President talks about WW III

First of all, I appreciate the invitation to post on Mirror on America

There are times when the White House press corps simply gives me chest pain. When President Bush mentioned that “if Iran would get plans for nuclear technology”, someone should’ve asked the following question — “Mr. President, didn’t we give Iran nuclear blueprints?”

“Didn’t we give technical designs to a TBA 480 Russian reactor? ” “Wasn’t the operation to give ‘phony plans’ to the Iranians code-named, MERLIN?” “Wasn’t the whole operation delineated in James Risen’s book, State of War?”

I hate it when the press corp is stupid. I also hate it when the President thinks that we are stupid. I mean this is readily available knowledge. It is in a book about the CIA. The book sold well. Didn’t they read it or get the Cliff Notes?

To sum up, we, the United States, gave the “altered” plans for a nuclear reactor to the Iranians.

The thought was that if we gave them plans then we would know where they were in development of nuclear technology. It was a stupid plan but that’s what happened. This happened in late 2000 or 2001. I’m not blaming the President for the CIA’s thoughtlessness. I’m blaming the president for thinking that we are stupid. Developing plans is not that hard any more. We did it 60 years ago. With modern technology it has to be easier. Getting the materials is the problem.

Video

Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President

Hat Tip: Daily Dish

Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President

Other top tier candidates in both parties win more acceptance; Richardson & Huckabee favored most


While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party’s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.

The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.

Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?
%

Clinton (D)
50%

Kucinich (D)
49%

Gravel (D)
47%

Paul (R)
47%

Brownback (R)
47%

Tancredo (R)
46%

McCain (R)
45%

Hunter (R)
44%

Giuliani (R)
43%

Romney (R)
42%

Edwards (D)
42%

Thompson (R)
41%

Dodd (D)
41%

Biden (D)
40%

Obama (D)
37%

Huckabee (R)
35%

Richardson (D)
34%

Not sure
4%


At the other end of the scale, Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrats Bill Richardson and Barack Obama faired best, as they were least objectionable to likely voters. Richardson was forever objectionable as President to 34%, while 35% said they could never vote for Huckabee and 37% said they would never cast a presidential ballot for Obama, the survey showed.

The Zogby Interactive poll, conducted Oct. 11–15, 2007, included 9,718 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/– 1.0 percentage point.

In a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in March, 46% said they would never vote for Clinton. In that survey, she finished in second place, behind Republican Newt Gingrich, a divisive figure who has since announced he would not seek the presidency and was not included in this new online survey. In that earlier poll, 54% said they would never vote for Gingrich. This recent survey included only the 17 candidates who were at that time running for President in one of the major parties. Former Vice President Al Gore, who like Gingrich was also included in the earlier Zogby survey of who would never win voters’ support for the White House, was excluded from this latest survey because of his insistence that he has no interest in a run for the presidency.

Interest in a Gore candidacy has been rekindled after he recently won the Nobel Prize for peace in connection with his work on the issue of global climate change.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, who announced Friday he would end his campaign, was included in the poll. He might have sensed the nationwide opposition to his campaign, as 47% said they would never vote for him for President. The survey showed he was tied as the third most objectionable candidate, behind Clinton and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (49%). Tied with Brownback was Democrat Michael Gravel, a former Alaska senator, and GOP Congressman Ron Paul.

Opposition to Clinton among Democratic and Republican women revealed mirror opposite attitudes, the Zogby Interactive survey showed. While 83% of Republican women said they would never vote for her, just 17% said they could possibly cast a ballot for her. Among Democratic women, just 17% said they would never vote for Hillary, while 83% said they could.

Democratic women appear smitten by former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois – just 11% said they could never vote for them for President. Republican women, on the other hand, find former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney most attractive – just 14% said they would never vote for him. Tied for a close second was former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who were found to be objectionable by just 15% of Republican women.

For a complete methodological statement on this survey, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1223

This isn't the first poll that says this. So, I don't want to hear anything about Clinton being a 'realistic' choice for President and Obama being an 'idealistic' choice. If you want to talk to me about being ' realistic', don't bring up a candidate who, 13 months out, HALF THE COUNTRY TELLS YOU THEY'LL NEVER VOTE FOR.

If folks told me that they were supporting Edwards because they were being ' realistic', I'd buy that. But realism and choosing someone that HALF the country will never be persuaded to vote for - DO NOT MATCH. Obama might have a ' Bradley Effect', but it would have to be tsunami-sized to catch up to Hillary right now.

Michael Meyers Says Nooses Are No Big Deal

In a recent NPR interview Meyers says that Black folks should just let it go... that the recent rash of nooses is no big deal. According to Meyers, they could all be a practical joke for all we know. He also makes similar comments in a recent editorial.

