! I'm a proud Giants fan this morning.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The road to redemption.......
By no means am I being cocky, or overlooking the Cowboys, but since we have finally beaten J. Garcia in the playoffs, wouldn't it be poetic justic if we could somehow avenge the two (best teams) conference loses, and wind up in the Superbowl and WIN, against the undefeated Patriots, when it really counts. Wow, that would be some story book ending for the ages.... But back to reality... Contrary to popular opinion, Eli doesn't need to outplay Romo, he needs to stay within himself, and play like he has the past three weeks. The rest will be decided by our defense. And don't forget about Bradshaw.... Go Big Blue!!!!!!!!!!
Friday, January 11, 2008
A Champion's Opinion........
Amen.... I'm glad this is coming from someone who actually played the game, and not from someone who has probably lacked any semblance of athletic ability their entire lives, or someone who has absolutely no idea about what it takes to compete. Sounds EXACTLY, like what I have been saying all year. BTW, Willis is not an MSG employee either, just one of the greatest legends that has ever donned the uniform. If Curry gets in shape, we can beat anyone, period. The onus is on Curry... Isiah's job is getting that message through to the most important piece in the "current" roster. Unless we could get Kobe, and possibly, add Artest next year, we have to be resigned to the fact that Curry is the one individual who's progress (conditioning/ defensively/ etc) can propel the Knicks into a contender and/or champion. If he can do that, watch the chemistry flourish... Mark my words.
Willis Reed defends Isiah Thomas, laments losing ways of Knicks
Friday, January 11th 2008, 4:00 AM Bedford/Getty - Willis Reed -Farrell/News
Reed's dramatic and historic effort in Game 7 against the Lakers on May 8, 1970 helped spark the Knicks to their first title.
The May 9, 1970 front page of the Daily News.
These should be heady times for Willis Reed. He is eagerly counting the days until the NBA All-Star Game arrives in his native Louisiana, providing another much-needed economic boost to New Orleans. And he is looking forward to seeing one of his neighbors in Ruston, La., Karl Malone, get his ticket punched this spring to the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame.
But when Reed sees what is happening to his beloved Knicks, he feels as frustrated as any season ticket-holder. But where the team's legendary captain and former coach draws the line is in calling for Isiah Thomas' head.
"I can't say I'd make a move with Isiah," Reed said Thursday at an appearance at the NBA Store. "I think he's doing all he can. He's got talent there. But they just don't have the chemistry right. Hopefully, my guys will turn it around. Sometimes, it takes time and I hope that's the case."
While the collection of players Thomas has assembled is flawed, Reed kept coming back to the obvious lack of cohesion.
"When we played and when we won, we were a team," said the lone Knick to win the NBA's MVP award, in 1970. "We were like brothers. We were there for the same cause, we were there for each other, we worked for the same goal, and we won two championships."
But these days, the Knicks are known only as accomplished losers, which pains Reed.
"I'm a fan and I believe Isiah will eventually turn it around, but I am frustrated because we all want to win," he said. "I'm sitting down there in Ruston, watching their games on TV, and I just know they're trying everything. They're willing to spend the money. They've got good talent. But it just has not clicked. There's something missing."
Perhaps more than a few of the players are not cut out for New York, a point Reed concurred with.
"I know that New York is not an easy place to play," he said. "You better have tough skin, thick skin, around here. We had some bad teams, too, and we got booed, before we got good. So my advice to the players is, don't read the paper. Stay focused on doing what you can do as a player to make your team better."
While he monitors his old team, Reed has been appearing in public service announcements on behalf of the Louisiana Bureau of Tourism to promote his state as a travel destination. He will be in New Orleans Feb.16-17 for the All-Star Game.
"When I watch TV, I see the same footage all the time - New Orleans is underwater," he said. "But New Orleans is not still underwater. There's a lot of excitement about the All-Star Game. It's going to be a phenomenal event for the city and the state. You see, a lot of good things are going on down there."
Among them, Reed lists Malone's expected nomination to the Hall of Fame.
