Tag Archives: Obama

Saturday Night Live May Finally Hire Another Black Person

If you’re keeping score at home — and you probably are — it has been seven years since Saturday Night Live hired a new African American cast member, an unhappy distinction that proved to be quite the hindrance two years ago when Keenan Thompson wasn’t up for the task of impersonating Barack Obama. As such, this may be good news for everyone (except maybe the soon-to-be former Obama impersonator, Fred Armisen): SNL may have found another black guy!

Read the original here:
Saturday Night Live May Finally Hire Another Black Person

Olbermann Sarcastically ‘Thanks’ Bush for Starting Troop Withdrawal, ‘Neocons Lied to Get Us in There’

On Wednesday’s Countdown show, responding to conservatives who wanted President Obama to give more credit to President Bush for apparent successes in Iraq, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann sarcastically thanked the former President and charged that the war in Iraq was Bush’s “false war.” He went on to claim that, “The neocons lied about Iraq to get us in there.” Guest Jeremy Scahill of the left-wing “The Nation” magazine joined in slamming President Bush and “neocons” for the Iraq war, claimed the troop surge did not play a significant role in stabilizing the country, and ended up asserting that Bush administration members who supported the invasion “shouldn’t be able to leave their houses without being confronted with the death and destruction that their lies caused.” And, even though various news outlets reported on the presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in the country years before the 2003 invasion, Scahill claimed that “it was the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq that created an al-Qaeda presence in that country.” But, as previously documented by NewsBusters , back in January 2003 and again in March 2004, the NBC Nightly News relayed claims that the Bush administration had “passed up several opportunities to take [Zarqawi] out well before the Iraq war began.” Below is a complete transcript of the segment with Jeremy Scahill from the Wednesday, September 1, Countdown show on MSNBC: KEITH OLBERMANN: But praising Mr. Bush was not enough for those war supporters, unrealistic even by Bill Kristol’s standards. Former Bush National Security Advisor Steven Hadley told the Wall Street Journal, quote, “I thought I owed it to the former President that somewhere out there, somebody gives him some credit and points out that he is the one actually that started withdrawing U.S. troops.” Okay, I’ll do it. I, Keith Olbermann, do hereby give former U.S. President George Walker Bush some credit for starting to withdraw U.S. troops, except for those who were withdrawn because they were already dead – 4,427 of them – for whose presence in that nation I also credit President Bush. So, thank you, Mr. Bush, for starting to withdraw those troops lucky enough not to die in your false war. Thank you, Mr. Bush, for starting to withdraw those troops lucky enough to leave before they joined the ranks of the 31,000 whose bodies and lives and futures were shattered by your false war. Thank you for starting to withdraw after bankrupting our nation for your war after it became clear even Iraq would no longer let you stay, and just in time for America to try to accomplish something in Afghanistan, nine years after you let Osama bin Laden get away so you could fight the war for which America, we are told, should now thank you. Adding his thanks tonight, the national security reporter for the Nation magazine, Jeremy Scahill, also the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. Jeremy, thanks for your time tonight. JEREMY SCAHILL, THE NATION: Thank you. OLBEMRANN: All right, go ahead. Share your thanks to President Bush while we’re on this. SCAHILL: Well, Keith, you know who should be thanking President Bush tonight? The Iranian government. They have a much greater influence in Iraq now than they ever have had. Russian and Chinese oil companies that have gotten a lot of the oil contracts there. Anyone who likes to kill Americans should thank President Bush. And also among those that should thank President Bush are the people in possession of the billions of missing dollars that went missing in George Bush`s Iraq. The people who don’t have any obligation to thank President Bush are the families of the thousands of U.S. servicemen and women that died in that country, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that died, the millions of Iraqis that are displaced as a result of this illegal, immoral war that unfortunately, Keith, and we have to say this, was supported by Hillary Clinton when she was a Senator, and Joe Biden when he was a Senator. So the blame should be shared across the board. But George Bush is number one responsible for this, and deserves no thanks from anyone except people what could be described as enemies of this country and of security in the world. OLBERMANN: The former coalition spokesman, Dan Senor, said that the tone of the speech last night was fine. As I mentioned, Bill Kristol called the speech commendable, even impressive. Why are the others so insistent on the President praising Bush, without getting too deeply into the psychology of mass hypnosis and other things that might be relevant. Just the basics. SCAHILL: Right, well, these people have a PhD in lying, and a master’s degree in manipulating intelligence. And it’s really sobering to see this kind of brass historical revisionism happening in real time. The idea that these people want to post some kind of false flag of victory on the corpses of all who have died in Iraq because of their decisions. These people destabilized Iraq. They destabilized the Middle East with their neocon vision of redrawing maps. And they didn’t even succeed in their own stated mission. This is a special kind of pathological sickness that these individuals collectively are plagued with. OLBERMANN: The neocons lied about Iraq to get us in there, and now, as you point out, they’re lying about how we got out. Since they were not paying attention, we assume deliberately, it’s not that complicated, but can you explain the factors that actually led to the reduction of violence there, the ones that they erroneously credit to the surge? SCAHILL: Right, pardon me for introducing a little bit of fact onto cable news over these 24 hours. But the reality is there was no success of the surge. The fact is that Bush’s policy in Iraq caused massive destabilization, led to a civil war that killed upwards of a million Iraqis. There were ethnic cleansing campaigns. When the surge troops went in there, Baghdad was a walled off city. The Sunnis had been pushed out and sided with the United States. Muqtada al-Sadr responded to the announced time table for withdrawal that the neocons so opposed by saying he considered it a truce with the Americans and pulled his forces off the streets. So the entire surge myth permeates to this day. And it’s actually one big lie. OLBERMANN: The Hadley crediting of the Obama Iraq policies goes with it, arguing that Iraq was worth it. But he says that al-Qaeda in Iraq is, quote, “still capable of spectacular terrorist attacks.” And he simply asserts that somehow those are not a strategic threat anymore. Iraq’s not a threat because the Republicans don’t have the White House? Is that what it boils down to? SCAHILL: Well, let’s remember, and I’d like to remind Mr. Hadley, I’m sure he watches your show every night, Keith, that it was the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq that created an al-Qaeda presence in that country. It was their policies that destabilized that country and caused the deaths of so many Americans and so many Iraqi civilians. Steven Hadley probably sees Osama bin Laden at his corner store or hiding in his bathroom somewhere. So these people have zero credibility and have no business in public life anymore. They shouldn’t be able to leave their houses without being confronted with the death and destruction that their lies caused. OLBERMANN: Jeremy Scahill of the Nation, as always, a pleasure. Thank you, Jeremy. SCAHILL: Thank you.

Read more:
Olbermann Sarcastically ‘Thanks’ Bush for Starting Troop Withdrawal, ‘Neocons Lied to Get Us in There’

Vanity Fair On Sarah Palin: She Has A Terrible Temper, Is A Bad Tipper

Two years after entering the nation’s klieg lights Sarah Palin is the subject of a detailed and sometimes scathing profile in next month’s Vanity Fair. The portrait that emerges is one of a willful, often-paranoid, sometimes vengeful woman with a terrible temper and a knack for folksy soundbites, who knows her strengths, saw her moment in the spotlight and has grabbed onto it with both hands. Or as Vanity Fair’s Michael Joseph Gross puts it “anywhere you peel back the skin of Sarah Palin’s life, a sad and moldering strangeness lies beneath.” What is perhaps most amazing about the profile is that it took this long for it to come about. For a woman who has been the subject of spectacular amounts press attention very few details about her personal life, or any life behind the public face and Facebook page, have come to light. Ironically, if Palin wasn’t so secretive none of the things revealed in this profile would be terribly interesting; for the most part it’s pretty basic stuff. But the newness of it subsequently makes it hard not to wonder if this marks some sort of turning point for Palin and the press. Certainly her public persona appeared to take a hit following her puzzling support of Dr. Laura’s N-word debacle (her Facebook and Twitter have been notably tame since), and Sunday’s NYT op-ed calling for the Dems to come up with their own Palin appears to have hit a nerve. Not that Palin is going anywhere, not by a long shot, but one gets the sense her time of skating through all the attention with nary a nod to the public outside a handful of controlled mediums be coming to a close. In the meantime here’s a short selection of passages from the VF profile including some solid speculation about the woman who may be the voice of Palin’s Facebook page. Read the full piece here. Update: Ben Smith thinks you should take this piece with a grain of salt: “[M]y takeaway from the magazine piece is more that you can really write anything about Palin.” A takeaway that arguably adds to the conclusion Palin’s press avoidance is beginning to work against her. Palin and the press: “Her on-the-record statements about herself amount to a litany of untruths and half-truths.” She keeps tight control of her pronouncements, speaking only in settings of her own choosing, with audiences of her own selection, and with reporters kept at bay. (Despite many requests, neither Palin nor her current staff would comment for this article.) She injects herself into the news almost every day, but on a strictly one-way basis, through a steady stream of messages on Twitter and Facebook. The press plays along. Palin is the only politician whose tweets are regularly reported as news by TV networks. The woman behind Sarah Palin’s Facebook page Palin’s most unconventional hire is a novice media consultant, Rebecca Mansour, a 36-year-old Los Angeles resident who has been identified in news stories as a screenwriter. Mansour has said that she volunteered for Obama early in the 2008 campaign and then became disillusioned. Not long after the election…[Mansour] co-founded the most popular pro-Palin blog, Conservatives4Palin, known informally as C4P. By mid-August, her byline, long the most prominent one on C4P, had vanished from the site.But her voice, or at least a voice that sounds much like hers, was about to turn up in another venue…After Mansour’s voice disappeared on C4P, however, Palin’s voice on Facebook and Twitter started sounding increasingly provocative and irascible…This summer, in her capacity as a SarahPAC staffer, Mansour insisted to a reporter that “anything that goes out under [Palin’s] name is hers.” Palin’s virtual voice does sometimes have the ring of authenticity. But often it sounds less like Palin herself than someone else’s fantasy version of Palin at her most vitriolic. On one occasion Palin’s virtual voice contradicted remarks she made in a TV interview two days later. Andrew Sullivan Alert Palin delivers basically the same speech she gave 18 hours earlier to the Tea Party group in Independence. You could pretty much replace the word “constitution,” from yesterday’s remarks, with “Bible,” and be good to go. Then Palin departs from the script and speaks as if from the heart, describing her fear and confusion upon discovering that Trig would be born with Down syndrome. “I had never really been around a baby with special needs,” she tells her listeners. For what it’s worth, this statement is untrue. Depicting the same moment of discovery in her own book, Palin writes that she immediately thought of a special-needs child she knew very well: her autistic nephew. Such falsehoods never damage Palin’s credibility with her admirers, because information and ideology are incidental to this relationship. For someone who loves the common folk, Palin is apparently a bad tipper Palin does not always treat those ordinary people well, however—it depends on who is watching…The only time I heard of Palin giving a generous tip was in St. Joseph, Michigan, after the owner of Kilwin’s chocolate shop, on State Street, sent a CARE package to Palin’s suite, and Palin walked to the store to say thank you. She also wanted to buy more boxes of candy to take home. When the owner would not accept her money, Palin, encircled by the crowd that had jammed the store to get a glimpse of her, pressed a hundred-dollar bill into the woman’s hand, saying, “This is for the staff.” That Ben Franklin was the talk of State Street the whole rest of the day. And has a Terrible Temper The intensity of Palin’s temper was first described to me in such extreme terms that I couldn’t help but wonder if it might be exaggerated, until I heard corroborating tales of outbursts dating back to her days as mayor of Wasilla and before. One friend of the Palins’ remembers an argument between Sarah and Todd: “They took all the canned goods out of the pantry, then proceeded to throw them at each other. By the time they got done, the stainless-steel fridge looked like it had got shot up with a shotgun. Todd said, ‘I don’t know why I even waste my time trying to get nice things for you if you’re just going to ruin them.’ ” This friend adds, “As soon as she enters her property and the door closes, even the insects in that house cringe. added by: TimALoftis

Left Frantically Spins Discovery Shooter’s Radical Environmentalism – Will MSM Follow Suit?

Police just raided the Discovery Channel headquarters, where a man had taken hostages, and was apparently demanding that the channel air radical environmental propaganda. The man, James Jay Lee, pictured right, was reportedly shot and killed . Though most of the details remain unclear, one fact is quickly coming into sharp focus: the left will be working overtime in the next few days to spin this event any way they can. It began with this astoundingly dishonest Think Progress headline: ” Purported Eco-Terrorist Angered Over ‘Immigration Pollution And Anchor Baby Filth’ ” That’s right, of Lee’s thousand-word manifesto in which he stated his demands of Discovery, Think Progress chose to highlight not the radical, militant environmentalism he espoused, but rather an obscure claim (in terms of overall message and word count) that immigrants to developed nations make the pollution situation worse. Notably, Think Progress thought it was worth comparing Lee’s position on this single issue to other groups that have made similar claims, but did not see fit to liken him groups of environmental activists who also think overpopulation is the problem (Tom Friedman, please call your office). Lee also said war was bad for the environment. Will Think Progress condemn anti-war groups that make similar claims? Conservative bloggers predicted this line of attack since before it even emerged. Patterico pontificated : “They’ll find a way to label him a right-winger – or at least a Tea Partier. Somehow.” Indeed. Ace chimed in with his prediction: “You know how the media will report this, right? That’s right: Anti-immigration extremist.” Give the man a cigar. But while it’s hardly a surprise that the far-left is spinning the story as hard as they can, the question remains: will liberal journalists who often rip stories from Think Progress repeat this bogus line? Will even the mainstream media pick up on this blatantly dishonest meme, and play up the immigration aspect while ignoring the larger message of environmental extremism? For the media, the event is a bit of a role-reversal. Journalists who purported that militias or other perpetrators or advocates of violence against the government were products of a conservative/libertarian attitude embodied by the Tea Party movement are now put in the awkward position of having to apply that same logic to Lee and his radical environmentalism. By the same line of argument, pundits who relentlessly push the notion that human beings are responsible for the impending apocalypse due to their refusal to moderate their population or change their lifestyles are responsible, at least in part, for today’s violence. The media may also choose to simply ignore the environmental aspect and focus on his immigration views, employing the same logic it has used to condemn the Tea Party movement. We will see. You can help NB monitor media coverage of the situation. If you think you see bias at work, leave a note and link in the comments.

More:
Left Frantically Spins Discovery Shooter’s Radical Environmentalism – Will MSM Follow Suit?

Ebert: To Not Publicly Declare Obama Is Not a Muslim Is a ‘Crime Against America’

When you think of crimes against America, crimes so dangerous they strike out against the very existence of the country, what comes to mind? Espionage, terrorism, and treason perhaps top the list. But what about not publicly declaring that Barack Obama is in fact not a Muslim? Liberal Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger “Save the Republic from Palin” Ebert made a federal case out of the latter in a September 1 blog post entitled “Put up or shut up” (emphasis mine): The time is here for responsible Americans to put up or shut up. I refer specifically to those who have credibility among the guileless and credulous citizens who have been infected with notions so carefully nurtured. We cannot afford to allow the next election to proceed under a cloud of falsehood and delusion. We know, because they’ve said so publicly, that George W. Bush, his father and Sen. John McCain do not believe Obama is a Muslim. This is the time — now, not later — for them to repeat that belief in a joint statement. Other prominent Republicans such as Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul also certainly do not believe it. They have a responsibility to make that clear by subscribing to the statement. Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh must join, or let their silence indict them. Limbaugh in particular must cease his innuendos and say, flat out, whether he believes the President is a Muslim or not. Yes or no. Does he have evidence, or does he have none? Yes or no. To do anything less at this troubled time in our history would be a crime against America.

Read this article:
Ebert: To Not Publicly Declare Obama Is Not a Muslim Is a ‘Crime Against America’

CBS’s Smith Excuses Obama For Not Crediting Bush With Iraq Troop Surge

On Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith served as an apologist for President Obama, who failed to credit President George W. Bush with the Iraq troop surge in an Oval Office address Tuesday night: “…while he [Obama] did not acknowledge…President Bush’s support for the surge….he at least gave it tacit agreement – approval. And he has certainly approved a surge in Afghanistan.” Smith made the defense during an interview with Arizona Senator John McCain, who took the President to task for opposing the 2007 troop surge: “…it was President Bush who made the decision – over the vociferous option of the President of the United States, then Senator Obama – to do the surge. And if we had done what President Obama wanted, we would have failed in Iraq because he even voted against the funding for it.” After Smith claimed that Obama “had a year and a half to rescind” his opposition to the surge and eventually gave “tacit agreement” to it, McCain replied: “…if we had done what he wanted to do, we would have left and we would have lost and had a horrendous setback to America’s national security.” Smith moved on to Afghanistan, still skeptical of the success of the Iraq surge strategy: “If, in fact, the surge was successful in Iraq , is that – is there a lesson from that to be applied to Afghanistan now that we’ve – there are more than 320 kids have been killed in Afghanistan this year. Are the lessons of Iraq applicable to Afghanistan?” Prior to Smith’s interview with McCain, fill-in co-host Erica Hill interviewed Vice President Joe Biden. She wondered about Obama changing focus to the economy during the prime time address: “This was, though, supposed to be a speech about ending combat operations in Iraq, about the men and women currently fighting, those who have fought. Was this really the appropriate place and time to make that transition?” On Iraq, Hill questioned the stability of the security situation: “There has been increased violence, we’re hearing more and more about the sectarian divisions. Is there any concern on the part of the administration that there could be the creation of a vacuum of sorts at this point?” Hill failed to question the Vice President about his and President Obama’s opposition to the troop surge. Hill wrapped up the interview with Biden by lobbing a softball about the economy: “…you noted the fact that Democrats and Republicans should be cooperating, should be working together on the economy. As the administration does move forward, this is, of course, a major concern for the American people. What do you have in terms of planning, looking out now, to help stimulate the economy today?” Here is a full transcript of Smith’s September 1 interview with McCain: 7:10AM ET SEGMENT: HARRY SMITH: And joining us now from Phoenix is Senator John McCain. Senator, good morning. JOHN MCCAIN: Good morning. SMITH: What did you think of the speech last night? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Taking On Obama; McCain’s Reaction to Presidential Address] MCCAIN: Well, I was – I was pleased that the President gave such well-deserved praise to the men and women who have served and those who have sacrificed. It certainly was not generous of him when he mentioned former President George Bush as one who also appreciates the military, but the fact is, that it was President Bush who made the decision – over the vociferous option of the President of the United States, then Senator Obama – to do the surge. And if we had done what President Obama wanted, we would have failed in Iraq because he even voted against the funding for it. But the thing that disturbed me the most about it is this continued repetition that we are leaving at a date certain. You don’t win conflicts when you tell the enemy you’re leaving. Our friends are accommodating, our enemies are encouraged. A Taliban captive says ‘you’ve got the watches, we’ve got the time.’ It should be conditions-based. And when those conditions are met, then we can do exactly what we’re now doing in Iraq. SMITH: You’re referring to Afghanistan now. MCCAIN: Afghanistan, yes. I’m sorry. SMITH: One of the things – but one of the things he did say in the speech last night, the pace of reductions in Afghanistan will be determined by conditions on the ground. MCCAIN: If he had stopped there, we’d be in great shape. And then he had to repeat what was purely a political decision, no military person recommended it, that we were going to go ahead and continue – or begin our, quote, ‘withdrawal,’ the middle of next year. Look, that accounts for the behavior, to some degree, of Karzai, the –  many of the things that are happening in the region, because they believe that we are leaving. Look, Harry, I was even – I talked to a police chief outside Kandahar who said, ‘yeah, we think you’re leaving and the Taliban are telling us  they’re going to cut off our heads when you do.’ All he had to do was say it’s conditions-based. SMITH: The – I think part of the subtext of the message last night was, while he did not acknowledge the President’s – prior president, President Bush’s support for the surge, I think that- MCCAIN: Or his opposition – or his vociferous opposition and his opposition throughout- SMITH: Well he also had a year and a half to rescind it. So, he at least gave it tacit agreement –  approval and he has certainly approved a surge in Afghanistan. My question is, if – is, are there- MCCAIN: Harry, if he had had his way and he won the nomination of his party opposing Hillary Clinton, who had voted for it, that was the whole basis of his campaign. And if we had done what he wanted to do, we would have left and we would have lost and had a horrendous setback to America’s national security. SMITH: Let me ask this question, then. If, in fact, the surge was successful in Iraq, is that – is there a lesson from that to be applied to Afghanistan now that we’ve – there are more than 320 kids have been killed in Afghanistan this year. Are the lessons of Iraq applicable to Afghanistan? MCCAIN: The fundamentals are. The same general who made it succeed the last time in Iraq is in charge in Afghanistan. I think he’s the finest general that I’ve had the opportunity – ever had the opportunity of being in the company of. He believes that we can succeed. But I can tell you, the commandant of the Marine Corps said recently that the announcement of beginning a withdrawal, it gives sustenance to the Taliban. I mean, you cannot win conflicts when you say that you are leaving. And again, no military person – no military person with any military background would recommend what the President did. It was a political decision. He made it to please his political base. And he should change it. And it’s wrong to put young Americans in harm’s way when you’re telling your enemies and your friends alike in the region that you’re going to be leaving. SMITH: Alright. Senator John McCain, thank you very much for your time this morning. Do appreciate it. MCCAIN: Thank you. Thank you. SMITH: Alright, good to see you. Here is a full transcript of Hill’s interview with Biden: 7:06AM SEGMENT ERICA HILL: And joining us now from Baghdad is Vice President Joe Biden. Mr. Vice President, good morning. JOE BIDEN: Good morning, Erica. HILL: The President last night, of course, said this was time to turn the page and then took that opportunity to say, and I’m quoting here, ‘our most urgent task is to restore our economy.’ This was, though, supposed to be a speech about ending combat operations in Iraq, about the men and women currently fighting, those who have fought. Was this really the appropriate place and time to make that transition? BIDEN: Yes. It was at the end of his speech. He did speak exactly about turning the page here as well. He didn’t use that phrase. He talked about ‘change the mission.’ I’m about to go to a ceremony literally in the next hour where that is taking place. And he did speak at length about the bravery and the sacrifice made by the men and women of this country. But the truth of the matter is, at the end of the day, our ability to maintain our national security is, in fact, dependent  upon the economy. And it’s time to focus on that as well. Lastly, Erica, what he was really talking about was, just as we turn the page and are cooperating as Democrats and Republicans on the issue of Iraq, we should be doing the same thing on the economy, cooperating. HILL: When it comes to Iraq, you are there – you are there right now on the ground, of course. As people look at the Iraq that we’re seeing today, the government still in flux six months after an election. There has been increased violence, we’re hearing more and more about the sectarian divisions. Is there any concern on the part of the administration that there could be the creation of a vacuum of sorts at this point? BIDEN: Well, there’s always the possibility, long term, if this goes on, creating a vacuum. But the truth of the matter is, violence is the lowest level it’s been since we arrived in 2003. Number one. Number two, the fact of the matter is, that I have been speaking with every one of the major leaders. I’ve met with every one of the groups that are – that won portions of the vote in the election. And I’m absolutely convinced that they are nearing the ability of forming a government that will be a government representing the outcome of the election, which was very much divided. There’s 325-plus members of their parliament, the largest party got 91 votes. So, it takes a while to put together this coalition. But I believe they’re close to doing that. HILL: I do want to bring you back to the economy for one second because, as you said after that first question, you noted the fact that Democrats and Republicans should be cooperating, should be working together on the economy. As the administration does move forward, this is, of course, a major concern for the American people. What do you have in terms of planning, looking out now, to help stimulate the economy today? BIDEN: Well, a continuation of what we’re doing now, which is to stimulate the economy by continuing to focus on infrastructure by giving taxes and more tax breaks to small businesses. They’re the job creators, they’re the incubators of job creation. They need the help. And by continuing the middle class tax cut so that middle class people have disposable income in order to meet their needs and, in turn, that stimulates the economy. And I hope the Republicans, when we get back, will, in fact, lift their hold on us being able to vote on a tax cut for small businesses that is tied up in the Senate. So, I just hope we begin to focus more on job creation than on – as the leader of the Republican Party, Mr. Sessions, in charge of the election – re-election of the Congress – said that what we have to do is return to exactly what we were doing before. That’s not much of an alternative. HILL: Vice President Joe Biden, thanks for joining us this morning. BIDEN: Thank you very much, Erica. Pleasure to be with you.

See more here:
CBS’s Smith Excuses Obama For Not Crediting Bush With Iraq Troop Surge

Anatomy of an Internet Suicide: Reddit Suicide: How the Internet Can Help and Hurt

When a Reddit user recently challenged the online community to give him a reason not to kill himself, their responses either failed to stop him—or pushed him over the edge. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-31/reddit-suicide-how-the… :mainpromo4 added by: atomiclegion

AZ Border Sheriff: ‘I Have About As Much Regard for the U.N. as I Do the Vermin’

Sheriff Larry Dever, whose officers patrol Cochise County along the border between Arizona and Mexico, said he finds it “amazing” that the U.S. State Department would refer the recently passed immigration law in his state to the United Nations Human Rights Council for review. “Well, it’s just amazing to me,” Dever told CNSNews.com. “Course, I have about as much regard for the U.N. as I do the vermin that hides in the rocks around my house here and reaches out and tries to bite me every now and then.” The Bush administration refused to join the U.N. Human Rights Council, citing lax membership criteria that allowed countries with poor human rights records to sit on the council, including countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, Tunisia and Egypt. The Obama administration joined the council, citing its imperfections but made claims that U.S. efforts could change the organization for the better. Now, the U.S. State Department is asking the council to review possible human rights violations that supposedly could occur under the Arizona’s new law against illegal immigration. The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) has also filed a lawsuit challenging the Arizona law. “Where does this end?” Dever told CNSNews.com. “Why the Department of Justice intervened in this case to begin with was beyond comprehension,” Dever said, referring to the DOJ lawsuit, which claims that the Arizona law violated the federal government’s exclusive right to enforce federal immigration laws. Dever said the State Department move, however, is in keeping with the Obama administration’s reluctance to enforce federal immigration law and that it is probably seeking support from the United Nations to further its agenda. “It’s indicative of the personality of the entire administration and what they are trying to get done,” Dever said. “This is just further evidence.” Dever added that the results of the U.N. review would not have any impact for those with boots on the ground in Arizona who, on a daily basis, fight the flow of illegal immigrants across the porous U.S. border. “They can take their declarations and their findings and pack them all up and keep them in the United Nations because we really don’t care what they think,” Dever said. In its report to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, the State Department, headed by Secretary Hillary Clinton, said the following: “A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. This action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.” added by: im1mjrpain

Yesterday, Obama announced that ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom Is Over’. Do you think Iraq is better off today than it was seven years ago?

Yesterday, Obama announced that 'Operation Iraqi Freedom Is Over'. Do you think Iraq is better off today than it was seven years ago?

NBC’s Matt Lauer Repeatedly Presses Joe Biden on Iraq War: Was It Worth It?

NBC’s Matt Lauer wanted one question to stick in the minds of his Today show viewers, as from the top of Wednesday’s show, to his interview with Vice President Joe Biden, the Today co-anchor repeatedly asked was the Iraq war “worth it?” As part of the analysis of the President’s Oval Office speech last night, in which Barack Obama announced an end to U.S. combat operations in Iraq, Lauer invited on Biden, in the 7am half hour, to press him about the costs of the war as he asked: “There is a question being asked in homes all across the country this morning, after seven years and 4,400 lives and tens of thousands of U.S. servicemen and women wounded, some of them horrifically, and of course billions and billions of dollars spent, was Iraq worth it?” [ audio available here ] For his part Biden responded that since he had a son who served in Iraq for a year, “I could never say to any of those parents it’s not worth it” but that didn’t dissuade Lauer from pursuing his line of questioning, from the left, as he cited a New York Times editorial to the Vice President: I want to read you something from an editorial in this morning’s New York Times. Quote: “In many ways the war has made Americans less safe, creating a new organization of terrorists and diverting the nation’s military resources and political will from Afghanistan. Deprived of its main adversary, a strong Iraq, Iran was left freer to pursue its nuclear program to direct and finance extremist groups and meddle in Iraq.” Do you agree with that assessment? The following intro and full interview with Biden were aired on the September 1 Today show: [7:00am] BARACK OBAMA: Now it’s time to turn the page. MATT LAUER: Page turner. In a primetime Oval address President Obama announces the end of combat operations in Iraq. Was it worth it? Especially for the families who lost loved ones. This morning Vice President Joe Biden tackles that question. … [7:11am] MATT LAUER: Savannah Guthrie, thank you very much. Vice President Joe Biden is in Baghdad this morning. Mr. Vice President, good morning to you. JOE BIDEN: Good morning, Matt, how are you? LAUER: I’m fine, sir, thank you very much. There is a question being asked in homes all across the country this morning, after seven years and 4,400 lives and tens of thousands of U.S. servicemen and women wounded, some of them horrifically, and of course billions and billions of dollars spent, was Iraq worth it? How do you answer that question? BIDEN: My answer, Matt, is that all the sacrifices made by the American people, but particularly by our troops, we have to, in fact, make sure that this transition to the Iraqis works. We have to make sure that when we leave here, there is a stable government that is secure within its own borders, not a threat to its neighbors, in order to, to justify all that sacrifice that, that is taking place because the sacrifice is real. LAUER: Well so you’re saying if we don’t ensure the future, it may not have been worth it? In other words, at this stage, is it still unclear whether it’s worth it? BIDEN: Matt, having a son who served here for a year and feeling lucky he came home and thinking about all those parents who didn’t have their child come home, I could never say to any of those parents it’s not worth it. What I have to say is we are committed to making sure that the sacrifices they made bear fruit and the fruit will ultimately be in a stable Iraqi government that is able to stand on their own and, in fact, is not a threat to its neighbors nor threatened by its neighbors. LAUER: You said recently that Iraq now is safe. And you know there were some 50 people killed in insurgent attacks, in the days prior to your visit there. From my understanding, since you been there, on at least three occasions, alarms have sounded warning of incoming mortars. So to, to the families of the 50,000 U.S. troops that remain, now that combat troops are gone, are their loved ones safe? BIDEN: Look Matt, the level of violence is the lowest it’s been since 2003 when we got here. There are traffic jams in the street, there are people walking around and the vast majority of the country, there are, been no attacks. The fact of the matter is that there was an uptick in violence, 12 simultaneous attacks that, in fact took place a week or so ago, creating significantly less damage than any kind of coordinated attack has in the past. It’s still dangerous. But the fact of the matter is those 50,000 troops are well equipped, well protected and they’re in a position where they’re much, much, much safer than troops were a year ago, two years ago, and three years ago. As a matter of fact safer than any time since 2003. But there’s still, there’s still danger that exists in this country. LAUER: In his speech from the Oval Office last night, Mr. Vice President, the President referred to former President Bush and he said that while the two of them were at odds on this war from the very beginning, he said that no one could doubt Mr. Bush’s quote, “support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security.” I want to read you something from an editorial in this morning’s New York Times. Quote: “In many ways the war has made Americans less safe, creating a new organization of terrorists and diverting the nation’s military resources and political will from Afghanistan. Deprived of its main adversary, a strong Iraq, Iran was left freer to pursue its nuclear program to direct and finance extremist groups and meddle in Iraq.” Do you agree with that assessment? BIDEN: Well look all I’m gonna focus on today, Matt, is Iraq. The fact of the matter is, that, we are moving in a direction where the Iraqis are better positioned to be able to be successful, free and not a destabilizing force in the world but a positive force. And the question about whether or not credit is deserved, who deserves the credit for this beginning of a fundamental transition, I don’t think is worth arguing about. The truth of the matter is there were a lot of mistakes. There’s no doubt that the President and I both disagreed with the way in which the war had begun, how it was conducted, etc. But, but the truth of the matter is, that at, by the end of the last administration, a transition was in place, there was a political movement that was afoot. We kept on Secretary Gates, our present, we kept on General Petraeus, we kept on a continuity here to finish the job and that’s what we’re in the process of doing. LAUER: Vice President Joe Biden joining us from Baghdad, this morning. Mr. Vice President, I thank you for your time. BIDEN: Thanks an awful lot, Matt. I appreciate it.

Read more:
NBC’s Matt Lauer Repeatedly Presses Joe Biden on Iraq War: Was It Worth It?