Back at Sundance, I talked to director Amir Bar-Lev about his powerful documentary The Tillman Story, and now that the film is coming out in limited release, Movieline is republishing that very candid interview. Of particular note in this conversation? Bar-Lev’s excoriation of General Stanley McChrystal (a key figure involved with the Pat Tillman cover-up), who’s since been let go by President Obama following McChrystal’s unflattering comments about the administration in Rolling Stone.
Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged celeb news, coming-out, conversation, Hollywood, key-figure, movieline, pat tillman, president, president-obama, since-been, sundance, tillman-story
Thursday’s Washington Post reports that a new poll by the Pew Research Center found “The number of Americans who believe – wrongly – that President Obama is a Muslim has increased significantly since his inauguration and now account for nearly 20 percent of the nation’s population.” Team Obama quickly blamed “’misinformation campaigns’ by the president’s opponents.” The Post’s Jon Cohen and Michael D. Shear just pass that along without any specifics. But what’s really shaky is the story’s accuser, Obama “faith adviser” Joshua DuBois, trying to tout how the president is deeply, “diligently” Christian, when the president is much more diligent at golfing than he is at church attendance. The number of Sunday church services Obama has attended since the Inauguration doesn’t get beyond counting on one hand, even bypassing the pews at Christmas. Numerous liberal outlets have giddily promoted that Obama is a Christian because he receives little religious and inspirational quotes on his BlackBerry from his adviser DuBois. (Matt Lauer: “It’s spirituality meets high-tech! That’s pretty good!” ) They also routinely careen around the idea that if Obama is a Christian, he came to Jesus by being for two decades a Jeremiah Wright we-deserved-9/11 Christian . Cohen and Shear naturally avoided that: The president’s religion, like his place of birth, has been the subject of Internet-spread rumors and falsehoods since before he began his presidential campaign, and the poll indicates that those rumors have gained currency since Obama took office. The number of people who now correctly identify Obama as a Christian has dropped to 34 percent, down from nearly half when he took office. White House officials expressed dismay over the poll results. Faith adviser Joshua DuBois blamed “misinformation campaigns” by the president’s opponents. “While the president has been diligent and personally committed to his own Christian faith , there’s certainly folks who are intent on spreading falsehoods about the president and his values and beliefs,” DuBois said. DuBois said the president’s Christian faith plays an “important part” in his daily life. And he pointed to six speeches on faith that the president has given in which he talked about his beliefs. But Dubois said coverage of Obama’s Christianity has been scant compared with news about the economic crisis, legislative battles and other issues. In other words, DuBois is claiming that Obama’s given more speeches on faith than he’s attended a church service to hear a minister’s speech on faith. Blaming the media for “scant coverage” of Obama’s allegedly devout Christianity is the lamest line DuBois offered. Matt Lauer and other journalists (like Obama’s Five Guys burger partner Brian Williams) would have been more than willing to offer supportive time for Obama to discuss his religion. These Post reporters should have pressed DuBois about Obama’s obvious and public lack of interest in the subject — suggesting that perhaps the idea that Obama’s fervently, diligently Christian is more rumor than fact — and whether that noticeable apathy is a bone to his secular-progressive political base.
Read the rest here:
WaPo Laments False Rumor Obama’s a Muslim: He’s Been a ‘Diligent and Personally Committed’ Christian?