"His longevity and work ethic were phenomenal," Reed said. "The only reason he didn't get his ring was because of Michael (Jordan). That's all he's missing from his career. But anybody who plays power forward in our league should look at what the Mailman did to see how it's done."
mlawrence@nydailynews.com
Willis Reed defends Isiah Thomas, laments losing ways of Knicks
Friday, January 11th 2008, 4:00 AM Bedford/Getty - Willis Reed -Farrell/News
Reed's dramatic and historic effort in Game 7 against the Lakers on May 8, 1970 helped spark the Knicks to their first title.
The May 9, 1970 front page of the Daily News.
These should be heady times for Willis Reed. He is eagerly counting the days until the NBA All-Star Game arrives in his native Louisiana, providing another much-needed economic boost to New Orleans. And he is looking forward to seeing one of his neighbors in Ruston, La., Karl Malone, get his ticket punched this spring to the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame.
But when Reed sees what is happening to his beloved Knicks, he feels as frustrated as any season ticket-holder. But where the team's legendary captain and former coach draws the line is in calling for Isiah Thomas' head.
"I can't say I'd make a move with Isiah," Reed said Thursday at an appearance at the NBA Store. "I think he's doing all he can. He's got talent there. But they just don't have the chemistry right. Hopefully, my guys will turn it around. Sometimes, it takes time and I hope that's the case."
While the collection of players Thomas has assembled is flawed, Reed kept coming back to the obvious lack of cohesion.
"When we played and when we won, we were a team," said the lone Knick to win the NBA's MVP award, in 1970. "We were like brothers. We were there for the same cause, we were there for each other, we worked for the same goal, and we won two championships."
But these days, the Knicks are known only as accomplished losers, which pains Reed.
"I'm a fan and I believe Isiah will eventually turn it around, but I am frustrated because we all want to win," he said. "I'm sitting down there in Ruston, watching their games on TV, and I just know they're trying everything. They're willing to spend the money. They've got good talent. But it just has not clicked. There's something missing."
Perhaps more than a few of the players are not cut out for New York, a point Reed concurred with.
"I know that New York is not an easy place to play," he said. "You better have tough skin, thick skin, around here. We had some bad teams, too, and we got booed, before we got good. So my advice to the players is, don't read the paper. Stay focused on doing what you can do as a player to make your team better."
While he monitors his old team, Reed has been appearing in public service announcements on behalf of the Louisiana Bureau of Tourism to promote his state as a travel destination. He will be in New Orleans Feb.16-17 for the All-Star Game.
"When I watch TV, I see the same footage all the time - New Orleans is underwater," he said. "But New Orleans is not still underwater. There's a lot of excitement about the All-Star Game. It's going to be a phenomenal event for the city and the state. You see, a lot of good things are going on down there."
Among them, Reed lists Malone's expected nomination to the Hall of Fame.
"His longevity and work ethic were phenomenal," Reed said. "The only reason he didn't get his ring was because of Michael (Jordan). That's all he's missing from his career. But anybody who plays power forward in our league should look at what the Mailman did to see how it's done."
mlawrence@nydailynews.com
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Call me a dreamer......
By no means should the Knicks feel giddy about last night's victory, but they should feel encouraged by the "collective" TEAM effort, and the defensive presence Curry (finally) displayed.
Now it's a matter of being consistent, on both fronts. I have always maintained that Curry is the key, if he can stay focused WE WILL, no doubt, be able to string a couple of victories together, and in the long run, we will make the playoffs. That will save face, and it will ensure Isiah has an opportunity to finish what he started, but in order to contend for a championship, I still think we are "1" franchise player away.
If L.A. has a disappointing playoff run, and we could somehow get Kobe next year; with Artest pretty much declaring his preference for the hometown team, I envision finally bringing that trophy back to the Garden within the next 3 years. Call me a dreamer ppl.... But I truly believe in what Isiah is trying to accomplish, he just needs a little luck now.
Now it's a matter of being consistent, on both fronts. I have always maintained that Curry is the key, if he can stay focused WE WILL, no doubt, be able to string a couple of victories together, and in the long run, we will make the playoffs. That will save face, and it will ensure Isiah has an opportunity to finish what he started, but in order to contend for a championship, I still think we are "1" franchise player away.
