Tag Archives: britain

Five of Six Networks Press Unyielding Gibbs on Crediting Bush; White House Press Secretary Unleashes on Fox & Friends

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs made the rounds of the six broadcast and cable morning news shows on Tuesday morning to help set the table for the President’s speech marking the end of major combat operations in Iraq. Of the six network anchors Gibbs spoke with, only CBS’s Harry Smith failed to ask whether President Obama would extend credit to President Bush for the successful surge strategy (a strategy then-Senator Obama denigrated as futile). ABC’s George Stephanopoulos recited House GOP Leader John Boehner’s dig at politicians who “fought tooth-and-nail to stop the surge strategy,” and then rejected Gibbs claim that Boehner’s was “made up history.” NBC’s Matt Lauer recited Obama’s own words to Gibbs: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are gonna solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” At each stop, Gibbs insisted that no one doubted the surge would improve security, but insisted that the real accomplishment was “an improved political situation.” CNN’s John Roberts followed up, asking whether security improvements credited to the surge were essential to those political improvements, but Gibbs dodged: “John, you asked me the same question I’m likely to give you the same answer.” When Gibbs reached Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson was met with condescension and mockery when she asked the same question as the other hosts. “I think you’ve asked me this question twice and I’ve given you an answer,” Gibbs chided, dodging the question. Later: “That’s actually now the fourth time you’ve asked me that question….That’s number five….Gretchen, I don’t know whether this is you actually interviewing me or just a tape of you looping the same question over and over again.” Gibbs never directly stated whether or not the Bush administration deserves any credit for the (so far) positive outcome in Iraq. Only CBS’s Harry Smith — who last year voiced “regret” that he did not abuse his position as a newscaster to “stand up” and say of the Iraq war “this doesn’t make any sense” — refused to ask Gibbs about the surge. Instead, he suggested the seven year military commitment wasn’t worth it: HARRY SMITH: The President goes to Texas today to talk to veterans and soldiers. There are folks who have gone there on deployment after deployment after deployment, and some of them wonder this morning if their sacrifice has been worth it. Gibbs stubborn refusal to share any credit with the Bush administration — even going so far as to belittle a Fox News journalist — is baffling, since President Obama himself declared the surge to be a success in 2008. “I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly. “It’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” ( Video ) Here’s how Gibbs handled the five networks that posed questions about President Bush and the surge (thanks to MRC’s Geoff Dickens and Matthew Balan for help transcribing). They’re organized in roughly the order they took place, starting with the broadcast networks and then the three cable networks: # ABC’s Good Morning America: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: For more on that speech, let’s turn now to Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary. He joins us from the White House this morning. You know, Robert, already, the House Republican leader [John Boehner] has issued, I guess, a ‘pre-buttal’ of the President’s remarks in the speech he’s going to give today. He says this: ‘Some leaders who opposed, criticized, and fought tooth-and-nail to stop the surge strategy, now proudly claim credit for the results. Today, we mark not the defeat those voices anticipated, but progress.’ So he’s basically saying the milestone the President is marking today happened in spite of President Obama, not because of him. Your response? ROBERT GIBBS: Well, look, there’s a lot of made-up history in that statement. I think what Congressman Boehner — I think what the American people would like to know, with Congressman Boehner is, do you support withdrawing the 90,000-plus troops that this commander-in-chief is marking the milestone of today? There’s no doubt that were it not for a timeline for getting our combat troops out of Iraq, we’d still be there. First and foremost- STEPHANOPOULOS, interrupting: You say ‘made-up history,’ Robert, but- wait a second. You say ‘made-up history,’ but the President did oppose the surge. GIBBS The President did oppose the surge, George, but understand this: while the surge did provide some increased security in Iraq, what happened was a political transformation that took a long time after those added troops were put into Iraq. There was a Sunni awakening, where Sunni tribesmen decided they did not want to fight with, but against al Qaeda. STEPHANOPOULOS: But does credit also go to the surge? Does the President now believe that President Bush made the right decision to order that surge in troops in Iraq? GIBBS: Again, George, I think the President has always stated and always believed that our security would be- that adding 30,000 troops into Iraq would improve the security. But obviously, the leaders in Iraq had to make some political accommodation to move that country forward…. # NBC’s Today LAUER: You also mentioned at the White House the President would call President Bush in advance of his speech. Has the call taken place? GIBBS: I believe the call will take place a little bit later this morning, likely when the President is on Air Force One flying to thank our troops at Ft. Bliss right outside of El Paso, Texas. I think probably both commanders in chief share, share certainly one thing in common and that is thanking the men and women in uniform for the tremendous sacrifice that they made over the past seven-and-a-half years- LAUER: Right. GIBBS: -the thousands that aren’t coming back from Iraq, the tens of thousands that have been wounded but those that keep us safe and secure each and every day. LAUER: Let me read you something. In January of 2007 when President Bush announced the surge in Iraq, then Senator Barack Obama had this to