Following in the footsteps of The Washington Post , Wednesday’s New York Times put Sharron Angle on the front page, pushing strongly on Harry Reid’s notion that her extremism and ineptitude are working in Reid’s favor. Reporter Adam Nagourney played up Republican pessimism: Since Ms. Angle won, her campaign has been rocked by a series of politically intemperate remarks and awkward efforts to retreat from hard-line positions she has embraced in the past, like phasing out Social Security. There have also been a staff shake-up and run-ins with Nevada journalists, including one in which a television reporter chased her through a parking lot trying to get her to answer a question. Republicans in this state are concerned that what had once seemed a relatively easy victory is suddenly in doubt, with signs that Ms. Angle’s campaign is scrambling to regroup. “Reid had no chance to win before,” said Danny Tarkanian, one of the Republicans who lost to Ms. Angle. “He has a shot to win now. He could still lose, but I have to say he is favored.” Nagourney does not suggest “Landslide Harry” is a terrific candidate. He makes it clear that the Democrats need an anti-Angle vote to win: If Mr. Reid is doing better than he once was, it is still relative; he is a politician in deep trouble. A Mason-Dixon poll last week found that 51 percent of Nevadans held an unfavorable opinion of him, a toxic number for an incumbent. That poll found Mr. Reid and Ms. Angle in an effective tie. “I’ll say this about Angle: I still think when we get to the end, it’s still going to be about Harry Reid and whether Nevada voters want to get rid of him and send a message to Washington,” said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon. “They may still hold their nose and vote for Sharron Angle even if they don’t agree with a lot of things that she says and does.” Mr. Reid’s advisers made clear that the only way they could win was to make Ms. Angle so distasteful to Nevada voters that they would vote for Mr. Reid or someone else — it is possible here to vote for “none of the above” — or stay home. “I’m not discounting her,” Mr. Reid said. “In the spite of the work we’ve done, people need to understand more about her. There are some unusual stands she has.” But Nagourney’s story makes no serious attempt to understand the “why” of Reid’s unpopularity — particularly as Reid wants to note the other candidate’s hardline ideological stands and gaffes. Nagourney avoids Reid’s list, like Reid declaring it should be impossible to be both Hispanic and Republican — the Times continues to avoid that gaffe completely. There’s no mention of Reid’s gaffes about how Obama won election because he was a “light-skinned black” with “no Negro dialect.” There’s no mention of Reid claiming the war in Iraq was “lost” and the surge accomplished nothing. It’s too bad that the Times didn’t offer more of his interview with Angle in the paper, like this exchange in the transcript they posted : NAGOURNEY: do you think President Obama represents the values of this country, in your view? ANGLE: President Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi represent what mainstream America is rejecting about Washington, D.C. And that is this out of touch with the people. When Harry Reid was asked to do town halls, for instance, on Obamacare, he refused. Now people want to talk about these things. They want to talk to their representatives about it. And certainly there was a mainstream reaction, a majority reaction, against Obamacare, and yet they passed it anyway. That portrait of hardline ideology doesn’t match the liberal-media storyline — even if it explains a Republican advantage at the polls.
Read more:
On Page One, N.Y. Times Plays Up Sharron Angle’s ‘Awkward Retreats’ from ‘Hardline Positions’
For two days running, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” seemed overwhelmingly in favor of allowing the Ground Zero mosque to be built, despite a poll showing Americans being opposed to the construction of the mosque. The panels included co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, and liberal columnist Mike Barnicle as well as MSNBC contributors Mark Halperin, Norah O’Donnell, and Pat Buchanan. Their toughest rhetoric was reserved for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, due to his comments about the mosque being the equivalent of Nazis hanging a swastika next to a Holocaust memorial. But the talking heads also failed to give the American people’s opposition to the mosque its just due. Perhaps the biggest gem came from columnist Mike Barnicle, who described those Americans questioning the mosque as stuck in their own reality. “They’re not really thinking about the idealistic trek, they’re thinking about their own reality,” Barnicle quipped. “And their own reality is that we were attacked on September 11. They’re not making the connection to the Constitution, and that’s where we are this morning.” Joe Scarborough called the whole debate a “wedge issue” that is distracting the country “from doing good things” such as “working on jobs.” The co-host continued, saying the issue has become so much more complicated due to opposition to the mosque, and added