No... I am not making this up. The head of a New York Civil Rights group (New York Civil Rights Coalition), says that the nooses are just a joke.

He seems to believe that these noose incidents are taking place in a vacuum... with no historical connection or no historical context attached. He seems to ignore Americas history of lynchings. He talks as if the hanging of nooses has no more meaning than random vandalism, such as a TP'd door or tree. It's just a practical joke as far as he's concerned.

He even had the nerve to say "We don't know why people are doing this" (referring to the hanging of a nooses).

Meyers is clearly either losing his mind, or he is having a serious bout of denial.
Now I am not one of these folks who is hysterical about this. I don't believe that the sky is falling. However, I am astute enough to recognize that there is a problem with race relations in this Country and that the noose incidents are- in many cases- a manifestation and representation of deep-seeded racial animosity and intolerance. And I recognize that more needs to be done in terms of improving relations, providing an education and a context to younger generations about lynchings & the significance of these symbols, and making sure that laws are changed and enforced so that those responsible for these kinds of incidents can be dealt with. Yet Michael Meyers, the leader of a Civil Rights organization, can't recognize this? He doesn't recognize that the hanging of a noose amounts to a threat.... and amounts to a hate crime (based on certain facts and the context of the specific incident)? He doesn't recognize that a noose is used as a symbol of terror, designed to intimidate and frighten? His comments were unbelievable. (Link to audio interview provided above).

I was disappointed that News and Notes did not bring on another guest with an opposing viewpoint who was equally as passionate as Meyers. But instead they allowed Meyers to ramble unchallenged. (Julianne Malveaux would have eaten him alive... although I often don't agree with her on a lot of her positions. She should have been on the program).

What exactly has to happen before Michael Meyers is convinced that these incidents are a serious matter? I guess Meyers is saying that the racists have to draw blood from their victims in order to be taken seriously. It's almost as if Meyers is encouraging racists to "get more serious" and to actually carry out their threats.

_________________________________

Related Links

Background On Lynchings

Without Sanctuary

More Background On Lynching

AmericanLynching.com

Duluth Lynchings

Lynching in Texas

Birth Control For Middle Schoolers?

I was a little shocked by a recent report out of Portland Maine, regarding school children and birth control. The report dealt NOT with sex education for Middle Schoolers.... But dealt with issuing Birth Control to them. When I first heard the news flash on the radio, I thought that it must have been a mistake. But the report was indeed accurate. The school district in Portland Maine voted to allow schools to dispense birth control to kids as young as 10 and 11 years old.

What is this World coming to? I know the answer...but I guess I am just bothered by how fast things seem to be going down the tubes. When I was in Middle School in the mid 80's (living in Kansas at the time).... the closest that we ever got to the subject of birth control was a stupid sex education video. And even then, the video was pretty tame and censored compared to today's standards. It didn't get into any serious detail. That presentation came later on in High School, during health class and special assemblies.... presumably when students were old enough to process and handle the information. But that is just sex education... there was not even a thought of issuing birth control to students, not even when I was an upper classman in High School.

So now they are issuing birth control to babies? What message does this send to these young students? It almost seems like a green light to me. And according to the New York Times, these birth control drugs can be issued without Parental consent.

Is this an appropriate age to issue birth control to kids? Keep in mind, this age group hasn't even had proper sex education yet... it's like putting a loaded gun in the hands of someone who isn't trained to handle it... or providing a car to someone who hasn't learned to drive yet....and is too young to have a license.

I'm usually fairly reasonable...and Progressive on many issues... although I do have Conservative moments (perhaps this is one of them). I just think this is one of those times when the government (in this case...a public school system) has stepped out of bounds and into sacred parental territory as it relates to family planning, sex ed, birth control, morals/values, Faith, etc. This is a matter for Parents to handle (at this particular age).

Any thoughts?

Also See Report & Commentary from NPR.

Audio Report Here

At least 110 dead in blasts near Bhutto's convoy in Pakistan

Hat tip: CNN.com:

At least 110 dead in blasts near Bhutto's convoy in Pakistan

KARACHI, Pakistan (CNN) -- Two explosions killed at least 110 people and injured at least 200 Thursday night near a motorcade carrying former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who returned to the country earlier in the day after eight years of self-imposed exile, police sources told CNN.


The chaotic, bloody scene Thursday after two blasts killed at least 110 people in Karachi, Pakistan.

Bhutto and those with her were uninjured, and her companions said she reached her family home safely. Video footage shows her exiting the vehicle after the blasts.

"I can see body parts strewn all over the road," said CNN's Dan Rivers, at the scene. "There are dead bodies everywhere. ... It is a large-scale attack, by the looks of things."

There were conflicting reports on whether there were one or two blasts and whether the bomb was in a car.

Authorities have found what they believe is the body of a suicide bomber, police told Rivers.

"We are still working details, but it seems that there was a suicide bombing there," Tariq Azim Khan, Pakistani information minister, told CNN. "Although the truck that Benazir Bhutto was riding on was surrounded by police cars -- so the suicide bomber could not get onto the truck and could not get anywhere near it, so he blew himself up and that has caused many casualties, mostly among the policemen who were riding beside the truck."

Other officials said at least one bomb apparently had been placed in a car on the street, where Bhutto's supporters had gathered to see her convoy pass. One eyewitness told Rivers he saw a car explode with three people inside.

Video footage from the scene showed the street jammed with emergency vehicles, and injured victims writhing in the middle of the road.

Rivers and his crew were filming the motorcade just before the explosions. They had each noticed there appeared to be little security near the motorcade. That seemed odd, Rivers noted, considering the sizable security risk Bhutto presents. Bhutto's return angered some sectors in Pakistan because she was a female head of state who is perceived as being aligned with the United States.

"We remarked on how lax security was around her," Rivers told Blitzer after the explosions. "We got within touching distance of her vehicle. There was no security around, nobody stopping vehicles getting close to [the motorcade]."


The windshield of the vehicle in which Bhutto was riding was smashed by the blasts, Rivers said, and a vehicle following hers was totally burned out. The scene, he said, was "absolutely horrendous," with blood literally running in streams down the street.

Because the streets were crowded with Bhutto's supporters, who had turned out to greet her, ambulances had difficulty reaching the scene immediately after the blasts. Onlookers resorted to ferrying the injured to hospitals in private cars.

People's Party Leader Qasim Zia, who was riding on Bhutto's truck, told CNN one of his bodyguards was seriously injured.

The blasts confirmed fears of instability linked to Bhutto's return, which came after she reached an agreement with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf allowing her to seek re-election as prime minister. Many were bitterly opposed to that deal.

"This is what everyone feared," Rivers said.

A senior U.S. State Department official in regular contact with Pakistani security forces told CNN that if such a convoy had been in the United States, security officials would have planned safe havens and alternate routes throughout the journey.

However, he said, Pakistani security was unable to do so because of the sheer number of people who turned out.

"We did try to provide the maximum security that was possible and, in fact, that's why the majority of the casualties are among the police and the security forces," Khan told CNN.

Bhutto was provided with bullet-proof vehicles, he said, extra police vehicles and electronic jammers. But "with a very large crowd, obviously, there is no such thing as fool-proof security."

Khan said officials warned Bhutto to delay her return to Pakistan after she made comments about Pakistan working with the United States against terrorism and the Taliban. Bhutto decided not to delay.

"We had all suggested and advised Benazir Bhutto to delay her arrival because there were reports after her comments in Washington; there were reports here in the Pakistani press that some extremist elements were bent on hurting her, because she was seen as coming with an American agenda ... and she had been saying that she might allow Americans to operate from Pakistani soil," he said.

"Those comments were not taken very kindly here, certainly not in the border areas bordering with Afghanistan. And they had issued threats to her life. And she was given friendly advice that she must delay her arrival. But, obviously, she did not pay any attention to that advice," said Khan.

Bhutto told CNN just before returning to her homeland that she was aware of the risks and knew some people wished her harm, but "I'm prepared to take them."

She did, however, tell CNN Wednesday that she wrote Musharraf a letter naming those she feared would make an attempt on her life.

Threats against her, she said, were made by "certain people who have gained a lot through dictatorship. They have presided over the rise of extremism, they have created safe havens in the tribal areas of Pakistan for the Taliban and other militants and they fear my return."

The United States was swift to condemn what it called "terrorist attacks in Karachi during peaceful political demonstrations."

"There is no political cause that can justify the murder of innocent people," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said in a written statement. "Those responsible seek only to foster fear and limit freedom. The United States stands with the people of Pakistan to eliminate terrorist threats, and to build a more open, democratic, and peaceful society."

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "extremists will not be allowed to stop Pakistanis from selecting their representatives through an open and democratic process."


Bhutto had vowed to help return democracy to Pakistan. She ended eight years of self-imposed exile and returned Thursday to her native country, where she was greeted by a massive crowd of supporters.

"I am aware of the threats for my security, and this has been discussed with [President] General Pervez Musharraf," Bhutto told CNN's Syed Mohsin Naqvi Wednesday.

I was afraid something like this might happen. Pakistan is the most dangerous place on Earth right now, and if things go horribly wrong, then it's not inconceivable that some of our terrorist buddies could get their hands on nuclear weapons. We're bogged down in Iraq, and have a lunatic threatening WWIII over Iran, all the while Pakistan - who should be at the top of our concern list - is unraveling.

A Dose of the Great George Benson, and a Little Klugh & Atkins

Benson Taking Five


Earl Klugh & Chet Atkins

Bush Talking Armageddon

Bush has begun talking Armageddon again. Stating that Iran will cause him to set off World War III. This nut wants to hold us all hostage... telling the World that if another sovereign Nation does not do exactly what he says, he is willing to start a 3rd World War. In essence...he wants to hold us at gun point.

And of course the rest of the Country is sleeping on his comments (too busy watching football and driving their SUV's...of which they won't be able to gas up pretty soon because prices will be too damn high. But until then... people will remain in La La Land). Even during the Cold War, American Presidents generally refrained from such talk.

Bush's comments were in direct response to Vladimir Putins warning to the U.S., not to attack Iran. The message was intended for Russian ears, just as much as it was intended for Iran. Of course any war with Iran risks drawing in Russia, Israel and other countries in the region.

Plan Would Ease Limits on Media Owners

Hat tip: Prometheus 6:

Plan Would Ease Limits on Media Owners
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: October 18, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 — The head of the Federal Communications Commission has circulated an ambitious plan to relax the decades-old media ownership rules, including repealing a rule that forbids a company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city.


A proposal from Kevin J. Martin could change media ownership rules in two months.
Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the commission, wants to repeal the rule in the next two months — a plan that, if successful, would be a big victory for some executives of media conglomerates.

Among them are Samuel Zell, the Chicago investor who is seeking to complete a buyout of the Tribune Company, and Rupert Murdoch, who has lobbied against the rule for years so that he can continue controlling both The New York Post and a Fox television station in New York.

The proposal appears to have the support of a majority of the five commission members, agency officials said, although it is not clear that Mr. Martin would proceed with a sweeping deregulatory approach on a vote of 3 to 2 — something his predecessor tried without success. In interviews on Wednesday, the agency’s two Democratic members raised questions about Mr. Martin’s approach.

Mr. Martin said he was striving to reach a consensus with his fellow commissioners, both on the schedule and on the underlying rule changes, although he would not say whether he would move the measures forward if he were able to muster only three votes.

“We’ve had six hearings around the country already; we’ve done numerous studies; we’ve been collecting data for the last 18 months; and the issues have been pending for years,” Mr. Martin said in an interview. “I think it is an appropriate time to begin a discussion to complete this rule-making and complete these media ownership issues.”

Officials said the commission would consider loosening the restrictions on the number of radio and television stations a company could own in the same city.

Currently, a company can own two television stations in the larger markets only if at least one is not among the four largest stations and if there are at least eight local stations. The rules also limit the number of radio stations that a company can own to no more than eight in each of the largest markets.

The deregulatory proposal is likely to put the agency once again at the center of a debate between the media companies, which view the restrictions as anachronistic, and civil rights, labor, religious and other groups that maintain the government has let media conglomerates grow too large.

As advertising increasingly migrates from newspapers to the Internet, the newspaper industry has undergone a wave of upheaval and consolidation. That has put new pressure on regulators to loosen ownership rules. But deregulation in the media is difficult politically, because many Republican and Democratic lawmakers are concerned about news outlets in their districts being too tightly controlled by too few companies.

In recent months, industry executives had all but abandoned the hope that regulators would try to modify the ownership rules in the waning days of the Bush administration.

“This is a big deal because we have way too much concentration of media ownership in the United States,” Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, said at a hearing on Wednesday called to examine the digital transition of the television industry.

Rest of the article is here.

I agree with Senator Dorgan. There is NO WAY that this is remotely a good thing. We have too much ownership in too few hands RIGHT NOW, and not enough diverse voices are heard. There are stories that are not being told because of the corporate influence in media, and the changing of the rules would just make it worse. Call your Senator.

New Documentary - Cheney's Law

New PBS Documentary goes inside of the Bush Administration and provides a look at the issue warrantless eavesdropping, and efforts to increase the power of the Presidency. There was (and still is) an effort to bypass the system of checks and balances and to provide the Executive branch with an almost unchecked and unchallenged authority. One of the driving forces behind this effort has been Dick Cheney.

Watch Documentary "Cheney's Law" from PBS (In 7 segments)

___________________________

Related Posts

Presidential Signing Statements and the Balance of Power

Cheney Ordered Visitor Logs Destroyed

Judge Strikes Down Parts of Patriot Act

Vice President Says He's Not Part of Executive Branch and Therefore Doesn't Have to Abide By Federal Law Covering Presidential Administrations

Cheney Implicated in Valerie Plame Leak