say, quote, “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are gonna solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” So when President Obama speaks to former President Bush today, will he change his mind on that? Will he give President Bush credit for making that decision on the surge and admit that it contributed to the situation of more stability on the ground today? GIBBS: Matt, what is, what is certainly not up for question is that, that President Obama, then candidate Obama, said that adding those 20,000 troops into Iraq would, indeed, improve the security situation, and it did. What was necessary for this moment to happen was a diplomatic surge, a change in the Sunnis, the Sunni awakening, rather than fighting with al Qaeda they fought against al Qaeda. I think a number of things, most importantly our men and women in uniform, brought us to this point. LAUER: Right. GIBBS: I think there’s no doubt that the surge improved the security situation. But as this president said many times, the war in Iraq was not going to be fought or won primarily or just militarily. That we had to see some political accommodation and we had to see sectarian violence reduced because Sunni, Shia and Kurd decided to live together and chart Iraq’s future together, not fighting each other. LAUER: Alright Robert Gibbs at the White House. Robert, thank you so much. I appreciate it. # MSNBC’s Morning Joe MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Obviously the war was controversial, in the first few years, especially. The surge was controversial, for sure, and it generated and garnered a lot of criticism. Will the President be crediting the former president for his work there? ROBERT GIBBS: Well, look, I think the President will talk about the steps that our men and women in uniform took to make this day possible. There’s no doubt about it. I think, Mika, then-candidate Barack Obama said that adding 20,000 men and women into Baghdad and into Iraq was likely to improve the security situation…. # CNN’s American Morning JOHN ROBERTS: I know that the president is going to call former President Bush this morning. Will he tonight during his speech give credit to the president’s surge strategy for helping to better the security situation there so that the political process could proceed? GIBBS: Well, John, I don’t think there is any doubt. And you heard candidate Barack Obama say that adding 20,000 of our brave men and women who, quite frankly, John, I think we all share the belief that they are owed a tremendous amount of gratitude. The president is in awe of their sacrifice. We knew that adding those men and women in there would improve the security situation, but the reason we are where we are today is because of an improved political situation, we know that the Sunni awakening, Sunni tribes in the western part of Iraq began not to fight with but to fight against al Qaeda. And all of those circumstances led to a point in which we’re at today. I will say this, John — I think many people believe that when the President made a commitment to end our combat mission in Iraq by August 31, 2010, I am not sure many people believed that he could pull it off. He’s kept his word. He will talk about the fact that we’ve made a determination that in July 2011, we’ll begin to transition our mission in Afghanistan as well. ROBERTS: Just back on the surge strategy. There’s no question that the surge strategy did improve security. I think most military and political analysts would agree. But you said that it would improve security but it was the political aspect of it that took place that allowed Iraq to come to where it is today. But most military and political analysts would tell you that the improvement in security, because of the surge, set the conditions for the political aspect of it. I’m wondering, again, will the president credit President Bush’s surge strategy for setting the conditions to allow withdrawal? GIBBS: John, you asked me the same question I’m likely to give you the same answer. Again, I don’t think anybody doubted that the 20,000 people were going to improve the security situation in Iraq. It was the political accommodation that had to happen. It was Sunni, Shia and Kurd that had to decide not to fight one another in sectarian violence but to live and work together and chart Iraqis’ future together…. # Now, the most contentious, the Fox & Friends appearance. I’ve loaded the entire transcript, so you can see that Gibbs was inaccurate when he accused Carlson of asking the same question two or three times in a row, which set off his string of sarcastic remarks. GRETCHEN CARLSON: Welcome back, everyone. Well, tonight is the big night. President Obama expected to announce the formal end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq. How will this change our mission there, and is Iraq stable enough to stand alone on its own. Joining me now, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Good morning to you, Mr. Gibbs. ROBERT GIBBS: Good morning, how are you? CARLSON: I’m doing just fine. So the big question today is, why now? Why not wait until Iraq is a bit more stable. Why tonight? GIBBS: Well, look, I think Iraq is very stable right now. We have — despite the fact that there is still violence in Iraq, and there certainly will continue to be — as General Ray Odierno told the President in the Situation Room a few weeks ago, it’s among the lowest in measurable violence that we’ve seen in the seven and a half years that American troops have been in Iraq. There’s no doubt that we’re still in the midst of government formation, but the Iraqi security forces provided the security for that election. And I think what’s important today is that as we transition out of our combat role to assisting the Iraqis, the future and the history of Iraq will be written by and be responsible — the Iraqis will be responsible for writing that. CARLSON: Will President Obama recognize the success of the surge put in place by President Bush tonight? GIBBS: Well, look — there’s any doubt that first and foremost that the men and women in our uniform and the sacrifices that I think we are all in awe of and the President will laud today both at Fort Bliss when he stops there