that America giving in to “radicals” could worsen the whole debate. When the news broke that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) opposed the location of the Ground Zero mosque, co-host Mika Brzesinski huffed, “I just have a question. Did somebody ask him what his opinion was? Um, ’cause I didn’t. Did you?” When Pat Buchanan asked guest Anita Dunn “What about tolerance for the vast majority of Americans and their opinions?” Mika Brzezinski jumped in with Dunn afterward. “They have, like, other things there that are – a lot of people would have issues with – like peep shows,” the co-host chimed in, dismissing the argument that the area around Ground Zero is free of obstacles to its “hallowed ground” status. The panels reserved the biting criticism for Newt Gingrich, however, describing his words as “political pyromania,” “despicable,” and “demonizing.” Mike Barnicle went further, opting to get personal, bringing Gingrich’s failed marriages into the debate. “Apparently, because he has had two badly failed marriages, quite publicly failed marriages, [he] has now married his ambition to his ignorance on this issue in a craven attempt to get votes, as he thinks he’s going to run for President of the United States.” A transcript of the notable quotes from the two shows is as follows: MORNING JOE 8/17/10 7:06 a.m. EDT MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I just have a question. Did somebody ask [Sen. Harry Reid] what his opinion was? Um, ’cause I didn’t. Did you? (…) MIKE BARNICLE: It has nothing to do with life in America. But it’s going to be, right now and for the forseeable future, maybe a couple of weeks, the paramount issue in our pathetic politics. (…) JOE SCARBOROUGH: Newt has always been a provocateur. We’ve known that, that’s how he got elected Speaker. I don’t think he’s gone quite as far as he has. He’s made a couple of comments over the past month, Pat, that have been obviously fanning the flames of several controversies, and Newt’s taken, then this – what did Mike call it – political – BRZEZINSKI: Pyromania. SCARBOROUGH: …pyromania to a new level. (…) SCARBOROUGH: I just know that the only human being alive who has characterized him as a radical Islamist suggesting that he’s a terrorist somehow connected to 9/11 attacks is Newt Gingrich, who again has compared building of a mosque in America, on private property Mika, to putting a swastika on the Holocaust Museum. It’s deplorable, it is sick politics, and I pray to God sincerely that some Republican on the national stage, some elected leader, will have the courage to call Newt Gingrich out. Because until the party stands up to this type of extremism, this is a party that will find itself further and further marginalized by these voices of hate and anger. (…) BRZEZINSKI: Honestly Anita, I think it’s going to lead us toward an independent candidate sooner than we could expect. (…) ANITA DUNN, Fmr. White House Comm. Dir.: I think the Republican Party as solidifying it’s reputation for intolerance in this year for almost any kind of difference in American society, is going down a very dangerous long-term road, and they might see some short-term things, although I think the American people are better than that. PAT BUCHANAN: Anita, let me ask you about this word “tolerance.” I mean, what about tolerance for the views of the thousands of families of those who died on 9/11. Hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers are saying “Please, you have the right to move the mosque there, but please don’t do it, it doesn’t belong there.” And the vast majority of Americans who say the same thing, they have a right to build a mosque. But for heavens sakes, given the fact that the terrorists were Islamic, it was crucial to their identity and their mission, please don’t put an Islamic mosque just two blocks from where this happened. What about tolerance for the vast majority of Americans and their opinions? DUNN: Well, you know, I have to ask, it’s two blocks from the site. It’s a center that is supposed to be about promoting inner faith and about reaching out, which is in many ways what I think President Bush back in those horrible days of 2001, really tried to promote. And I think that how many blocks is okay? Is nine blocks okay? Is ten? I don’t know where you go with this argument. BRZEZINSKI: And Anita? They have, like, other things there that are, a lot of people would have issues with like peep shows. So, I mean, I think you bring up a really good point. (…) SCARBOROUGH: The Gingrich comment – so over the top. (…) BRZEZINSKI: I think that Gingrich’s comments are more of a story than anything the President did. I think they are a real sign of the times, and I hope that the times are changing, and that the people don’t play into that, fall for it even, and that they’re smarter. SCARBOROUGH: The comments are reckless, they’re irresponsible, they make millions of Muslim Americans law-abiding Muslim Americans – feel as if some leaders want them to be under siege in their own country. And it sends a horrific message across the globe. BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. But what you’re saying actually takes a backbone, and