If L.A. has a disappointing playoff run, and we could somehow get Kobe next year; with Artest pretty much declaring his preference for the hometown team, I envision finally bringing that trophy back to the Garden within the next 3 years. Call me a dreamer ppl.... But I truly believe in what Isiah is trying to accomplish, he just needs a little luck now.
Security Detail, no surprise.
I'm glad Obama has consistently taken the high road all throughout his campaign, but I'm not running for office, and I am not on his staff, so I am afforded the right to speak bluntly.
Hillary benefited from the sympathy vote (emotional showing on Mon), and the anti Obama vote. I have contended all along that Barak's best chance of getting in would be as VP, not because I don't think he is capable, or the best candidate, but because of the prejudice that still permeates the American landscape to this day.
Hillary won by the slightest of margins last night. Barak had a double digit lead in some polls until late. The women who sympathize with her emotional outbursts came out in droves, and I'm sure those who were upset/irate/scared that Barak may be running away with this thing made sure their voices were heard too.
Another reason I think he should take the back seat is because the country is mired in economic/political/ and various international crisis' right now, and becoming the first black President at this time can be a blessing or a curse, but I think it would be more of a curse unless he was able to fix "ALL" (not realistic) of what ails the country in his first term. The fallout would set back minority candidates for another 30 years.
Just check out his security detail already, this is unprecedented, yet this is not the first time we had a black candidate.... Just the first time we had one that has a "realistic" chance of winning. They won't admit whether or not he has had credible death threats, but they know something, otherwise, they wouldn't have given him such a large detail so quickly. You know the fanatics are getting their rifles ready as we speak. Sad but true.........
I think any continued success he has will further motivate the voting masses. Either way, this is a good thing for the country. More people voting, means the country is paying attention, and even if Hillary wins, she is head and shoulders, better than any GOP candidate, although I have a soft spot for R. Paul (but he'll never win the GOP nomination).
**From the NY Post 1/09/08 ** (below)
O-RING OF SECURITY FOR SURPRISE DEM
By DAPHNE RETTER Post Correspondent
January 9, 2008 --
WASHINGTON -
The Secret Service has dramatically increased the number of agents protecting Democratic front-runner Barack Obama since his victory in the Iowa caucuses.
COMPLETE ELECTION 2008 COVERAGE
PHOTO GALLERY: New Hampshire Winners
The size of Obama's security detail now rivals President Bush's, The Washington Times has reported. The agents also have been seen guarding against people with high sight lines to the Illinois senator and have asked viewers standing on chairs to step down.
No one will comment about whether death threats have been received, but there have been fears that Obama, as an African-American making a serious bid for the White House, could be a target.
Reporters on the campaign trail have at times noticed a dozen agents surrounding the Illinois Democrat at public appearances - many more than had been spotted before he emerged as the Democratic front-runner.
Obama on Monday told NBC's Brian Williams that he tries not to put a lot of thought into the need for the constant security presence around him, but "it's hard to pretend that you don't have big guys who are 'packing' around you at all time," Obama said. "I think that every presidential candidate, certainly every president these days, is a potential target."
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff assigned Obama a security detail back in May, giving the senator the distinction of having the earliest Secret Service protection ever for a presidential candidate. Federal officials and fellow senators said then that concern about chatter on racist Web sites was part of the reason for the unprecedented move.
Four years ago, Democratic presidential candidates John Edwards and John Kerry were given Secret Service protection after the New Hampshire primary. Hillary Clinton retains Secret Service protection as a former first lady.
Secret Service spokeswoman Kim Bruce said yesterday the protection afforded a candidate is carefully monitored and may be frequently adjusted. "We are constantly evaluating the security with all of our protectees - not just with Obama but also with Clinton," Bruce said.
Congress provided $85 million for protection of presidential candidates in fiscal 2008, but Bruce would not comment on whether assessments of Obama's security needs would force the Secret Service to request more funding.
The Secret Service began protecting presidential candidates 40 years ago after Robert Kennedy was assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan as the New York Democratic senator was leaving a Los Angeles campaign appearance.
