On Wednesday I have a dental appointment in the morning and a regular doctor appointment in the afternoon, with an allergy shot squeezed in the middle.

If you make a comment and it gets held in moderation I will approve it as soon as I get the chance.

By a vote of 48-50 the Senate has rejected an amendment that would have removed a timeline from the military supplemental bill.

The Senate version requires withdrawal from Iraq to begin within 120 days. This is different from the House bill and will have to be reconciled in committee, but the vote is so close in both houses it is not veto-proof.

Maybe now President Bush will show he has plenty of ink in his veto pen since he has used it only once during his presidency. And, yes, Chuck Hagel was there to vote against the president once again.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he had hoped that the White House would “be willing to work with us” on language Democrats could accept, but “at this stage, he has been very non-negotiable. So we’ll see what happens.”

Other Democrats said they would support the nonbinding March 2008 timetable even though they wanted more.

“I want a deadline not only for commencing the withdrawal of our forces but also completing it rather than a target date,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

“This provision represents a 90-degree change of course from the president’s policy of escalation in the middle of a civil war,” he said, “I’m confident once the withdrawal of our troops begins, there will be no turning back.”

But Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a Republican presidential hopeful, said war critics were proposing a withdrawal “just at the moment we’re starting to turn things around in Iraq.”

Campaigning in Tallahassee, Fla., McCain said he had to get back to Washington, D.C., to vote against “the definite date for surrender act.”

He gave an upbeat assessment of events in Iraq since Bush announced an increase in troops last January, and said, “If we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, it would be the terrorists’ greatest triumph.”

The debate came on legislation that provides $122 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as domestic priorities such relief to hurricane victims and payments to farmers.

A Senate version of the bill with final language can take place as early as Wednesday.

America, we get what we vote for, and being angry because President Bush didn’t support all their pet projects caused a lot of conservatives to stay home. I wonder if they think things are better now from their political point of view.

I feel like I’m living Groundhog Day and it’s in the 70s.

The small growth in Tony Snow’s lower abdomen turned out to be cancer that had metastasized from the original colon cancer to the liver.

The cancer, originally in his colon, has spread to his liver, said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. Snow spoke to President Bush Tuesday morning, who told Snow he and first lady Laura Bush are praying for him.

Bush struck an optimistic tone about Snow’s mood, adding that he looked forward to the day when Snow returns to the White House.

“His attitude is one that he is not going to let this whip him,” Bush said during a brief statement to reporters in the Rose Garden. “My attitude is that we need to pray for him.”

Mr. Snow, who is married with 3 young children, is consulting with his doctors to determine the best course of treatment. He seems to be in good spirits, but it is not really known if he will be able to return to his job as Press Secretary.

Doctors determined that the growth was cancerous, and that his cancer had metastasized, or spread, to his liver, Perino said.

“It is hard news for us,” Perino who broke into tears during her announcement, said in briefing with White House reporters. “President and Mrs. Bush and the whole White House team has him in our prayers.”

Snow will go after the cancer as aggressively as he can, and he’s going to beat it again, Perino said, describing his attitude. She added that he also gave her some instructions to pass on to reporters: “Tell them not to bug me,” and he thanked reporters and others for the well wishes.

“He said he’s going to beat it again,” Perino said. “When I talked to him, he was in very good spirits.”

Please keep Mr. Snow and his family, along with Elizabeth Edwards and her family in your prayers. While you’re at it, remember all the millions of less famous people who are battling cancer and pray for them too.

Others blogging on this topic:
Betsy Newmark of Betsy’s Page
Sister Toldjah
Wizbang
Musing Minds

I appreciate the intentions of Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor, who wants to set a deadline for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq but he wants “only” the President, Congress and Iraqi government to know the date.

Let’s see: that’s 535 members of Congress, including one Muslim Representative from Minnesota, the Iraqi government who are iffy at best and the president, whom I trust we could trust with the secret.

So we actually have a handful of people we could trust with this information and the rest would be blabbermouths.

Sounds like a plan to me. 8-|

In one of the more unusual proposals to emerge in the Senate debate on Iraq withdrawal, Sen. Mark Pryor wants to keep any plans for bringing troops home a secret.

The Arkansas Democrat is a key holdout on his party’s proposal to approve $122 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while setting a goal of March 31, 2008, for winding up military operations in Iraq. Unlike the plan’s Republican opponents, Pryor wants a withdrawal deadline of some kind. He just doesn’t want anyone outside the White House, Congress and the Iraqi government to know what it is.

“My strong preference would be to have a classified plan and a classified timetable that should be shared with Congress,” Pryor said yesterday. A public deadline would tip off the enemy, “who might just bide their time and wait for us to leave,” he said. “Then you’d have chaos and mayhem and instability.”

Pryor said a classified plan would be provided by the president, shepherded by Senate committees and ultimately shared with Congress and Iraqi leaders. He is confident that the plan would remain secret, because Congress is entrusted with secrets “all the time.”

I doubt the secret would stay secret longer than it takes for a member of Congress to call a major newspaper or some traitor in the Iraqi government to spread the word.

How many leaks of top secret information have we seen spread across the front pages of the nation’s major newspapers, enabling the terrorists to adjust for the new plan?

As I said, I appreciate his intentions, but I do think he’s being naive.

What does a child’s perspective teach us about the value of family?

I assure you, unless you turn from your sins and become as little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Matthew 18:3-4 NLT

Wise Childlikeness

Jesus used childlikeness to describe people who are real citizens of the Kingdom of Heave. This proverb begins with the act of repentance (”turn from your sins” and then describes a process with the word become. In fact, the word become is used twice to indicate that this is an ongoing experience of learning and growing.

So what did Jesus find so compelling about childlikeness? He specifically mentioned humility. How are children humble? They exhibit a trusting curiosity. They are full of questions for which they really want answers. Their questions don’t hide an unwillingness to believe. They want to learn! As a child trusts a loving parent, so a citizen in the Kingdom of Heaven deeply trusts the heavenly Father.

From the moment we turn from our sins, we begin the lifelong learning experience of growing in deep trust of our heavenly Father.

WISE WAYS The next chance you get, watch a child playing or talking with a loving parent. Use your observations to think about your relationship with your heavenly Father.

Lord, becoming like a trusting little child in your presence will develop a humility that pleases you. Help me become more childlike..

Australian David Hicks has entered a guilty plea to one of two counts against him, that of supporting a terrorist organization.

He was taken to court late at night and his civilian attorneys were tossed off the case by the presiding judge, one because she was not a serving member of the military and the other because he refused to sign form demanded by the court saying he would conform to the regulations governing proceedings.

David Hicks has pleaded guilty to one count of supporting a terrorist organisation.

He pleaded guilty to a late night specially convened military commission after an apparent deal was reached between his defence attorney and the prosecution.

Major Michael Mori, Hicks’s military lawyer, entered the plea to the charge of material support for terrorism, which was broken into two counts or specifications.

Major Mori said Hicks pled guilty on specification one, and not guilty on specification two.

Specification one of the charge detailed Hicks’s links to terrorist organisations and his activities in Afghanistan where he met Osama bin Laden and completed al-Qaeda training courses.

Specification two simply alleged that Hicks entered Afghanistan from about December 2000 to December 2001 to provide support for terrorism and that he did so in “the context of and was associated with an armed conflict namely al-Qaeda, or its associated forces against the United States or its coalition partners”.

The plea raises the prospect that he will soon return to Australia.

It is unclear what sentence he will have to serve. There was no mention of how long he will have to serve, or if he will serve it in Australia.

The Military Commission will reconvene tomorrow (Tuesday) to enter a formal verdict.

Hicks was asked to stand when he entered his guilty plea. He showed little emotion, but at the end of the hearing he turned around and said to one of his supporters: “Good to see, mate.”

His father is reported to have left Guantanamo Bay before he entered the plea. Terry Hicks was told there was a late night hearing but declined to attend.

Maybe we’ll hear what his sentence is and where it will be served, but if he pled guilty to supporting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and trained with them I would consider him to be a terrorist.

Military justice is not like civilian justice and we must all remember that. We must also remember he pled guilty to one charge and that charge is serious.

According to this report:

Monica Goodling, a senior Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

“The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” said the lawyer, John Dowd.

“One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby,” he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.

The White House, meanwhile, continued to stand by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales despite new calls over the weekend for his resignation and documents that indicate he may have been more involved in the dismissals than he has previously acknowledged.

Democrats have accused the Justice Department and the White House of purging the prosecutors for political reasons. The Bush administration maintains the firings were not improper because U.S. attorneys are political appointees.

…

There have been questions about whether Goodling and others misinformed Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty about the firings just before he testified before the Senate committee in February.

Dowd said that since then a senior Justice Department official had privately told a member of the Senate committee that he was misled by Goodling and others before testifying.

Gonzales’ truthfulness about the firings of seven prosecutors on Dec. 7 and another one months earlier also have been questioned. On March 13 at a news conference, Gonzales denied that he participated in discussions or saw any documents about the firings, despite documents that show he attended a Nov. 27 meeting with senior aides on the topic, where he approved a detailed plan to carry out the dismissals.

Goodling was one of five senior Justice Department aides who met with Gonzales for that Nov. 27 discussion. Department documents released Friday to Capitol Hill show she attended multiple meetings about the dismissals for months.

It sounds like she got good legal advice and if a case is to be built to prosecute her it will have to be done the old-fashioned way.

I just wish this issue would go away. There was no crime committed in firing the US Attorneys. It is perfectly legal for any administration to fire any political appointee at any time for any or no reason.