takes a little bit of self-control, when it comes to not wanting to feed into either extremist views or to make waves by kind of playing into weaknesses, tendencies, or even a lack of understanding of our Constitution that some may have. (…) SCARBOROUGH: Because I actually have read the First Amendment, and understand what the First Amendment means, and understand what freedom of religion means, and understand that if our government, our centralized state takes actions which chills people’s freedom of religion today, because they’re Muslims, and because they’re unpopular in lower Manhattan, then the next time with another administration, it could be a Pentecostal church that’s not allowed to build in San Francisco. And then it may be an Evangelical church or a conservative Catholic church or it may be, with anti-Semitism in this country and across Europe, it may be a conservative Jewish synagogue 20 years from now. I mean, you don’t take the first step down this path, it’s what, in law school, our professors always called the slippery slope. This is taking the first step, and when Newt Gingrich compares Muslims to Nazis, which he did, unmistakably, compared Muslims to Nazis simply because of the god they worship, because of the faith they follow, that is contemptible, and it suggests that Newt Gingrich is either desperate for votes, or desperate for money. I suggest this man read the Constitution of the United States of America, and that he reveres the Constitution of the United States of America, and he stops pandering to the lowest base of American politics, and instead embraces the genius of our Constitution. BRZEZINSKI: He is definitely pandering, and even worse, and I don’t even like to think of the word that comes to mind to characterize this, but he’s demonizing people. (…) SCARBOROUGH: Newt Gingrich will not be elected President of the United States. He will not even win a Republican primary. He will sell a lot of books. He will make a lot of money. He will stir up a lot of hatred on the right on this issue, but just because he may have this overarching ideological theory of a grand clash between civilizations doesn’t mean that he can get his facts wrong, doesn’t mean that he can call the Imam a “radical Islamist.” (…) BARNICLE: It’s about the lowest common denominator of politics, taken there by people just like Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, who apparently, because he has had two badly failed marriages, quite publicly failed marriages, has now married his ambition to his ignorance on this issue in a craven attempt to get votes, as he thinks he’s going to run for President of the United States. MORNING JOE 8/18/10 6:47 a.m. EDT SCARBOROUGH: So even if the President, even if David Patterson, even if people inside this Islamic cultural center developing want to move it 20 blocks, we now are in a much more complicated situation than we would have been a month ago in trying to figure out how to do it without thinking, “Well, America caved in to these radicals that were accusing this guy of being a Muslim radical, and accusing all Muslims of being Nazis, so it’s gotten much more complicated, hasn’t it? (…) BARNICLE: I think this entire flap is just one more thumb on the scale tilted against the President at this moment in time. Memory has nothing to do with it. And I think what the mosque flap does, is it adds to the agita that’s out there in this country over the economy. I mean, the President can talk all he wants about what he inherited. This is his economy, these are his wars, this is his problem, and now I think people are looking and saying “Geez, is this guy in over his head?” Not that he is, but I think people are now beginning to wonder what is going on here. Every time he opens his mouth, and maybe he opens his mouth too much, something happens. (…) BARNICLE: There’s a lot of people in this country who say, you know, “Why? Why are we letting them build a mosque?” Them being the people who want to build the mosque. They’re not really thinking about the idealistic trek, they’re thinking about their own reality. And their own reality is that we were attacked on September 11. They’re not making the connection to the Constitution, and that’s where we are this morning. (…) SCARBOROUGH: The fact of the matter is that Harry Reid was forced by Sharron Angle to come out and take this position after Newt Gingrich started going on Fox News comparing Muslims to Nazis. Now if you don’t think that there is a connection, a nexus, between Harry Reid scrambling out with a statement after being pressured by Sharron Angle to make a statement on this, you are, I think you are sadly disconnected from the realities of Nevada politics. I know that’s not the case. (…) SCARBOROUGH: We always, always find a wedge issue, as a country, to distract us from doing good things, to distract us from working on jobs, to distract us from balancing the budget, to distract us from reforming social security, to distract us from ending the war. There are always these stupid wedge issues – and I’m not talking about this one specifically – where there’s more heat than light, and it’s a distraction for Washington and the chattering classes.
Excerpt from:
‘Morning Joe’ Panels Condescendingly Smear Opposition to Ground Zero Mosque – for Two Days Running
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged construction, goldsmith, ground zero mosque, House, mika brzezinski, ncis, News, party, president, speaker
Appearing in the 2:00PM ET hour on MSNBC, New York Daily News reporter Samuel Goldsmith cited a poll featured on the paper’s website , about opposition to the Ground Zero mosque: “[it] shows that 70% of New Yorkers say that they think the opposition is out of hatred and religious intolerance.” Unfortunately, Goldsmith forgot to mention that it was a completely unscientific poll that only appeared within articles on the topic and allowed people to potentially vote numerous times. The slanted poll question read: “Is opposition to the building of a mosque near Ground Zero intolerant?” The three responses offered were: “Yes, it’s pure religious bigotry against Muslims; No, you can be against because it dishonors victims of Sept. 11; Maybe, but the sensitive thing to do is to move it further from the WTC site.” Goldsmith touted the Daily News poll after anchor Jeff Rossen cited a scientific poll on the issue: “A new Siena College poll suggests – and we actually have the results right here – that 63% of New Yorkers oppose this Islamic center. Only 23% support it.” After promoting the unreliable online poll, Goldsmith argued: “…there’s a lot of voices coming out….It’s hard to really get a grasp of what the public opinion is, I think.” Here is a full transcript of the August 18 program: 2:08PM ET JEFF ROSSEN: President Obama not backing down from his comments about the Ground Zero mosque and the Islamic center. At the end of an event in Columbus, Ohio today a reporter asked the President whether he had any regrets, speaking out on the issue. BARACK OBAMA: The answer is no regrets. ROSSEN: You couldn’t hear that, he said the answer is no regrets. Samuel Goldsmith is with the New York Daily News. Thanks so much for joining us Samuel. GOLDSMITH: How are you? ROSSEN: So, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now calling for an investigation into the groups that are opposing this. What are your thoughts? SAMUEL GOLDSMITH: Well, she’s the first one to come out and say that there should be an investigation into that side of the argument. So far there have just been calls for investigations into the group behind the project. ROSSEN: There are reports that the makers – that the developers of the mosque have turned down an offer from the New York Governor David Paterson to relocate this center and this mosque. Is there any compromise left, you think – in the cards? GOLDSMITH: You know I’m not – I’m having a hard time finding out if that report’s true. I don’t think it is. They said yesterday that they were willing to meet with the Governor. Though they’re also saying they’re not interested in relocating. ROSSEN: A new Siena College poll suggests – and we actually have the results right here – that 63% of New Yorkers oppose this Islamic center. Only 23% support it. It appears that doesn’t matter to the President or to the Mayor as well. What are your thoughts? GOLDSMITH: It’s interesting, the poll, we have a poll on our website that also shows that 70% of New Yorkers say that they think the opposition is out of hatred and religious intolerance. So there’s a lot of voices coming out. The polls show one side of it. It’s hard to really get a grasp of what the public opinion is, I think. ROSSEN: At the same time, 64% of voters say the developers have the constitutional right to build the mosque. So it’s really a very interesting poll. Just as many people say they shouldn’t build it there but they also agree that they have the right to. GOLDSMITH: Which is basically what a lot of politicians have said, which is they’re not commenting on the wisdom of it, but they believe they have the right. That’s what the President said. ROSSEN: Samuel Goldsmith with the New York Daily News. Thanks for joining us, sir. GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
Here is the original post:
NY Daily News Reporter Touts Online Poll That 70% of New Yorkers Think Mosque Opposition Based on ‘Hatred’
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged Breaking News, cards, goldsmith, ground, ground zero mosque, Hollywood, House, jeff rossen, mosque, msnbc live, Obama, polling, president, thoughts
