Tag: Government

The White House cannot control the media and whines about it.

This is too damn funny….

The Article: White House takes swipe at NBC News (Via The Hill)

Steve Capus

President, NBC News

30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112

Mr. Capus:

This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush’s actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel’s question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President’s answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.
In the interview, Engel asked the President: "You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless, and then you went further. You said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?"

The President responded: "You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn’t get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you’ve got to take those words seriously. And if you don’t take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn’t take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolf Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon."

This answer makes clear: (1). The President’s remarks before the Knesset were not different from past policy statements, but are now being looked at through a political prism, (2). Corrects the inaccurate premise of Engel’s question by putting the "appeasement" line in the proper context of taking the words of leaders seriously, not "negotiating with Iran," (3). Restates the U.S.’s long-standing policy positions against negotiating with al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, and not allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Engel’s immediate follow-up question was, "Repeatedly you’ve talked about Iran and that you don’t want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?"

The President replied, "You know, Richard, I don’t want to speculate – and there’s a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we’ll continue to rally the world to isolate them."

This response reiterates another long-standing policy, which is that if Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment program the U.S. government would engage in talks with the Iranian government.

NBC’s selective editing of the President’s response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel’s characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it. Furthermore, it omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President’s follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that "negotiating with Iran is pointless" and amounts to "appeasement."

This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President’s responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts.
As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.

On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: "We should mention, we didn’t just wake up on a Monday morning and say, ‘Let’s call this a civil war.’ This took careful deliberation.’"

I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a "civil war." Is it still NBC News’s carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?

Lastly, when the Commerce Department on April 30 released the GDP numbers for the first quarter of 2007, Brian Williams reported it this way: "If you go by the government number, the figure that came out today stops just short of the official declaration of a recession."

The GDP estimate was a positive 0.6% for the first quarter. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless. This followed a slow but growing fourth quarter in 2007. Consequently, even if the first quarter GDP estimate had been negative, it still would not have signaled a recession – neither by the unofficial rule-of-thumb of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, nor the more robust definition by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the group that officially marks the beginnings and ends of business cycles).

Furthermore, never in our nation’s history have we characterized economic conditions as a "recession" with unemployment so low – in fact, when this rate of unemployment was eventually reached in the 1990s, it was hailed as the sign of a strong economy. This rate of unemployment is lower than the average of the past three decades.

Are there numbers besides the "government number" to go by? Is there reason to believe "the government number" is suspect? How does the release of positive economic growth for two consecutive quarters, albeit limited, stop "just short of the official declaration of a recession"?

Mr. Capus, I’m sure you don’t want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network’s viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don’t hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

Sincerely,

Ed Gillespie

Counselor to the President

So, they cannot control the media, like they do over at Fox News and so, they write NBC whining about it. Crying

How immature, stupid, and terribly lame, can you be? Rolling EyesLoser

November cannot come fast enough.

Others agree: JustOneMinute, Marc Ambinder, The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room and Gawker

President Bush, keeping secrets and lying to American in a whole new way….

Welcome to your new America.

The Story: Keeping Secrets: In Presidential Memo, A New Designation for Classifying Information (via washingtonpost.com)

Sometime in the next few years, if a memorandum signed by President Bush this month ever goes into effect, one government official talking to another about information on terrorists will have to begin by saying: "What I am about to tell you is controlled unclassified information enhanced with specified dissemination."

That would mean, according to the memo, that the information requires safeguarding because "the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure would create risk of substantial harm."

Bush’s memorandum, signed on the eve of his daughter Jenna’s wedding, introduced "Controlled Unclassified Information" as a new government category that will replace "Sensitive but Unclassified."

Such information — though it does not merit the well-known national security classifications "confidential," "secret" or "top secret" — is nonetheless "pertinent" to U.S. "national interests" or to "important interests of entities outside the federal government," the memo says.

Hmmmm.. Whatever happened to open and transparent Government? Thinking 

U.S. to build new prison in Afghanistan

I can hear the Liberals whining now….

The Article: U.S. Planning Big New Prison in Afghanistan (Via New York Times)

Quote:

The Pentagon is moving forward with plans to build a new, 40-acre detention complex on the main American military base in Afghanistan, officials said, in a stark acknowledgment that the United States is likely to continue to hold prisoners overseas for years to come.

The proposed detention center would replace the cavernous, makeshift American prison on the Bagram military base north of Kabul, which is now typically packed with about 630 prisoners, compared with the 270 held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Until now, the Bush administration had signaled that it intended to scale back American involvement in detention operations in Afghanistan. It had planned to transfer a large majority of the prisoners to Afghan custody, in an American-financed, high-security prison outside Kabul to be guarded by Afghan soldiers.

The reason why I would say that Liberals will whine about this, is because Bush said he would scale back American involvement in detention centers in Afghanistan. However, if you read the REST of this article. You will see why were having to get involved and stay involved.