Additional reporting by Charles Hurt in Manchester, NH
daphne.retter@nypost.com
Hillary benefited from the sympathy vote (emotional showing on Mon), and the anti Obama vote. I have contended all along that Barak's best chance of getting in would be as VP, not because I don't think he is capable, or the best candidate, but because of the prejudice that still permeates the American landscape to this day.
Hillary won by the slightest of margins last night. Barak had a double digit lead in some polls until late. The women who sympathize with her emotional outbursts came out in droves, and I'm sure those who were upset/irate/scared that Barak may be running away with this thing made sure their voices were heard too.
Another reason I think he should take the back seat is because the country is mired in economic/political/ and various international crisis' right now, and becoming the first black President at this time can be a blessing or a curse, but I think it would be more of a curse unless he was able to fix "ALL" (not realistic) of what ails the country in his first term. The fallout would set back minority candidates for another 30 years.
Just check out his security detail already, this is unprecedented, yet this is not the first time we had a black candidate.... Just the first time we had one that has a "realistic" chance of winning. They won't admit whether or not he has had credible death threats, but they know something, otherwise, they wouldn't have given him such a large detail so quickly. You know the fanatics are getting their rifles ready as we speak. Sad but true.........
I think any continued success he has will further motivate the voting masses. Either way, this is a good thing for the country. More people voting, means the country is paying attention, and even if Hillary wins, she is head and shoulders, better than any GOP candidate, although I have a soft spot for R. Paul (but he'll never win the GOP nomination).
**From the NY Post 1/09/08 ** (below)
O-RING OF SECURITY FOR SURPRISE DEM
By DAPHNE RETTER Post Correspondent
January 9, 2008 --
WASHINGTON -
The Secret Service has dramatically increased the number of agents protecting Democratic front-runner Barack Obama since his victory in the Iowa caucuses.
COMPLETE ELECTION 2008 COVERAGE
PHOTO GALLERY: New Hampshire Winners
The size of Obama's security detail now rivals President Bush's, The Washington Times has reported. The agents also have been seen guarding against people with high sight lines to the Illinois senator and have asked viewers standing on chairs to step down.
No one will comment about whether death threats have been received, but there have been fears that Obama, as an African-American making a serious bid for the White House, could be a target.
Reporters on the campaign trail have at times noticed a dozen agents surrounding the Illinois Democrat at public appearances - many more than had been spotted before he emerged as the Democratic front-runner.
Obama on Monday told NBC's Brian Williams that he tries not to put a lot of thought into the need for the constant security presence around him, but "it's hard to pretend that you don't have big guys who are 'packing' around you at all time," Obama said. "I think that every presidential candidate, certainly every president these days, is a potential target."
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff assigned Obama a security detail back in May, giving the senator the distinction of having the earliest Secret Service protection ever for a presidential candidate. Federal officials and fellow senators said then that concern about chatter on racist Web sites was part of the reason for the unprecedented move.
Four years ago, Democratic presidential candidates John Edwards and John Kerry were given Secret Service protection after the New Hampshire primary. Hillary Clinton retains Secret Service protection as a former first lady.
Secret Service spokeswoman Kim Bruce said yesterday the protection afforded a candidate is carefully monitored and may be frequently adjusted. "We are constantly evaluating the security with all of our protectees - not just with Obama but also with Clinton," Bruce said.
Congress provided $85 million for protection of presidential candidates in fiscal 2008, but Bruce would not comment on whether assessments of Obama's security needs would force the Secret Service to request more funding.
The Secret Service began protecting presidential candidates 40 years ago after Robert Kennedy was assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan as the New York Democratic senator was leaving a Los Angeles campaign appearance.
Additional reporting by Charles Hurt in Manchester, NH
daphne.retter@nypost.com
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Interpreting mom now??????
The critics are a bunch of jerks. Now they are interpreting how his mom must "really" feel. That's her son, how many of your moms came out and defended you when the chips were down? Everyone with any sense knows the only reason Isiah has been unsuccessful is because he is one "franchise" player away from completing the puzzle. Eddy and Marbury are peices, but we need a megastar. We needed Rasheed Wallace but Detroit had first dibs. This off season we needed Kobe, or Kevin. Kobe, obviously went nowhere. Kevin on the other hand; was gift wrapped to the Celts, courtesy of the good old boy connection between McHale and Ainge. Can someone tell me what the Timberwolves got out of that deal, uh, NOTHING!!!!! NOONE can honestly say they seen that trade coming either. Everyone thought Kevin was going to L.A. or N.Y. All of you fly by night fans would have been singing Isiah's praises had he landed that deal. It is a tough job, and someone has to take responsibility, but unfortunately franchise players are not a dime a dozen.
Monday, January 7, 2008
1st step towards goal....
Again, I'm proud of the way we played against the Pats, and I'm kind of happy we lost that game too.. I think it allowed us to get a glimpse of how good we could be, but at the same time; losing enabled us to focus more intently on the task at hand, with a little chip on our shoulders to boot.
I knew Eli was capable... As I stated in the past, he doesn't need to be a superstar, he just needs to play under control and take what the defense gives him, someone will always be open, especially, if the line is able to keep the opponents off of him, as they did yesterday.
We didn't force anything, and that must be the mindset going into Dallas next week. Protect your quarterback, have a balanced attack, don't give up the big play, and take care of the football. If we do those little things, we have a chance to beat all the teams in contention. We definitely have the talent this year.
I knew Eli was capable... As I stated in the past, he doesn't need to be a superstar, he just needs to play under control and take what the defense gives him, someone will always be open, especially, if the line is able to keep the opponents off of him, as they did yesterday.
We didn't force anything, and that must be the mindset going into Dallas next week. Protect your quarterback, have a balanced attack, don't give up the big play, and take care of the football. If we do those little things, we have a chance to beat all the teams in contention. We definitely have the talent this year.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
ZEKE.... Stay out of the crosshairs
Isiah sure set himself up for ridicule this time. I happen to be one of the few fans left that actually believes this team has the potential to win, but my beliefs like Isiah's projections mean nothing if they don't translate into wins; both he and I just end up looking like idiots. I truly believe the achilles heal of this experiment is Curry, and I can't believe no one in Mgmt put the onus on him to get his body in NBA shape this past off season.
It is what it is and they are who their record says they are, but as for "the light at the end of the tunnel" comment, he would have been better served relating that to the state of the eastern conference. They are 10 games behind Toronto, 6 behind Jersey, and 4 behind Philly with a ton of games left to play. Realistically, if we could get some kind of continuity and string a couple of victories together, we can still make the playoffs, but please leave the championship talk at the door.
Until we're mathematically eliminated, I'm still a believer. As most "true" Knick fans are. One thing about Isiah, he took a chance few others would have taken, and that's rebuilding the Knicks with young/athletic players, for this very reason.... It takes time to win after you rebuild, and you will become the laughing stock of the league if you are unsuccessful. But someone has to get on Eddy, he is the key, make him work out (much harder), make him work on his defense and rebounding (ad nauseam), please!!!!!!!! If relaying this obvious fact to him fails, this experiment will crash and burn, definitely.......
It is what it is and they are who their record says they are, but as for "the light at the end of the tunnel" comment, he would have been better served relating that to the state of the eastern conference. They are 10 games behind Toronto, 6 behind Jersey, and 4 behind Philly with a ton of games left to play. Realistically, if we could get some kind of continuity and string a couple of victories together, we can still make the playoffs, but please leave the championship talk at the door.
Until we're mathematically eliminated, I'm still a believer. As most "true" Knick fans are. One thing about Isiah, he took a chance few others would have taken, and that's rebuilding the Knicks with young/athletic players, for this very reason.... It takes time to win after you rebuild, and you will become the laughing stock of the league if you are unsuccessful. But someone has to get on Eddy, he is the key, make him work out (much harder), make him work on his defense and rebounding (ad nauseam), please!!!!!!!! If relaying this obvious fact to him fails, this experiment will crash and burn, definitely.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