as well as in his speech. I don’t think there’s any doubt as candidate Obama said that adding 20,000 men and women into Iraq would improve the security situation. I think along with — CARLSON: Candidate Obama said that? No, wait, excuse me, back in 2007 he said he was against the surge. GIBBS: No, he said he was against the surge. He said there was no doubt that adding 20,000 men and women would improve the security situation. But as we know, our efforts in Iraq weren’t going to be done simple militarily, Gretchen. There had to be a political accommodation. We had sectarian violence between Sunni, Shia and Kurd and, quite frankly, the Sunni and the Shia and the Kurd had to decide they were going to live and work together for an iraq that met their future needs and not fight each other. I think that’s why we’re at this moment and that’s what the President is going — CARLSON: So that will be the way in which the President will address his flip-flop on the issue tonight? GIBBS: Gretchen, I’m happy to spend a lot of time looking back at decisions four years ago or even seven and a half years ago. I think what’s important, while you guys play political games, is the President to laud our men and women and to mark the end of our combat mission. CARLSON: No political games here. I think a lot of people in the American public are wanting to know what the President will say and how he’ll rectify what he said back in 2007. Let me ask you this- GIBBS: Let’s just be very clear- CARLSON: Word on the street is the President is going to call President Bush today. What will he say when he calls President Bush? GIBBS: Well, I think the President will talk about the situation in Iraq. Thank the President for his service, for his love of country. And I think they’ll have a nice private, quiet conversation about what’s going on in the world. CARLSON: Will the President, will President Obama credit President Bush tonight in his speech for the success in Iraq? GIBBS: Again, Gretchen, I think you’ve asked me this question twice and I’ve given you an answer. CARLSON: No, this is the first time I’ve asked you the question. GIBBS: Okay, maybe I’m having a hard time counting to three CARLSON: Will President Obama thank President Bush tonight during his speech for the success of the surge? GIBBS: No, that’s actually now the fourth time you’ve asked me that question. CARLSON: Well, you haven’t answered it. Will he credit President Bush tonight for the success of the surge? GIBBS: That’s number five. Let me give you the same answer I gave you the first time. CARLSON: In baseball you get three strikes and you’re out. You’ve had five chances to answer the question. Will he credit President Bush tonight? GIBBS: Gretchen, I don’t know whether this is you actually interviewing me or just a tape of you looping the same question over and over again. There is no doubt and the President will mention that adding men and women into Iraq improved the security situation. There’s no doubt about that. But I think we would all recognize, Gretchen, if you’ll take a moment to understand that we wouldn’t be where we are in Iraq without the political accommodation. We wouldn’t be where we are in Iraq today without the Sunni tribes deciding instead of fighting with al Qaeda, they were going to fight against al Qaeda. There were a whole series of factors that went into marking where we are today. I have one question for you, Gretchen, do you support the fact that the President is pulling out more than 90,000 troops today and ending our combat mission there? CARLSON: Well, this is not an interview of Gretchen Carlson. This is an interview with the spokesman of President Obama on one of the most important issues facing the American public today. GIBBS: That’s my one question for you, and I can even ask it five more times. CARLSON: Well, that would be very cute, I guess. Let’s go back to why tonight, because you have Michael O’Hanlon, who’s from the Brookings Institute, saying this is not the right time for a victory lap. If I were him — speaking to the President — I would wait until they have a government and do it with Iraqis together. How would you respond to Mr. O’Hanlon on that? GIBBS: Well, look, Gretchen, I’ve said this before. This is not a victory lap. You’re not going to see any ‘Mission Accomplished’ banners that will be unfurled and you won’t hear the President say the words ‘mission accomplished.’ We understand that violence will still continue. We understand we still have troops there. But it’s important to transition our role out of Iraq and put the Iraqis in control and make sure that the Iraqis are responsible for the decisions that have to govern that country. That’s also a reason why we’re marking this transition today is we put pressure on the Iraqis to come up with decisions and accommodations that they could live with themselves rather than fighting each other because we told them we weren’t going to be there forever and that at a certain point, we were going to transition out. It’s their responsibility. The Vice President is over there now. I don’t think there’s any doubt that we will very soon have a government in place, the last election it took six months to form a government. This election was certified in June, and I think we’re making progress toward that end. CARLSON: And undoubtedly, your boss, the President, will thank the troops tonight during his speech as well. GIBBS: You know, the president will start today, Gretchen, at Fort Bliss which saw some of the heaviest combat fighting at the very beginning of this war and they had troops that were — that have served there continuously. Some have served two, three and four times. You know, Gretchen, whether you agree that we should have gone or not, whether you agree on the certain tactics, I think we can all agree that the men and women of our uniform — the men and women in uniform and those that provide our safety and security and sacrifice and the families that they have that sacrifice so much are a group of people that we are forever indebted to. CARLSON: All right. Very well said. Robert Gibbs, spokesperson to the President. We will all watch tonight, 8pm Eastern time. Thanks for your time this morning. GIBBS: Thank you.