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday complained about “ugly” comments arising from the debate over the Ground Zero mosque. She also spun the founder and chief proponent of the construction as a moderate, “despite some criticism of the Imam from the right.” [MP3 audio here .] After fellow MSNBC anchor Chuck Todd asserted that the President felt like he had to speak out because “the debate was getting so loud,” Mitchell editorialized, ” Getting loud, heated, ugly and inaccurate, in fact. ” She then proceeded to tout Feisal Abdul Rauf to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius. Mitchell enthused, “And despite some criticism of the Imam from the right, it turns out that Feisal Abdul Rauf has been an unofficial U.S. ambassador to the Muslim world in addition to promoting peace and religious tolerance in Manhattan.” At no time did she offer her viewers any hint that Abdul Rauf has made some controversial assertions. These include making comments that seem supportive of Sharia law in the United States, refusing to condemn Hamas and referring to the United States as an “accessory” to 9/11. Instead, she touted, “And Walter Isaacson, who we both know well from the head of the Aspen Institute, was quoted as saying, ‘He’s consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam.'” However, this doesn’t square with Abdul Rauf’s September 30, 2001 appearance on 60 Minutes where this exchange occurred: ED BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened? IMAM ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. BRADLEY: OK. You say that we’re an accessory? ABDUL RAUF: Yes. BRADLEY: How? ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA. Given Mitchell’s complaints about “inaccurate” statements in the Ground Zero debate, her above quote is sloppy at best. A transcript of the August 18 segment, which aired at 1:18pm EDT, follows: ANDREA MITCHELL: And when they speak privately to you Chuck, are they annoyed with Harry Reid for escalating this as a political matter? CHUCK TODD: You know, they have not been critical of anybody, even privately, on how they’ve reacted to this because, frankly, they understand that they created a bit of a political problem for everybody else. I’ve talked to other Democrats outside the White House who believe that the Harry Reid could have handled this differently, who think that maybe Harry Reid invited holding up more opportunities for Republicans to put other Democrats in a position to have to come out with a statement about this, have to deal with this in their own races, because here’s a guy who, basically, felt the need to respond to his opponent in Nevada, to respond to Sharron Angle. So if he can respond, then, of course, why can’t anybody else who is running for re-election in 2010 respond to their Republican opponent in their district or state? So I think that is where the annoyance I’ve heard. I have not heard it from the White House because the White House gets it and the President himself said they read polls and know that they put members of their own party in an awkward position. But, this is a case where they feel like, where the President himself felt like he had to speak out on this, because, frankly, the debate was getting so loud and heated and, maybe, unproductive. MITCHELL: Getting loud, heated, ugly and inaccurate, in fact. And we’re going to set the record straight on some of that coming up. … MITCHELL: We are now learning more, indeed, about the man behind the proposed Islamic center. And despite some criticism of the Imam from the right , it turns out that Feisal Abdul Rauf has been an unofficial U.S. ambassador to the Muslim world in addition to promoting peace and religious tolerance in Manhattan. Here with me now, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. Uh, David, you’ve been looking at this from removed- and also from inside the White House and inside the State Department. And it’s extraordinary. This is a man who traveled with- to Doha in 2006 at the worst time in the Iraq war with Karen Hughes from the Bush State Department as an envoy, an unofficial envoy, spoke out after 9/11 in Manhattan. DAVID IGNATIUS: Andrea, from everything that we can tell about him, he is almost a model of what you want as a moderate Islamic cleric, with credibility among Muslims to be sure, who is prepared to speak out to the United States. I mean, if you were going to design, as a thought experiment, a way to pull people away from al Qaeda and it would be hard to think of somebody more powerful than this who says that the 9/11 attacks were wrong . Working with the United States is right. Speaking out against a violence is an obligation for Muslims. If we’re ever going to get out of this mess, if we’re going to avoid a war with Muslims around the world, which we all deeply want to do, this is the kind of ally we need and the attacks on him, I have to admit, I don’t understand some of them. MITCHELL: And Walter Isaacson, who we both know well from the head of the Aspen Institute, was quoted as saying, “He’s consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam. That’s why I find it a shame that his good work is being undermined by this inflamed dispute. He’s the type of leader to be celebrating in America and not undermining.” And this at a critical time. Is it your sense, and I know you had a meeting at the White House on the national security meeting a week or so ago and were at the State Department involved with Hillary Clinton. So, your sense from the President and his comments that he is trying to reach out because of what is coming up in the Muslim world? He’s got in the balance Israeli and Pakistani negotiations just on a tipping point trying to get something going for the first week in September before he has to go to the UN for the annual speech, the third week in September. This is a very critical moment. IGNATIUS: My sense, