Well, it’s been a good run here at WordPress.com.  I know now that I will never go back to blogger or any of those other things.  I used to use my Myspace blog for personal posts and then this one for political stuff.

But, I am throwing off the cloak of anonymity.  I am tired of hiding behind that.  If people don’t like me for who I am, judge my views based on that, or or write me off because they disagree with my politicals– well– it’s their loss.  I’ll still be there, blogging.

I am also tired of keeping the personal and the political separate.  I have so much to say, and it’s better to have one place to say it.  So, now, thanks to my friend Beth, I have, *drumroll* a new blog.  It’s WordPress powered (yay!), and self-hosted on her domain– which means now I get the nifty plugins ‘n stuff.

Behold!

 Scheherazade’s Ship

That’s my new blog.  Different name. New stuff.  I imported all of the entries from this blog into that now.  From now on, I’ll be blogging over there.  Goodbye, WordPress.com! It’s been great!

Technorati Profile

Well I said last night in a private journal how if we killed al-Qaeda operatives; that I supported the fast action on behalf of US intelligence to strike near the Afghan-Pakistani border, even if we didn’t get the #2. And it appears we were successful in at least some of those facets of intelligence!

Bravo everybody!

I’ve said before; not here, but elsewhere, that cover action would be the best way to deal with Iran. We don’t want an overt military conflict, and diplomacy is failing. So what do we do? Put those paramilitary units in the CIA to good work (I’d like to take this moment to say how much I support the men and women in the CIA– you get pushed around, smeared, and bullied in the press, but I thank you for your hard work on behalf of this country!). Now read what the WSJ had to say on it and tell me what you think.

I think that covert action is a dead-on policy and kudos to those who would carry it out.

There is some great discussion going on here in the comments section of the Belmont Club. I think most of the commenters all have good points and ideas, the important thing is the right combinations of all of the good points. I might explicate this further later.

Here’s some ‘future shock’ -esque predictions on what may occur these few years. If military action on Iran or by Israel against Iran would happen anywhere in 2008 I would laugh because I have a role-play character who predicted to her fiance on New Year’s of ‘08 that there would be action in a year– and bet him 20 galleons on it. ~_^

We’re loosing the war in Iraq, alright. Such a quagmire. Hell, this was reported by the LA Times!

Counterterrorism Blog has interesting stuff on the Saudis. They’re not our friends! Haven’t I said this enough?! BTW, this is must-read blog everyone! Should be one your daily reads list!

Well that’s all for now…

Someone remind me of why Iran’s pursuits of nuclear capabilities are not for arms, and are “peaceful“. If they were peaceful, Iran would say this why?

The situation in Iran is snowballing like no other. The Anti-Semitism and threats towards Israel are spilling hard and fast. The European community is talking big(ger) and carrying a rather small stick. And now, the regime is pulling off the IAEA seals from their Natanz plant. Two years I ago, I predicted that by 2008-2009, that we would have some kind of confrontation with Iran. I see that rapidly coming into the picture now. There are daily developments. And seeing the situation as it is, I am saying: we need a pre-emptive air strike. They’re not going to stop. Let’s move on now.

I bet my brother on new years that by the time the year was out, that Iran would either have a nuke or be extremely close to procuring one. I also predicted that there would be some kind of military conflict with Israel. Let’s see how that pans out. And let’s haul ass to get an internal revolution working on the inside.

Q Thank you, sir. One of the things we’ve seen this year is the reduction in your approval rating. And I know how you feel about polls, but it appears to be taking something out of your political clout, as evidenced by the Patriot Act vote. What do you attribute your lower polls to, and are you worried that independents are losing confidence in your leadership?

THE PRESIDENT: David, my job is to confront big challenges and lead. And I fully understand everybody is not going to agree with my decisions. But the President’s job is to do what he thinks is right, and that’s what I’m going to continue to do.

THE PRESIDENT: You see, I hope by now you’ve discovered something about me, that when I say we’re not going to have artificial timetables of withdrawal, and/or try to get me out on a limb on what the troop levels will look like — the answer to your question on troop levels is, it’s conditions-based. We have an objective in Iraq, and as we meet those objectives, our commanders on the ground will determine the size of the troop levels.

Nice try. End of your try.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder if you can tell us today, sir, what, if any, limits you believe there are or should be on the powers of a President during a war, at wartime? And if the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we’re going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I disagree with your assertion of “unchecked power.”

Q Well —

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, please. There is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters. There is oversight. We’re talking to Congress all the time, and on this program, to suggest there’s unchecked power is not listening to what I’m telling you. I’m telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times.

This is an awesome responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the American people, and I understand that, Peter. And we’ll continue to work with the Congress, as well as people within our own administration, to constantly monitor programs such as the one I described to you, to make sure that we’re protecting the civil liberties of the United States. To say “unchecked power” basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the President, which I strongly reject.

Q What limits do you —

THE PRESIDENT: I just described limits on this particular program, Peter. And that’s what’s important for the American people to understand. I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country.