Read the rest here:
Five of Six Networks Press Unyielding Gibbs on Crediting Bush; White House Press Secretary Unleashes on Fox & Friends

Cutting Spending is Sexist! WaPo Headline: ‘British Women to Bear Budget Pain’

Liberal Democratic strategists reading today’s Washington Post are probably taking notes, preparing talking points for a future which may hold a Republican Congress in the cards. “British women to bear budget pain” cried the page A6 headline. “Report says austerity plan mostly cuts into women’s livelihoods,” added the subheader for London-based Post staffer Anthony Faiola’s  story. Faiola noted that “[t]he Fawcett Society, a leading women’s rights group here, filed an unprecedented complaint with the nation’s high court this month, arguing that the government failed to consider the effect on women of its leaner ’emergency budget.'” At no point did Faiola find a critic to allege that the social welfare system in Britain itself was “sexist” or at least that it victimizes poor Britons, particularly women, by creating a culture of dependency on the state. Indeed, among his 19 paragraphs, Faiola quickly dispatched the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition’s defense with a brief quote from finance minister George Osborne in paragraph 13. Faiola quickly got back on track two paragraphs later by noting that “[s]ome Britons… see the cuts as anything but fair,” and then turning to the lament of one Joanne Morgan “a divorced mother of three teenagers” who works for the state and “is set to lose $285 a month in child-assistance payments.” Of course, Faiola failed to balance out Morgan’s tale of woe by finding an average bloke in a pub to dismiss as poppycock the argument that budget cuts are sexist.

See original here:
Cutting Spending is Sexist! WaPo Headline: ‘British Women to Bear Budget Pain’

