They didn't-- they just can't mention about it (and if they went in a week earlier none of this would have been an issue)-- based on stuff my wife works on and people she has worked with (some of them initial Navy Seals insertion teams) -- and stories she has heard (some of them literally watching tailights go over the border, as the planes were coming in),- some stories just cant be told, but things have to be done.
And directly from someone who was in the initial security breifing with Obama-- the man literally turned white when they told him some of the actual details of things going on- that's why the backtrack on his bring everyone home stance.....
To be honest- -I never served in the military-- (but most of my older family members did and several of my friends did as well-- and I was pretty much have the same belief in those matters as my family that we have discussed) I would much rather them fight over there where they are prepared for it and on someone elses soil than take the war to our own country-- however-- I am for providing them the best to do what they need to do, and personally I think we need to rewrite our Rules of Engagement over there-- as some of the stories I have heard from commanding officers and returning vets is downright scary- both in our training and in our responses to threats.. Like someone calling the CP to ask if they had permission to fire at someone crawling through the wire at dark- even though they hadnt been fired on directly yet..

Batman.

I'm more of a law and order kinda guy.

See, now here I was thinking we were in a democratic Republic...

Plus hes rich-- and part of the 1%

There would be no Occupy in Gotham if Poision Ivy was around..

Cool, I'm trying to perfect my imitation of Mark Hammil Joker voice!

Rules of engagement are insane as are rules of war. The only rule should be kill everyone on the opposite side. Romans had the right idea.

Yea, yea.. Nobody likes a smart ass - - - Except here!

Ya got me!

I'm for scorched earth myself-- but then all the democrats would just demand we pay that country restitiution and ....what about the children .

If the whole country disappears off the map - we dont have to worry about it-- let it be like Oklahoma first opening to all the surrounding countries after we leave.........

Hey, I'm a liberal democrat and I agree with you about scorched earth and I have no intention of reparations for what we inflicted. Days of the Marshall Plan are over, baby!

We come in. We gut you like a fish. We leave. Period.

THIS.

And then some.

Here are just the most recent attempts of the GOP to effectively destroy Social Security.

•2005: President Bush launched a major White House initiative, led by none other than Karl Rove, to privatize Social Security. After a massive outcry and campaign by Democrats to stop the GOP plan to privatize Social Security, public disapproval of the president’s handling of the issue rose to 64 percent. The GOP plan was finally abandoned only after the Bush administration’s botched handling of Hurricane Katrina permanently derailed his administration.
•2010: A ThinkProgress report documented at least 104 Republicans in the last Congress who still wanted to privatize Social Social Security, even after the financial collapse of 2008 underscored how dangerous a move that would be.
•June 2011: Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), who leads the House GOP’s election efforts, introduces a new bill to privatize Social Security. Other leading Republicans, including Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), who would later serve as the GOP co-chair of the Super Committee, take to calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.”
•July 2011: Some 229 House Republicans and 46 Senate Republicans vote for a radical budget plan that would result in massive cuts to Social Security (along with Medicare, Medicaid, and anything else the government spends money on).
The President’s Payroll Tax Cut Plan Will Not Harm Social Security. Period.

The long and short of the GOP argument is that by cutting the payroll tax that funds Social Security, we are undermining the solvency of Social Security. That would be true, except for the fact that the plan explicitly replaces every cent of the payroll tax cut with funds from the government’s general fund. And Democrats even pay for their plan by asking millionaires to pay a small surtax, meaning that the general funds replacing the payroll tax would also not add to the deficit. Republicans have of course rejected this plan.

Today, Social Security’s actuary wrote a letter confirming that the payroll tax cut plan would have no impact on Social Security:

The blessing is being used by supporters of the tax holiday to try to convince members worried it weakens Social Security. That perception is especially strong in the House GOP conference.

Actuary Stephen Goss sent a Tuesday letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Budget Director Jack Lew giving his thumbs up.

“We estimate that the enactment of this bill would have a negligible effect on the financial status of the Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program in both the near term and the long term. We estimate that the projected level of the OASI and DI Trust Funds would be unaffected by enactment of this provision,” the letter states.

The letter notes that the 3.1-percent rate reduction in payroll taxes collected from employees is offset by a transfer of funds from the general Treasury.

As Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), the Senate sponsor of the plan, noted, this pretty much destroys the GOP’s latest bogus excuse to not support the payroll tax cut extension and expansion:

Those who would oppose my legislation now have one less excuse to block this much needed boost for the vast majority of Americans.

IN TWO SENTENCES: While Republicans claim to be the protectors Social Security, they are actually the ones that are constantly looking for ways to privatize, cut, or otherwise destroy the program. It seems Republicans will try and come up with any excuse they can to justify their willingness to raise taxes on 160 MILLION working Americans in order to protect just 345,000 millionaires from having to pay their fair share.

Social Security is a joke.

I'm never going to see it, and neither is anybody else under 40. There simply aren't enough young workers to support the oncoming Baby Boomer onslaught of retirees.

I wish I could privitize my SS withholding! I'd do it in a heartbeat! Heck, keep what I've put in so far, just let me take the rest of what I earn and invest it how I see fit.

They're going to have to increase the retirement age to 75 in order to even start to make a dent in the shortfall.

So, on this issue, I've gotta say "Go Republicans!"

Power plants are thirsty.
Take the average amount of water flowing over Niagara Falls in a minute. Now triple it. That’s almost how much water power plants in the United States take in for cooling each minute, on average.

In 2005, the nation’s thermoelectric power plants—which boil water to create steam, which in turn drives turbines to produce electricity—withdrew as much water as farms did, and more than four times as much as all U.S. residences.

