Tag Archives: foreign-policy

Christiane Amanpour Gushes to Hillary: Was Daughter’s Wedding as Tough as Peace in the Middle East?

Posted on September 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

This Week anchor Christiane Amanpour appeared on Thursday’s Good Morning America and offered a softball question to Hillary Clinton about her daughter’s wedding. After discussing Middle East peace, Amanpour gushed, “And of all of the things you have undertaken over the last several months, was your daughter’s wedding- where does that fit in there? And hard? Difficult?” The ABC host was previewing a longer interview scheduled for Sunday’s edition of This Week. GMA co-host Robin Roberts cheered, “From the politicians hoping to make history in November, to one politician trying to make history right now.” Amanpour has a history of lauding Clinton. On May 14, 1999 , the journalist complimented the “dignity” the then-First Lady showed during the Monica Lewinsky scandal: “A lot of the women that I meet from traveling overseas are very impressed by you and admire your dignity. A lot of the people you meet are people who suffered, people you saw today, and who believe that they identify with you because they have seen you suffer. And in a speech in Africa last year, you spoke about living for hope and reconciliation, living for forgiveness and reconstruction, and living for a new life – have you been able to apply that to your own circumstances? Have you been able to forgive your husband?” — CNN’s Christiane Amanpour to Hillary Clinton in Macedonia after a tour of refugee camps, May 14, 1999. For the full interview with the Secretary of State, see Sunday’s This Week. To read the MRC’s Profile in Bias on Amanpour, go here . A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:11am EDT, follows: ROBIN ROBERTS: From the politicians hoping to make history in November, to one politician trying to make history right now. Hillary Clinton is in Israel this morning, attempting to broker a landmark peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. And that’s where Christiane Amanpour sat down with the secretary of state for an exclusive interview. Did this just a short time ago. Christiane, so good of you to join us this morning from Jerusalem. And is Hillary Clinton making any progress? CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Good morning, Robin. She says yes. All the officials say yes, including the participants, Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. Apparently they’ve gotten down to core issues already. And they’re doing that in a serious way. But, the huge ten-ton elephant in the room is the looming end to Israel’s moratorium on settlement building. I asked Secretary Clinton if there’s any progress, any flexibility towards keeping the moratorium on? She wouldn’t go into specifics, other than to say the two sides must stay at the table. There is this moratorium that’s looming on the horizon. Are the talks going in a constructive way? HILLARY CLINTON: Yes. I would say they’re in a constructive channel. And that has been, you know, very reassuring to us. AMANPOUR: President Obama has said that given the talks going in a constructive way, there should be- Israel should continue the moratorium on settlements. Do you believe that will happen? CLINTON: Well, that certainly is our hope. Now, we’ve also said that we’ll support an agreement that is reached between the parties. It took a lot of political capital for Prime Minister Netanyahu to achieve this moratorium. It had never been done before. At the same time, it’s been in effect for the time it was set for. And the talks are just starting. So, we are working hard to make sure there remains a conducive atmosphere to constructive talks. AMANPOUR: While nobody will confirm exactly what might be flexibility, we’re hearing that there may be an extension or there may be calls or an extension of the moratorium for about three months or so. In addition, Secretary Clinton is now on her way to Jordan, where she will meet with other Arab leaders, such as King Abdullah of Jordan on this issue, Robin. ROBERTS: But, back here at home, a lot of talk about the Tea Party. I know you asked the secretary about that, too. AMANPOUR: I did. She refused to talk politics. She said, “I’m not in that anymore.” But she did say, when asked how would some of these candidates, if they become senators or representatives, affect U.S. foreign policy, this is what she had to say. Is it possible to have the President’s foreign policy agenda, you know, furthered, even if a lot of Tea Party candidates do end up being the candidate [sic]? CLINTON: Well, I’ve seen a lot of people run for office and say a lot of things. And then, when they have the burden of holding office and the responsibility that goes with it, I’ve seen them become very sobered very quickly about the challenges that we face domestically and internationally. You know, nobody said it better than Mario Cuomo when he said, “You campaign in poetry and govern in prose.” And, you know, sometimes the poetry can get hot and a little over the top. But the prose brings you down to earth. AMANPOUR: And of all of the things you have undertaken over the last several months, was your daughter’s wedding- where does that fit in there? And hard? Difficult? CLINTON: It was the most wonderful experience. But, as I confessed leading up to it, it was stressful. I think being a mother of the bride is stressful under any circumstances. Doing it long-distance, jet lagged, on planes, in the midst of diplomatic negotiations, made it a little more so. AMANPOUR: Now, negotiators are still, now talking about another meeting for when to get the principals together. We don’t know when that will be. But we know it will be soon. ROBERTS: I know you had a wide-ranging conversation with the secretary. Christiane, thank you so much. Safe travels. We’ll see you soon. And Christiane will have much more on her conversation with the secretary. And also is going to sit down with the Iranian President, Ahmadinejad. And you’ll see it all on This Week, Sunday morning. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, I think doing the seating at that wedding would rival putting together Middle East peace. ROBERTS: I think she’s on to something there.