British Spy and Top Code Breaker Found Dead in MI6 London Safe House

Gareth Williams, a Welshman from Anglesey was one of Britain's top Code Breakers worked the ” GCHQ listening center” in the West Country. He had been living in an apartment probably owned by MI5 which is nearby. The Pimlico area of London is near to the MI6 HQ and there are many “safe houses” for use. Williams was a single man was discovered in a large sports bag in his bath. A laptop he used is missing. Williams was also a regular visitor to the NSA “Puzzle Palace” another listening and spy center. The CIA are so concerned about his death they are holding their own investigation. Williams was single but porn, bondage mags and women's clothes his size were also found at the “safe house” apartment. MI6 and other spy agencies are refusing to let the police interview any of his fellow workers, stating they are suddenly out of the country. This story has all the hallmarks of a Hollywood Spy Thriller…………… from the Daily Mail The CIA was called in to help investigate the murder of an MI6 spy last night as it emerged he was sent on frequent secret missions to the United States. American intelligence officers are poring over every detail of Gareth Williams's work and personal life to see if the circumstances of his death endangered U.S. national security. The Daily Mail can reveal that the 31-year-old codebreaker flew to the National Security Agency, the Pentagon's listening post and the largest intelligence agency in the world, up to four times a year. He returned from his last trip to America only a few weeks before he was found dead. Questions also remain over why his body lay undiscovered for up to a fortnight at his

Here Are the Ten Funniest Jokes in All of Britain, Explained [Humour]

The ten funniest jokes of the famous Edinburgh Fringe—a huge performing arts festival held in Scotland—have been named! And they are hilarious . But will you “get” them? No worries! We’ve provided helpful explanations right here. More

Jade Jones taekwondo medal picture

“Jade Jones was always going to be a threat – she has been training in Korea for three weeks where she has beeen exceptional,” said GB Taekwondo performance director Gary Hall. Jade Jones holds her medal aloft and becomes Britain#39;s first Youth Olympic Games medalist. The 17 year-old, Britain’s sole taekwondo representative, was confident of victory at the Games and she lived up to high expectations with an impressive 9-6 victory over Thanh Thao Nguyen of Vietnam in the final. “We knew she

Read the original:
Jade Jones taekwondo medal picture

US Government Threatens Iceland and US Supporters of Wikileaks

The Obama administration has asked Britain, Germany, Australia, and other allies to consider criminal charges against Julian Assange for his Afghan war leaks. Philip Shenon reports. The Obama administration is pressing Britain, Germany, Australia, and other allied Western governments to consider opening criminal investigations of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and to severely limit his nomadic travels across international borders, American officials say. Officials tell The Daily Beast that the U.S. effort reflects a growing belief that WikiLeaks and organizations like it threaten grave damage to American national security, as well as a growing suspicion in Washington that Assange has damaged his own standing with foreign governments and organizations that might otherwise be sympathetic to his anti-censorship cause. American officials confirmed last month that the Justice Department was weighing a range of criminal charges against Assange and others as a result of the massive leaking of classified U.S. military reports from the war in Afghanistan, including potential violations of the Espionage Act by Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst in Iraq accused of providing the documents to WikiLeaks. Now, the officials say, they want other foreign governments to consider the same sorts of criminal charges. “It’s not just our troops that are put in jeopardy by this leaking,” said an American diplomatic official who is involved in responding to the aftermath of the release of more than 70,000 Afghanistan war logs—and WikiLeaks’ threat to reveal 15,000 more of the classified reports. “It’s U.K. troops, it’s German