Quote:

But American officials now concede that the new Afghan-run prison cannot absorb all the Afghans now detained by the United States, much less the waves of new prisoners from the escalating fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

(Snip!)

Faced with that, American officials said they wanted to replace the Bagram prison, a converted aircraft hangar that still holds some of the decrepit aircraft-repair machinery left by the Soviet troops who occupied the country in the 1980s. In its place the United States will build what officials described as a more modern and humane detention center that would usually accommodate about 600 detainees — or as many as 1,100 in a surge — and cost more than $60 million.

“Our existing theater internment facility is deteriorating,” said Sandra L. Hodgkinson, the senior Pentagon official for detention policy, in a telephone interview. “It was renovated to do a temporary mission. There is a sense that this is the right time to build a new facility.”

American officials also acknowledged that there are serious health risks to detainees and American military personnel who work at the Bagram prison, because of their exposure to heavy metals from the aircraft-repair machinery and asbestos.

“It’s just not suitable,” another Pentagon official said. “At some point, you have to say, ‘That’s it. This place was not made to keep people there indefinitely.’ ”

That point came about six months ago. It became clear to Pentagon officials that the original plan of releasing some Afghan prisoners outright and transferring other detainees to Afghan custody would not come close to emptying the existing detention center.

You see, this is not being done, so that the American Government can keep us in that country forever, as Liberals like Keith Olbermann and his hyperventilating special comments want us to believe. They’re doing this out of a human concern for Prisoners housed there, Yes, my friends, the United States is still a caring Country, that cares for the well-being of people, even those who would want to kill us.

I am writing this to prove a point, that even if President George W. Bush is an idiot, and Yes, I do believe that he is not the brightest bulb in the box, there are people still working in the United States Government, that do still possess a great deal of intelligence and still have the morals and integrity that this Nation is known for.

The New York Times’s Liberal bias aside, the article is quite informative as to the real conditions on the ground in Afghanistan. I suggest you read it.

The Republicans Pity Party

The Republicans are doing what the Democrats did in 2004 and 2000, navel grazing and hand wringing.

As I have said previously on this Blog. The Republicans have no one to blame for abject failure their party, for the departure of their principles of old, for the Christianizing of their party, for the election of a Rockefeller type of Conservative President, which has plunged this country into a Pit that will take years to recover from, but themselves.

Hopefully this will be a wake up call to the party and they’ll wake and smell the coffee and realize the error of their ways and they will return to their principles.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Hezbollah Spy gets off with a Gets $750 Fine, no jail time…

Interesting….

Debbie Schlussel has more, as do others.

I’ve noticed over at said Blogs that the comparison between this and the Compean and Ramos situation. There’s only one problem. There is no comparison.

The facts are this, Compean and Ramos engaged in the shooting of an unarmed, fleeing suspect, destroying evidence, and engaged in a cover-up, and they were prosecuted for it. Which I think is a good thing. There is a thing in this country, called the rule of law, and if you break it, you go to jail.

Much of the Internet coverage surrounding these two guys is given by Conservatives and some Nationalists. Much of which is mired in Racism.

I am all for the stopping illegal immigration, but for it to be done in a lawful manner. Not in a manner such as these two guys did.

I am sure there are two sides to every story, as I am sure there is here. But something doesn’t smell right with the supporters side of it.

Charges dropped against "20'th" 9/11 Hijacker

Go read.

Fester over at NewsHoggers, put’s it better than I ever could.

This amazing lack of faith in American institutions still astounds be
at times coming from such dime story patriots and nationalistic tinged
messaging machines. America ‘s restraint and faith in the rule of law
is a strength and not a weakness. Today torture is an embarrassment
whose stain can not be easily removed even as it lessens our
credibility, legitimacy and moral orientation. Grow some balls
America, and believe in your principals again.

Amen.

I hate to tell Media Matters for America this, But……

That is what the majority of America is thinking….

Here’s the Video and Transcript: (via Media Matters for America)

Full Transcript:

From the May 12 edition of ABC Radio Networks’ Imus in the Morning:

DIETL: Well, I got real a problem with the president, the former president. You know, this weekend, I go to gas up my car, my M6, the BMW. Uses a lot of gas, we all agree with that. It’s 510 horsepower.

IMUS: Sure.

DIETL: Four dollars and fifty cents for the high test now. Now, I did a little investigation through the whole — you know, through the whole weekend there to find out really where it lies. And I got a problem with President Bush the father, my friend. I got a problem with this guy sitting across from me, Bill Clinton, and Fredo over here. We all — Fredo, the president, the current, sitting president, with those stupid faces that he makes. There was tornadoes in the Midwest, and he’s making a press conference with his wife sitting there. He’s making these stupid —

IMUS: This is your guy.

DIETL: He’s — nobody’s my guy.

IMUS: No, he was your guy —

DIETL: Nobody’s my guy.

IMUS: No, no. He was your guy when he ran.