Read more:
Christiane Amanpour Gushes to Hillary: Was Daughter’s Wedding as Tough as Peace in the Middle East?

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Terrorists hate America: Koran burning a drop in the bucket

Posted on September 12, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

(Article has many links to mentioned people places and events. Link back to original article to read them) President Obama in warning against the Florida pastor’s plan to burn the Koran stated, “This is a recruitment bonanza for al Qaeda. You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities.” It’s funny how B.O. (or his predecessor) never cited past American government policies as being a recruitment bonanza for al Qaeda. Only a handful of misguided activists at the Florida church using their own property and their privately acquired copies of the Koran have such an effect in the President’s view. Here is a partial list of the past as well as some on-going American foreign policy interventions that – by official standards – have had no influence in empowering al Qaeda: 1. The combined British/American overthrow of the democratically elected head of government in Iran in 1953, replacing him with the hated Shah and his secret police who the U.S. trained to murder thousands of Iranians. 2. In 1987 the U.S. militarily supported Saddam Hussein in the Iraqi war with Iran. 3. In 1988 the U.S. ship Vincennes, stationed in the Persian Gulf, shot down a commercial jetliner, killing 290 Iranian civilians. 4. After the Gulf War, the U.S. led an embargo against Iraq, allowing no humanitarian or medical aid. The results, according to UN estimates: 10,000 Iraqi deaths per month with the toll including more than 300,000 children. Then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright when asked said it was “worth it.” Albright never retracted her statement nor was it ever repudiated by an American president. 5. In 1998 President Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan. A number of totally innocent civilians were killed. 6. European armies, rather than native peoples, drew many of the borders in North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and southwest Asia. 7. The Saudi government, the Kuwaiti government, and the Afghani government are actively supported with foreign aid by the U.S. despite the fact that they routinely oppress their people. 8. The war in Iraq since 2003 that has resulted in a minimum of 97,000 civilian deaths as well as the displacement of more than a million civilians. 9. The war in Afghanistan since 2001 that has resulted in a minimum of 6,000 civilian deaths. 10. Predator strikes in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. But, again according to the official bi-partisan view, none of these actions have caused blowback against Americans or Europeans. Finally, we know what the CIA meant when it coined the term “blowback” – hostility over Koran burning. Also, we now know what Noam Chomsky, 9-11; Rick Maybury, The Thousand Year War; Robin Wright, Sacred Rage; and Chalmers Johnson, Blowback must have had in mind when the penned their works. It’s refreshing to know that Koran burning is the provocation that incites the Islamic world and is the only thing we have to end to protect Americans from more terrorism – our imperialistic foreign policy, now under Barack Obama, can continue without any consequence whatsoever. September 11, 2010 added by: Elevator

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Judith Miller Smacks Down Alan Colmes For Saying 9/11 Shouldn’t Be Commemorated

Posted on September 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Alan Colmes on the ninth anniversary of 9/11 said America shouldn’t commemorate these attacks every year, and was nicely smacked down by Judith Miller for his smarmy efforts. Discussing the anniversary coverage on “Fox News Watch,” Colmes said, “Every 9/11 it’s become like a national day of remembrance, which I understand from an emotional standpoint, but I wonder if it’s such a good idea that every year we make such a big deal on the media of it being 9/11.”   Miller shot back, “The reason you do it is to remember why we have the counter-terrorism policies we have…We need to be reminded why we’re doing this.”   Colmes pathetically replied, “9/11 should not be revered as some kind of national almost holiday.” “It’s not revered. It’s commemorated,” said Miller (video follows with transcript and commentary):  ALAN COLMES: The set up to your question I have an issue with which is that the media actually does focus on 9/11. Every 9/11 it’s become like a national day of remembrance, which I understand from an emotional standpoint, but I wonder if it’s such a good idea that every year we make such a big deal on the media of it being 9/11. The terrorists, those who would like to attack us, and those who already have attacked us, must go, “See, they’re commemorating us again.” I’m not sure that this contingent every single year on 9/11 is such a good idea. JUDITH MILLER: I think it’s a really difficult call, but I don’t see how this country cannot do it, and wait until next year, wait until the tenth. But we must remember. The reason you do it is to remember why we have the counter-terrorism policies we have. Remember why we’re spending the money… COLMES: That’s not something just for 9/11, though. I think we need to remember that all the time. MILLER: We have ADD as a nation. We need to be reminded why we’re doing this. COLMES: 9/11 should not be revered as some kind of national almost holiday… MILLER: It’s not revered. It’s commemorated. COLMES: …because the terrorists I’m sure are saying, “Look, they are remembering what we did.” Although I loved Miller’s smack down, it would have been nice to see someone challenge Colmes further concerning his pathetic position. After all, he certainly isn’t opposed to 9/11 commemorations out of concern that terrorists enjoy them. Instead, like so many liberal media members, Colmes wishes America would totally forget 9/11 so we can leave Iraq, leave Afghanistan, and stop concerning ourselves with the war on terrorism. To people like Colmes, any reference to 9/11 or terrorism undermines their dovish view of foreign policy and national security.   Beyond this, what likely most bothered Colmes about this year’s commemorations was that they increased the resolve of folks opposed to the building of the Ground Zero mosque.  Liberal media members across the fruited plain must be hating these commemorations occurring in the middle of the controversy surrounding this Islamic center, for they might increase the likelihood this project will be cancelled.  For folks like Colmes, that would represent a terrible defeat. 