troops, it’s Australian troops—all of the NATO troops and foreign forces working together in Afghanistan,” he said. Their governments, he said, should follow the lead of the Justice Department and “review whether the actions of WikiLeaks could constitute crimes under their own national-security laws.” Last month, a prominent pro-military group in Australia suggested that Assange may have violated Australian law through the release of the Afghan war logs, given the threat the leak may have posed to the lives of Australian troops serving in the NATO-led force. The Obama administration was heartened by the call this week by Amnesty International and four other human-rights groups for WikiLeaks to be far more careful in editing classified material from the war in Afghanistan to be sure that its public release does not endanger innocent Afghans who may be identified in the documents. “It’s amazing how Assange has overplayed his hand,” a Defense Department official marveled. “Now, he’s alienating the sort of people who you’d normally think would be his biggest supporters.” The initial document dump by WikiLeaks last month is reported to have disclosed the names of hundreds of Afghan civilians who have cooperated with NATO forces; the Taliban has threatened to hunt down the civilians named in the documents, a threat that human-rights organizations say WikiLeaks should take seriously. “It’s amazing how Assange has overplayed his hand,” a Defense Department official marveled. “Now, he’s alienating the sort of people who you’d normally think would be his biggest supporters.” The joint letter by the five groups, first revealed by The Wall Street Journal, was met by a tart response from Assange, who communicates with the outside world largely through the social-networking Internet tool Twitter. He appeared to suggest that news organizations and human-rights groups, notably Amnesty International, should help him underwrite his cost of the editing and release of more of the Afghan war documents—but that they were instead refusing to provide assistance. “Pentagon wants to bankrupt us by refusing to assist review,” he tweeted on Monday, referring to the effort by WikiLeaks to convince the Defense Department to join in reviewing the additional 15,000 documents to remove the names of Afghan civilians and others who might be placed in danger by its release. “Media won’t take responsibility. Amnesty won’t. What to do?” In a separate posting on Twitter, Assange estimated the cost of the “harm minimization review”—a reference, apparently, to the effort to edit the 15,000 documents to remove informants’ names—at $700,000. It was not clear how he arrived at that figure. The Australian-born Assange travels constantly and is said to have no real home, living instead in the homes of friends and supporters around the world. He was reported as recently as last week to be in the U.K., although he has spent significant time this year in Australia, Iceland, and the U.S. He has said he is postponing future travel to the U.S. because of fear that he faces legal sanctions here. Through diplomatic and military channels, the Obama administration is hoping to convince Britain, Germany, and Australia, among other allied governments that Assange should not be welcome on their shores, either, given the danger that his group poses to their troops stationed in Afghanistan, American officials say. They say severe limitations on Assange’s travels might serve as a useful warning to his followers that their own freedom is now at risk. A prominent American volunteer for WikiLeaks reported last month that he was subjected to hours of questioning and had his laptop and cellphones seized by American border agents on returning to the U.S. from Europe late last month. An American military official tells The Daily Beast that Washington may also want to closely review its relations with Iceland in the wake of the release of the Afghan war logs. Assange and his followers have been successful in pressing the government of Iceland, in the wake of the collapse of the country’s banking system, to reinvent itself as a haven for free speech, creating a potential home for WikiLeaks and other organizations that may violate the laws of the U.S. and other nations through the release of classified documents. added by: toyotabedzrock