DIETL: Here’s what I call out to the Senate majority —

IMUS: I did not vote for him. You did.

DIETL: Senate majority —

IMUS: Did you vote for him? Did you vote for him?

DIETL: Yes. Yes, I did.

IMUS: OK.

DIETL: People make mistakes.

IMUS: Well, yeah. You made a big mistake. You voted for him twice.

DIETL: Well, I made a few big mistakes when I didn’t invest my money into oil and gold.

IMUS: True.

DIETL: OK. But my point is, there should be a congressional investigation. One, into all these former presidents. What kind of money is being influxitated [sic] into their libaries [sic]? I’m talking about this guy sitting across from me, Bill Clinton. They have hundreds of millions of dollars that were pumped in there from these Aba Daba Doos over there in the Middle East, controlling the oil. Right now in the Middle East, you’ve got Saudi Arabia, who’s got their finger. Why doesn’t Fredo get on his Air Force One, fly over to Riyadh, get those little hamel [sic] humpers over there, sit ’em down, and say, "Look, we got our F-16s –"

IMUS: It’s, uh, "camel humpers."

DIETL: "We got our F-16s guarding you against Iran. We saved you from Saddam Hussein. We’re going to move all our troops out of here and leave you to defend your own country." ‘Cause you know what? They couldn’t do it. ‘Cause all they do is pick their nose and eat their boogies, and that’s the end of it. That’s all they do.

BERNARD McGUIRK (executive producer): Hey, oh.

DIETL: I’ve been there.

IMUS: Hey, calm down here a minute. We’re trying to have breakfast.

DIETL: All right. ‘Cause this aggravates me. We protect Saudi Arabia.

IMUS: [unintelligible] to be eating your boogers. [unintelligible]

DIETL: Saudi Arabia controls the oil flow.

IMUS: That is disgusting.

DIETL: And right now, people are starving.

IMUS: Why are you hollering?

DIETL: Families can’t put their kids into their SUVs and take them to school because the gas is so expensive.

IMUS: Here’s what’s happening now. People’s houses are being foreclosed on.

DIETL: Right.

IMUS: So they put their furniture in storage. Then they can’t pay the storage bill, so they’re losing that.

DIETL: Right. Now, America that listens to you, Don, and everyone’s ears are out there today. I want people to realize and understand, these former presidents and the current president now have a relationship with Saudi Arabia that they should go over there to — President Bush, my friend there, the cowboy, should hop on his plane and go over there, sit down with the ministers and say, "Here’s the way it’s going to be. We’re pulling out all our men over there protecting you."

You go now — you go to the next stop, Dubai. Do you know what’s going on in Dubai now? Twenty-five percent of the cranes in the world are in Dubai. You got Philippine workers dying two a day, construction workers are dying two a day. They can’t put up a building fast enough. They got three buildings programmed that’ll be double the size of the former World Trade Center. They’re building islands. They’re building man-made islands.

You know what is there? I’ll tell you what’s there. A bunch of hookers from Russia and all over there.

IMUS: Yeah, well —

DIETL: It’s a playground for —

IMUS: I wouldn’t bring that up if I were you.

DIETL: It’s a playground for all these people who are pumping all the oil out of the ground, making all this money. Our Americans dying defending them over in Iraq, and they stand around there [imitates ululation]. They go running around, hopping on their private planes, hopping on their camels.

The Congress should be getting involved with this. Where is the senators and where is the congressmen to step up and step on Saudi Arabia and stop with my fuel pump? ‘Cause I got people that can’t drive their cars.

And I ran for Congress back in ’86. I wish I would’ve won. ‘Cause I would be there in Congress slapping people around, saying, "How much money? You want to take a trip over to Saudi Arabia?"

IMUS: You would’ve made — you’d have made Vito — what’s that guy’s name, Bernie?

DIETL: I like Vito Fossella.

McGUIRK: Fossella.

IMUS: You would’ve made Vito Fossella look like a Boy Scout.

DIETL: Guy made a little mistake. Guy made a little mistake. We all make little mistakes in our lives.

The "Boogies" joke aside, I hate to break it to David Brock and the rest of the crew over at Media Matters for America, but, this is what the majority of America is thinking right about now. I, for one, cannot afford to drive my car, much anywhere at all, either.

I am fully aware that the Arab slam was offensive, but Christ Almighty man, the guy is right. I think he should be applauded for telling the damn truth, if anything at all.

Smooth Move Juan McSame

Boy, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Doh

Seems ol’ Juan McSame’s choice to manage the GOP convention this summer is lobbyist Doug Goodyear, whose firm once represented Burma’s repressive regime.

Since this came out, he has resigned, but gee wiz already, do these Republican know anything other than sleaze?

You see now, why I will never, ever, vote Republican? Rolling Eyes

This is why we need this guy in there:

He’s getting my vote in November. I don’t care if he wins or not, what I do care about is, if my vote doesn’t go for a Marxist or a Continuation of George W. Bush and his idiotic policies.