It requires more water, on average, to generate the electricity that lights our rooms, powers our computers and TVs, and runs our household appliances, than the total amount of water we use in our homes for everyday tasks—washing dishes and clothes, showering, flushing toilets, and watering lawns and gardens.

Technology choices matter.

In the short run, our choices for what kind of power plants we build can contribute to freshwater supply stress—by committing an imbalanced share of the available water to power plant use—and can affect water quality, by increasing water temperatures to levels that harm local ecosystems, for example.


Power plants across the country contribute to water stress.
This tremendous volume of water has to come from somewhere. Across the country, water demand from power plants is combining with pressure from growing populations and other needs, and is straining our water resources—especially during droughts and heat waves.

For example, the 2011 drought in Texas created tension among farmers, cities, and power plants across the state. At least one plant had to cut its output, and some plants had to pipe in water from new sources.

The state power authority warned that several thousand megawatts of electrical capacity might go offline if the drought persists into 2012.

Analysis to help make water-smart energy choices.
This report—the first on power plant water use and related water stress from the Energy and Water in a Warming World initiative—is the first systematic assessment of both the effects of power plant cooling on water resources across the United States, and the quality of information available to help public- and private-sector decision makers make water-smart energy choices.

In this report, we examine both the withdrawal and consumption of freshwater.

Withdrawal is the total amount of water a power plant takes in from a source such as a river, lake, or aquifer, some of which is returned. Withdrawal is important for several reasons: water intake systems can trap fish and other aquatic wildlife; water withdrawn for cooling but not consumed returns to the environment at a higher temperature, potentially harming fish and other wildlife; and when power plants tap groundwater for cooling, they can deplete aquifers critical for meeting many different needs. Power plants that use once-through cooling technology tend to have high rates of withdrawal.

Consumption is the amount of water lost to evaporation during the cooling process. Consumption is important because it, too, reduces the amount of water available for other uses, including sustaining ecosystems. Plants that use recirculating cooling technology tend to have lower rates of water withdrawal, but consume much of that water through evaporation.

Over a longer time frame, those choices can fuel climate change, which in turn affects water quantity—through drought and other extreme weather events—and quality, by raising the temperature of lakes, streams, and rivers.

Population growth and rising demand for water also promise to worsen water stress in many regions of the country already under stress from power plant and other uses.

The power plant portfolios of U.S. companies have widely varying water-use and carbon profiles. Utilities with lower-water plants place less stress on local water sources. Utilities with carbon intensive power plants contribute to long-term water stress by exacerbating climate change.

Data gaps and inaccuracies underestimate water stress.
Collisions and near-misses between energy and water needs point to the importance of accurate, up-to-date information on power plant water demand.

Our analysis, however, reveals a number of gaps and apparent inaccuracies in federal data reported for 2008. As a result, analyses based on that information would have overlooked regions facing water stress

Averting energy-water collisions requires that power plant operators regularly report accurate information on their water use to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and state agencies. The EIA has been working to improve such reporting, to better meet the needs of public- and private-sector decision makers. The agency may therefore remedy many of the problems we identified with the 2008 data shortly.

However, providing better information is only the first critical step. Decision makers must then put that information—coupled with sound analyses of water stress—to work in curbing electricity’s thirst, especially in water-stressed regions. Our analysis provides a strong initial basis for making water-smart energy choices.

Power plants are designed to last for decades, and much of our existing infrastructure will continue operating for years. As such, our nation’s precious freshwater resources will face ever more stress. The typically high cost of retrofitting power plants means that decisions on the water impact of today’s plants should consider the risks they pose to freshwater resources and energy reliability throughout their expected lifetime.

Decisions made today about which power plants to build, which to retire, and which energy or cooling technologies to deploy and develop matter.
Understanding how these choices affect water use and water stress will help ensure that the dependence of power plants on water does not compromise that resource, the plants themselves, or the energy we rely on them to provide.

I don't know if you're in the same Phoenix I'm in, but there is NO shortage of offspring out here. Find me a couple out here (and I don't mean just Mexicans and/or Catholics, I mean NO ONE knows what a condom is) that has less that 6 kids, and I'll show you a transplant from California or somone with radiation poisoning in his balls. If there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that if the human species survives itself, there'll be plenty of young workers to mop up the mess. Seriously, Phoenix, get a f***ing vasectomy. There's a Safeway down the road that has condoms on thier clearance rack! I'm not joking. Like they've gone unsold for so long they're about to EXPIRE! There's almost as many new people here as there are old people.

I'm going to start referring to this area as "upstream", because it's where people go to breed and die.

Anyhow, as long as the greedy politcians don't just start using social security as an extra bank account (any more than they already are), I'd say it's pretty safe. The issue with social security is not whether there'll be anybody to pay into it, it's that everyone lives WAAAAAAY longer than they should be living nowadays. If you start getting ss at age 65 and you're strong enough and healthy enough to hit 100, well, good on ya, mate, you're one in a million. However, what's more likely is that you're 90, you've been drawing social security since you were 65, and it goes to pay someone to roll you around in your wheelchair, help you adjust your oxygen tank tubes, wipe up the urine trail you leave in the aisle at k-mart, pick up your 70 medications that you need just to stay alive, which then get dumped into the water supply and negatively affects us all, and goes into your gas tank of your gigantic car you cant see out of and drive 20 miles an hour on the interstate.

I'd much rathe r they just paid everyone back what they've already paid in and let me keep my own damn money to use to buy spermicide and old people repellent.

You do know that you're in Mormon Town, right? The West Valley has the highest growth rate of LDS outside of Utah. Having kids is a mandate of their religion. The more you have, the more holy you are!

Add in the Catholics (of both the legal and illegal varieties) and you are correct. However, that is not the case nationwide. But I do agree with you conclusion.