Human race to be extinct in 200 years

Yikes, did you know the “Brain of Britain” Stephen Hawking has said that he predicts the human race will come to an end in 200 years. Mr. Hawking also said that our only chance of survival is to get beyond .. http://itgrunts.com/2010/08/09/human-race-to-be-extinct-in-200-years/ added by: itgrunts

Ayda Field and Robbie Williams married

The bride Ayda Field, 31, wore a white dress with her hair pinned up while Robbie Williams, 36, wore a black tuxedo. British pop star Robbie Williams and actress Ayda Field are married. The couple, who met in 2006, exchanged vows Saturday in front of about 75 friends and family members at his Beverly Hills home. “The ceremony was very beautiful and romantic,” a source tells us. “At last, Rob is happy,” the singer#39;s father, Pete Conway, told Britain#39;s News of the World. “That#39;s what

See the original post here:
Ayda Field and Robbie Williams married

Bozell Column: Obama the Gipper?

The Political Left is in a meltdown. There’s no way to sugarcoat the calamity. It is falling apart. It sees the tide has turned and a possible tsunami is building, ready to crest and explode in November, washing all their dreams away. How could this be happening to them? Could it be that trillion dollar disaster otherwise know as the “stimulus,” that emergency measure needed to save the economy by creating millions of jobs except it’s accomplished absolutely nothing except putting our grandchildren yet another trillion dollars in debt? Or the auto company takeovers, something no one wanted and Congress never authorized as part of the TARP bailout fund? Or the appointment of one radical after another to nanny-state us all, including now the just recess-appointed Dr. Donald Berwick to oversee ObamaCare, a Marxist who proudly calls for the redistribution of wealth and who absolutely adores Britain’s onerous National Health Service, rationing and all? Or any one of a thousand other radical ventures proposed/discussed/enacted by this radical leftist regime? Nah. Thom Hartmann, one of the top munchkins along the Yellow Brick Road of Radioland, told his handful of listeners last week that it’s ludicrous that any conservative would conclude Obama’s a socialist. “As a guy…me, who calls himself a democratic socialist, Obama’s no socialist! He’s a middle-of-the-road Democrat, what in the 1950s was called an Eisenhower progressive, or a Republican, for that matter.” This recalls the early Clinton years, when Bob Woodward quoted Bill Clinton yelling at his staff that they were all just like “Eisenhower Republicans”….as they attempted to pass 1,300 pages of socialist Hillarycare. Government spending and regulations are thoroughly out of control but Hartmann the socialist still sees Republicans destroying democracy in the near term, never mind that the GOP is completely out of power. “I think that the Republican endgame for a small group of ideologues who have an outsized influence, the neocons within the Republican party, is to basically do away with small-d democracy in this republic, and in fact do away with it being even a republic, and turn it into basically an aristocracy.” Lord William Kristol. You have to admit it does have a ring. The dismay was even more grandiose on MSNBC last week, when the executives handed over “The Dylan Ratigan Show” to a man named Cenk Uygur, host of “The Young Turks” radio program. Put your food and drink down. He contends that Obama was more conservative than … ready?  Ronald Reagan. Here’s his formulation: 1. Obama said during the presidential primaries that he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, or North Korea without conditions. But “Republican hawk Ronald Reagan actually did it in March, 1985. At the height of the Cold War, Reagan invited newly-appointed Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the ‘Evil Empire,’ for a summit in Geneva without preconditions.” 2. Reagan “cut and run” from Lebanon in 1983. Now compare that to Obama and his troop surge in Afghanistan. 3. Obama “refused to raise taxes for anyone making less than a quarter of a million dollars,” but Reagan had “four significant tax increases” after his original tax rate cuts. 4. Reagan was “the first to host an openly-gay couple at the White House for an overnight stay?…So which President is the real conservative here?” Luckily for the small flock of strange people viewing MSNBC at home, both of Mr. Uygur’s guests told him he was all wrong. Frank Donatelli, one of President Reagan’s political director, was deliciously blunt. “That’s the silliest thing that I’ve ever heard….It’s an incomplete and distorted picture of everything.” Donatelli calmly related that Reagan cut taxes overall, negotiated with Gorbachev after the little precondition of a complete defense buildup, and he won the Cold War, while “Obama hasn’t won anything.” Even David Weigel, the Palin/Limbaugh/Drudge-insulting commentator beloved by the likes of Keith Olbermann, dismissed the Uygur stupidity. “He’s not a conservative. Come on!” Leftists may be delusional in thinking Barack Obama is some kind of Reaganite. But if that’s delusional, how does one describe Janeane Garofalo? As always, her nuttiness is in a league (institution?) of its own. On The Huffington Post, she groused of conservatives that “They own the media and they dominate the media and they dominate the conversation. But of course liberals are proud. They have everything to be proud of. But they just don’t have much say. You know, they don’t have networks and huge radio networks and megachurches and seats in Congress.” Liberals don’t have the seats in Congress? Garofalo isn’t just wrong, she’s in meltdown.

GORDON DUFF: CLASSIFIED CIA TRANSCRIPT COUNTERS BIN LADEN TERROR ROLE : Veterans Today

DOUBT THROWN ON PROOF BIN LADEN A TERRORIST LEADER By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor Two weeks ago, CIA Director Leon Panetta told the press the CIA had not been able to positively confirm any specific information on Osama bin Laden since “late 2000.” Interviews with high ranking military and intelligence officials, some at the highest levels, have confirmed that all evidence lends toward Osama bin Laden’s death in December 2001. Yet transcripts of translated audio and video tapes, albeit widely disputed, are continually released by a news agency tied to Israeli intelligence services. The transcripts of the last proven bin Laden interview, translated by the CIA, are compared to similar translations of a 2007 “broadcast” said to be by Osama bin Laden. Both are excerpted for length but not content. Striking differences between the two “bin Ladens” is obvious. In 2007, in a lengthy admonition, no mention of Israel is made whatsoever, nor of Palestine. In fact, the bin Laden of 2007 seems to be totally oblivious of Israel. We will begin with the CIA document, one that directly disputes claims made by the media for years. We thank the Central Intelligence Agency for making this document available. With dozens of films, videos and recordings, all claiming Osama bin Laden has taken credit for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks against America, Britain, Spain and other nations, the possession of the only official translation of the real Osama bin Laden is vital. What you are going to be reading is both astounding and frightening. More at the link: added by: Monkey_Films