Visit link:
Judith Miller Smacks Down Alan Colmes For Saying 9/11 Shouldn’t Be Commemorated

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Ted Koppel Toasts America-Goading Genius of Osama bin Laden on 9/11 Weekend

Posted on September 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Former ABC Nightline anchor Ted Koppel may have taken his pomposity off-camera, but it certainly remains. In a gassy op-ed for Sunday’s Washington Post , Koppel announced that that “canny tactician” Osama bin Laden has won the War on Terror by pressing America into a series of wild overreactions. He began: The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, succeeded far beyond anything Osama bin Laden could possibly have envisioned. This is not just because they resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths, nor only because they struck at the heart of American financial and military power. Those outcomes were only the bait; it would remain for the United States to spring the trap. The goal of any organized terrorist attack is to goad a vastly more powerful enemy into an excessive response. And over the past nine years, the United States has blundered into the 9/11 snare with one overreaction after another . Bin Laden deserves to be the object of our hostility, national anguish and contempt, and he deserves to be taken seriously as a canny tactician. But much of what he has achieved we have done, and continue to do, to ourselves. Bin Laden does not deserve that we, even inadvertently, fulfill so many of his unimagined dreams. It’s important to remember that Koppel was not a measured critic of Bush foreign policy. Before the Iraq War, as Brent Bozell noted, he devoted a show to conspiratorial anti-Bush cranks who compared neoconservatives to Nazis and alleged that America was bent on global domination:  He began with a Scottish newspaper, the Glasgow Sunday Herald, breathlessly announcing a “secret blueprint for U.S. global domination” that included Iraq. But then, he added, “a similar, if slightly more hysterical version” from the Moscow Times claimed “Not since Mein Kampf has a geopolitical punch been so blatantly telegraphed, years ahead of the blow.” Koppel added: “Take away the somewhat hyperbolic references to conspiracy, however, and you’re left with a story that has the additional advantage of being true.” Bozell also reported Koppel also was quick to lie about how the Reagan administration was behind Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction:  Koppel set the tone for the meeting by undermining America’s moral authority: “There’s a sardonic two-liner making the rounds in Washington these days: ‘‘How do we know that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons? We have the receipts.’ Nasty, but there’s an element of truth to it.” He added “there wasn’t a great deal of outrage from the Reagan-Bush White House” when Saddam gassed his own people in 1988. That’s misleading. President Reagan condemned it, Secretary of State George Shultz condemned it. What we forget is that the media barely covered it at that time , making our lack of memory easy to exploit. They didn’t have “a great deal of outrage,” either. Koppel is still slashing conservative foreign policy for leading to an “existential nightmare” based on “unsubstantiated assumptions.” (That’s funny: Koppel’s whole embarrassing attempt to push the conspiracy theory that the 1980 Reagan campaign delayed the release of U.S. hostages was a series of “unsubstantiated assumptions,” but he put them on the air anyway, just like a reckless partisan.) Koppel even attacked himself for liberals and media stars offering “flaccid opposition” to the war:  But the insidious thing about terrorism is that there is no such thing as absolute security. Each incident provokes the contemplation of something worse to come. The Bush administration convinced itself that the minds that conspired to turn passenger jets into ballistic missiles might discover the means to arm such “missiles” with chemical, biological or nuclear payloads. This became the existential nightmare that led, in short order, to a progression of unsubstantiated assumptions: that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons; that there was a connection between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda. Bin Laden had nothing to do with fostering these misconceptions. None of this had any real connection to 9/11. There was no group known as “al-Qaeda in Iraq” at that time. But the political climate of the moment overcame whatever flaccid opposition there was to invading Iraq , and the United States marched into a second theater of war, one that would prove far more intractable and painful and draining than its supporters had envisioned. Koppel sneered that perhaps Osama bin Laden had more foresight than our disastrous American architects of war, and even today, we are “so absorbed in our own fury and so oblivious to our enemy’s intentions” that we still haven’t absorbed the wisdom of Ted Koppel and all his liberal foreign-policy buddies like John Kerry:  Perhaps bin Laden foresaw some of these outcomes when he launched his 9/11 operation from Taliban-secured bases in Afghanistan. Since nations targeted by terrorist groups routinely abandon some of their cherished principles, he may also have foreseen something along the lines of Abu Ghraib, “black sites,” extraordinary rendition and even the prison at Guantanamo Bay. But in these and many other developments, bin Laden needed our unwitting collaboration, and we have provided it — more than $1 trillion spent on two wars, more than 5,000 of our troops killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans dead. Our military so overstretched that one of the few growth industries in our battered economy is the firms that provide private contractors, for everything from interrogation to security to the gathering of intelligence. We have raced to Afghanistan and Iraq, and more recently to Yemen and Somalia; we have created a swollen national security apparatus; and we are so absorbed in our own fury and so oblivious to our enemy’s intentions that we inflate the building of an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan into a national debate and watch, helpless, while a minister in Florida outrages even our friends in the Islamic world by threatening to burn copies of the Koran. If bin Laden did not foresee all this, then he quickly came to understand it. In a 2004 video message, he boasted about leading America on the path to self-destruction. “All we have to do is send two mujaheddin . . . to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written ‘al-Qaeda’ in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses.” Through the initial spending of a few hundred thousand dollars, training and then sacrificing 19 of his foot soldiers, bin Laden has watched his relatively tiny and all but anonymous organization of a few hundred zealots turn into the most recognized international franchise since McDonald’s. Could any enemy of the United States have achieved more with less? Could bin Laden, in his wildest imaginings, have hoped to provoke greater chaos? It is past time to reflect on what our enemy sought, and still seeks, to accomplish — and how we have accommodated him. Next up: Koppel is taking this acidulous commentary to BBC America. 

See original here:
Ted Koppel Toasts America-Goading Genius of Osama bin Laden on 9/11 Weekend

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Newsweek Hates Fox News: Cover Story Blames Them for New Era of ‘Big Lie Politics’ About Obama

Posted on September 4, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Newsweek has once again gone over the top in their support of Barack Obama, but at least the cover reflects that Obama’s popularity is collapsing. It’s called the “The Making of a Terrorist-Coddling, Warmongering, Wall Street-Loving, Socialistic, Godless, Muslim President.” There’s an asterisk that leads to the note “who isn’t actually any of these things.” Perhaps to be true to their fanboy image, they should just leave that Obama photo on their logo every week. Liberals hate the cover already. Take Michael Shaw on The Huffington Post: “So, the question is, how much more is this desperate-to-stay-in-business “news” publication going to pander to the haters and the far-right crazies as we hurtle through the mid-term sprint?” The cover story by Jonathan Alter comes with the whining subhead “Obama’s enemies have painted him as an alien threat. Can he fight the flight from facts ?” His enemies—and even some of his ostensible allies—have been busy for three years painting Obama as some kind of alien threat. His name, race, exotic upbringing, and determination to reach out to moderate Muslims have given those who would delegitimize him a fresh palette of dark colors. The caricatures are almost comical, as the president himself recognizes. “Some folks say, ‘Well, you know, he’s not as cool as he was,’?” Obama said at a May fundraiser in California. “?‘When they had all the posters around and everything.’ Now I’ve got a Hitler mustache on the posters. That’s quite a change.” Our maddening times demand that the truth be forthrightly stated at the outset, and not just that the president has nothing in common with the führer beyond the possession of a dog. The outlandish stories about Barack Hussein Obama are simply false: he wasn’t born outside the United States (the tabloid “proof” has been debunked as a crude forgery); he has never been a Muslim (he was raised by an atheist and became a practicing Christian in his 20s); his policies are not “socialist” (he explicitly rejected advice to nationalize the banks and wants the government out of General Motors and Chrysler as quickly as possible); he is not a “warmonger” (he promised in 2008 to withdraw from Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan and has done so); he is neither a coddler of terrorists (he has already ordered the killing of more “high value” Qaeda targets in 18 months than his predecessor did in eight years), nor a coddler of Wall Street (his financial-reform package, while watered down, was the most vigorous since the New Deal), nor an enemy of American business (he and the Chamber of Commerce favor tax credits for small business that were stymied by the GOP to deprive him of a victory). And that’s just the short list of lies.  Please remember the last president, George W. Bush, when the topic is dictator and Muslim-radical analogies, and remember what Alter and his Newsweek-lings wrote and said:  “We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War….If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.” — Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter in a “Web-exclusive commentary” posted on December 19, 2005 on the Newsweek website.  “In the words of one of his [Ayatollah Sistani’s] aides, ‘the representation of our Sunni brethren in the coming government must be effective, regardless of the results of the elections.’ As an Iraqi politician said to me, ‘There are currently two Grand Ayatollahs running Iraq: Sistani and Bush. Most of us feel that Sistani is the more rational.’” — Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria in a column published in the magazine’s January 24, 2005 edition. “[Russia’s Vladimir Putin is] the only one of those leaders who goes in there [the G8 summit] with a commanding popularity among his own people, because he is perceived to be an effective dictator. What we have in this country is a dictator who’s ineffective.” — Newsweek contributing editor Eleanor Clift on The McLaughlin Group, July 15, 2006. Earlier this year , it was Alter who said on the Keith Olbermann show that the Republicans were terrorist-enablers for suggesting President Obama was weak. I wish they would look into their souls a little bit, is that if they convey over and over again that the president of the United States is weak, what does that do? It emboldens the terrorists. And I don`t say that lightly. But think of — think of terrorists overseas and — or at home, who might be plotting an attack. If they think that the president is weak, which he is not. He`s manifestly not. He’s killed twice as many of them [as Bush]. Guess who Newsweek blamed most for Big Lie Politics? Fox News, of course, which has taken the hate into the mainstream: The blame for this extends from Fox News and the Republican leadership, to the peculiar psychology of resentment in public opinion, to the ham-handed political response of the Obama White House. Whatever the cause, if smash-mouth tactics are validated by huge GOP gains in the midterm elections, then Big Lie politics may be with us for good. In some ways, it has always been with us, going back to the 18th-century calumny of James Callender against John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. More recently, the Rev. Jerry Falwell sponsored a film that falsely accused President Clinton of ordering murders and dealing drugs. What’s changed about politics as a contact sport is the reach of the lies. With the exception of Father Charles Coughlin, the anti-Semitic “radio priest” of the 1930s, reactionaries haven’t generally had big audiences. But now the cranks who once could do little more than write ranting letters to the editor on the red ribbons of their typewriters (loaded with exclamation points and in all caps, of course) can spread their venom virally, with the help of right-wing billionaires underwriting their organizations . And while the cable network they watch, Fox News, might not actively promote the idea that the president is a foreign-born Muslim, it does little to knock it down . Fox often covers Obama’s place of birth and religion more as matters of opinion than of fact. Translation: Fox News may not spread lies all the time, but they’re clearly not doing enough to please the White House by sounding exactly like Newsweek. Again, this is a terrible standard for Alter to claim for Newsweek. It’s quite easy to recall how Newsweek would do anything to smear a Republican. In 1991, Alter and Clift endorsed a Kitty Kelley standard of truth for Republican presidents: if a mere fraction of anonymously sourced nastiness about the Reagans was true, the Reagans were a historical nightmare:   “If privacy ends where hypocrisy begins, Kitty Kelley’s steamy expose of Nancy Reagan is a contribution to contemporary history.” — Newsweek Washington reporter Eleanor Clift, April 15. “If even a small fraction of the material amassed and borrowed here turns out to be true, Ronald Reagan and his wife had to be among the most hypocritical people ever to live in the White House. Anyone who vaguely followed the events of his administration already knew that. But millions of others still don’t. While Kitty Kelley’s sensationalism may undermine their ability to find and believe the truth, her popularity may encourage them to explore more of the real history of that era without her.” — Newsweek media reporter Jonathan Alter, April 22 issue. In short, the idea that Newsweek has any ground at all to stand on in the “flight from facts” narrative, or “smearing a president” narrative, is ludicrous. Look at the facts. Newsweek’s take on the facts is transparently partisan. Any objective media watcher would say it’s at least as partisan as Alter thinks Fox News is.

See the article here:
Newsweek Hates Fox News: Cover Story Blames Them for New Era of ‘Big Lie Politics’ About Obama

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Open Thread: George W. Bush Talks About Patriot Golf Day

Posted on September 4, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: George W. Bush talks about Patriot Golf Day: Thoughts?

Go here to read the rest:
Open Thread: George W. Bush Talks About Patriot Golf Day

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

AP Internal Memo: ‘Combat in Iraq Is Not Over’

Posted on September 4, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

What follows indicates that at least one limit has been found to the establishment press’s willingness to serve as this government’s official apologists. Not surprisingly, it relates to Iraq. The press obviously and bitterly opposed the war from the start, to the point of doctoring photographs , making stuff up , pretending that its sources knew what they were talking about when they didn’t , and ignoring enemy atrocities and Saddam Hussein’s mass graves for years, while often having their journalistic failures and biases exposed by milbloggers and bloggers. So if one were to have guessed ahead of time where a clear break might occur, Iraq would have been a leading choice. That break comes in an AP email to staff from “Standards Editor” Tom Kent. He must have or at least should have known that its contents would get out.  Jim Romenesko at Poynter Online (HT Legal Insurrection ) appears to have posted it first, about 16 hours after Kent hit the “send” button: Subject: Standards Center guidance: The situation in Iraq Colleagues, … we should be correct and consistent in our description of what the situation in Iraq is. This guidance summarizes the situation and suggests wording to use and avoid. To begin with, combat in Iraq is not over, and we should not uncritically repeat suggestions that it is, even if they come from senior officials. The situation on the ground in Iraq is no different today than it has been for some months. Iraqi security forces are still fighting Sunni and al-Qaida insurgents. Many Iraqis remain very concerned for their country’s future despite a dramatic improvement in security, the economy and living conditions in many areas. As for U.S. involvement, it also goes too far to say that the U.S. part in the conflict in Iraq is over. President Obama said Monday night that “the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.” However, 50,000 American troops remain in country. Our own reporting on the ground confirms that some of these troops, especially some 4,500 special operations forces, continue to be directly engaged in military operations. These troops are accompanying Iraqi soldiers into battle with militant groups and may well fire and be fired on. … Our stories about Iraq should make clear that U.S. troops remain involved in combat operations alongside Iraqi forces, although U.S. officials say the American combat mission has formally ended. We can also say the United States has ended its major combat role in Iraq, or that it has transferred military authority to Iraqi forces. We can add that beyond U.S. boots on the ground, Iraq is expected to need U.S. air power and other military support for years to control its own air space and to deter possible attack from abroad. Unless there is balancing language, our content should not refer to the end of combat in Iraq, or the end of U.S. military involvement. Nor should it say flat-out (since we can’t predict the future) that the United States is at the end of its military role. Tom William Jacobsen reaction at Legal Insurrection : “AP Calls Obama A Liar.” Well, it’s clear that AP is asserting that Obama is at least not telling the truth in this instance. Whether it becomes a more global assertion about the President himself based on the plethora of dishonesty the wire service is still willing to swallow from this President and his apparatchiks on domestic as well as foreign policy matters remains to be seen. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read the original post:
AP Internal Memo: ‘Combat in Iraq Is Not Over’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Time Managing Editor Rick Stengel ‘Sad’ Israel-West Bank Wall ‘Has Actually Worked’

Posted on September 3, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

In Time Magazine Managing Editor Rick Stengel’s mind, it’s really “sad” that the wall between Israel and the West Bank – intended to keep murderous terrorists in the Palestinian territory – has been a success. Stengel apparently considers Isreali deaths worthwhile if they lead to more productive peace talks. In a “Morning Joe” segment yesterday titled “Why Israel doesn’t care about peace” – after the upcoming Time cover story – Stengel posited that the lack of violence in Isreal is responsible for that country’s supposed reluctance to reach a peace deal. Stengel stated (video below the fold – h/t Jim Hoft ): They haven’t had a car bombing in two and a half years. And the sad truth really is that the wall with the West Bank has actually worked . I mean, most Israelis in the course of their lives don’t come into contact with any Palestinians at all. The wall is functioning. And the Gaza strip is so small and so isolated they feel that those folks, the Hamas folks are not that big of a threat… I mean, the Israelis feel like, you know what? The status quo isn’t so bad and we don’t mind is there is no peace at all. So the truth is sad, presumably, because the deaths of innocent Israelis would be a worthwhile price to pay for the progression of Middle East peace talks, by Stengel’s account. That is what Stengel is saying: the wall has succeeded, but at the price of impeding the peace talks. He says that fact is sad, meaning no wall, or a less effective wall would be preferable. More Israelis would die from car bombings, but at least the peace talks would move forward. Stengel believes it would be preferable for more Israelis to be killed by Palestinain terrorists, if it meant that those murderers would get Israeli leaders to the negotiating table. Good to know. This is not a commentator saying this, mind you. This is the managing editor of Time magazine opining that more Israeli deaths would be preferable to the status quo. If this does not convince you that the mainstream media is decidedly anti-Israel, nothing will. The contention that Israel is less interested in peace talks because it does not have much to fear from the belligerent territory to its west is a valid concern, and does not require one to weigh in on the Israeli/Palestinian issue. But Stengel made a value judgment on that statement, claiming that more Israeli deaths (how many more he didn’t specify) are an acceptable sacrifice. That speaks volumes about Time’s ability to weigh in objectively on the issue.

See original here:
Time Managing Editor Rick Stengel ‘Sad’ Israel-West Bank Wall ‘Has Actually Worked’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ABC’s Shipman Gushes Over Hillary the ‘Political Celebrity’

Posted on September 3, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

ABC’s Claire Shipman waxed ecstatic over Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday’s Good Morning America, as she reported on Mrs. Clinton’s efforts in the Middle Eastern peace process. Shipman exclaimed how the Secretary had a ” distinct, quite public moment of triumph ” in her meetings with leaders from both sides, and noted how Clinton has become an ” international political celebrity .” Anchor George Stephanopoulos, former communications director for President Bill Clinton, introduced the correspondent’s report, which aired 44 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour. Stephanopoulos noted past administrations’ failure “to broker a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians” and then proclaimed how it was Mrs. Clinton’s ” turn to try to make diplomatic history .” Shipman began by highlighting how Hillary “remains one of the most popular members of the administration” and how she was now “squarely center stage” with the possibility of bringing “something different to this Middle East process.” After using her “moment of triumph” line, the ABC correspondent emphasized how Secretary Clinton was apparently “hard on the trail of a dream that has eluded so many before her, and those who know her well say she brings a special touch to wooing both sides back to the table .” She also underlined Clinton’s reported modus operandi in the peace process: “It’s a trademark recipe of pragmatism and discipline over ego- no high-profile shuttle diplomacy for her, for example.” Shipman used three sound bites from the liberal Brooking Institution’s Michael O’Hanlon and one from former Clinton administration official and current Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P. J. Crowley to heap praise on Mrs. Clinton. After O’Hanlon highlighted how the Secretary apparently “chose to really marshal her resources and guard them jealously, and wait for the right moment,” the correspondent added her own lauds: ” The other asset she wields: a bit of female EQ, and an astute political instinct .” The high point of the gushing language over the senior diplomat came near the end of the report: SHIPMAN: It doesn’t hurt, of course, that over the years, she’s perfected her ability to shift gears in an instant . Hard-working Hillary, suddenly transforms once again into international political celebrity . O’HANLON: She’s a multi-dimensional public figure. She’s part global rock star, part everybody’s friend, because she goes by Hillary more than Secretary Clinton . Shipman even remarked about the Secretary’s new hairdo: ” Her hair is even back in the headlines. She’s getting rave reviews on her longer, cool, new do .” Earlier this year, on the June 9 edition of GMA, ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas credited Mrs. Clinton for the primary success of Republican women candidates: “So many women saying- doing so well, and many saying perhaps Hillary Clinton helped by running for president. All these other women about to possibly take office, high office, in those states.” The full transcript of Claire Shipman’s report from Friday’s Good Morning America: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Henry Kissinger got the two sides of the Middle East conflict to stop fighting for a time. Jimmy Carter forged the Camp David agreements. But every administration since then has tried and failed to broker a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Now, it’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s turn to try to make diplomatic history. And Claire Shipman joins us from Washington with more. Hey, Claire. CLAIRE SHIPMAN: Hey, George. This is a big moment for Hillary Clinton. Her poll numbers show she remains one of the most popular members of the administration, but she’s tended to avoid the spotlight. Now, she’s back, squarely center stage, and we took a look at how she may bring something different to this Middle East process. SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: Want us to stand here? SHIPMAN (voice-over): For a secretary of state whose style has been very much head down, nose to the grindstone, it was a distinct, quite public moment of triumph. CLINTON: I fervently believe that the two men sitting on either side of me- that you are the leaders who can make this long-cherished dream a reality. SHIPMAN: Peace talks back on track, she’s hard on the trail of a dream that has eluded so many before her, and those who know her well say she brings a special touch to wooing both sides back to the table. ISRAEL PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: The people of Israel, and I, as their prime minister, are prepared to walk this road. PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD ABBAS (through translator): The road is clear, in front of us, in order to reach peace. SHIPMAN: It’s a trademark recipe of pragmatism and discipline over ego- no high-profile shuttle diplomacy for her, for example. MICHAEL O’HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Secretary Clinton, unlike some of her predecessors and unlike some previous presidents, chose to really marshal her resources and guard them jealously, and wait for the right moment. SHIPMAN: The other asset she wields: a bit of female EQ, and an astute political instinct. P. J. CROWLEY, STATE DEPARTMENT: She’s been in the arena. She’s been bruised- you know, in that arena. And this gives her a credibility that helps relate to leaders. SHIPMAN: And it doesn’t hurt, of course, that over the years, she’s perfected her ability to shift gears in an instant. Hard-working Hillary, suddenly transforms once again into international political celebrity. O’HANLON: She’s a multi-dimensional public figure. She’s part global rock star, part everybody’s friend, because she goes by Hillary more than Secretary Clinton. SHIPMAN: And her hair is even back in the headlines. She’s getting rave reviews on her longer, cool, new do. CLINTON: And now, it’s time to get to work. SHIPMAN (live): Well, George, not the hair again- but, of course, ultimately, she will be judged not by her appearance, but by results in this process. There is a lot of hard work to be done. The two sides are hoping to talk to each other as frequently as every week, and Hillary Clinton is hoping to have another high-profile meeting in the Middle East as early as September, but we’ll see. STEPHANOPOULOS: And they’re facing a real deadline at the end of September on whether or not to continue- to start building those settlements again. SHIPMAN: Exactly, and a lot of people worry that that could put this process, so new, in jeopardy again. STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay. Claire Shipman, thanks a lot. 

Originally posted here:
ABC’s Shipman Gushes Over Hillary the ‘Political Celebrity’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Imam to FBI (2003): ‘U.S. Response to 9/11 Could Be Considered Jihad’

Posted on August 29, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Defenders of controversial imam Feisal Abdul Rauf have been touting his past efforts in offering counterterrorism advice to the FBI as a way to illustrate his bridge-building intentions.  Much like other reports, they tend to gloss over the more controversial aspects of Rauf’s statements.  But, as is typical with the Ground Zero mosque imam, it can be demonstrated that he is frequently speaking with a forked tongue. There is no doubt that Rauf has made some questionable and incendiary comments regarding America and her role in the Muslim world.  Perhaps these statements fit the imam’s overall rhetoric involving U.S. complicity in the attacks of 9/11.  As does the following statement to the FBI , which is conveniently omitted from media reports defending Rauf. Bridge-building imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was giving a crash course in Islam for FBI agents in March of 2003 .  When asked to clarify such terminology as ‘jihad’ and ‘fatwa’, Rauf stated (emphasis mine throughout): “Jihad can mean holy war to extremists, but it means struggle to the average Muslim. Fatwah has been interpreted to mean a religious mandate approving violence, but is merely a recommendation by a religious leader.  Rauf noted that the U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks could be considered a jihad , and pointed out that a renowned Islamic scholar had issued a fatwah advising Muslims in the U.S. military it was okay to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan.” Well, wait a minute.  Which version of the word jihad is he referring to when he speaks of the U.S. response itself?  Is it the struggle he speaks of for the average Muslim, or is it the holy war?  Getting very little run in the media is an analysis of Rauf’s FBI days in the New York Post .  Contained within Paul Sperry’s column is a question of whether Rauf actually knows the definition of jihad, or if he simply presents things ambiguously to make things more difficult on the agents he is trying to teach.  While Rauf passes jihad off as nothing more than a struggle, Koranic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali disagrees, insisting that jihad ‘means advancing Islam, including by physically fighting Islam’s enemies.’ Sperry then questions, ‘If he (Rauf) believes jihad is really just an internal struggle, then why does he refuse to condemn Hamas? (Why, for that matter, did he in late 2001 suggest that “US policies were an accessory to the crime” of 9/11?).’ And speaking of the fatwa advising Muslims in the U.S. military that it was okay to fight the Taliban … The renowned Islamic scholar that Rauf is referring to is Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi.  In a New York Times article one month after 9/11, Rauf was quoted as saying: “This fatwa is very significant. Yusuf Qaradawi is probably the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.” Question is, was that hollow fatwa (a hotwa as it were) more significant than Qaradawi’s proclamation on Al Jazeera two weeks earlier?  Qaradawi stated: “A Muslim is forbidden from entering into an alliance with a non-Muslim against another Muslim.”  He called on Muslims to “fight the American military if we can, and if we cannot, we should fight the U.S. economically and politically.” Qaradawi elaborated on that non-fatwa fatwa in 2004 when he said of American troops : “…all of the Americans in Iraq are combatants, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers , and one should fight them, since the American civilians came to Iraq in order to serve the occupation. The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is a [religious] obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately. The mutilation of corpses [however] is forbidden in Islam.” Abduction and killing is an obligation, but he draws the line at corpse mutilation.  Very classy. Perhaps the media should not be relying so heavily on the imam’s efforts within the FBI anyway.  Lest we forget, the FBI doesn’t exactly have a great track record in spotting red flags being raised by a radical imam.  Families of the victims at Fort Hood can attest to that.  In their defense, the FBI was constantly compromised by over-sensitivity training when it came to Muslims.  But when Nidal Hasan was chatting it up with Anwar al-Awlaki, they suspected it was nothing more than a simple case of psychiatric research. Is all this nothing more than parsing the double talk of a ‘moderate’ imam, or is it something more alarming? Rusty can be contacted through his website:  The Mental Recession .

Original post:
Imam to FBI (2003): ‘U.S. Response to 9/11 Could Be Considered Jihad’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,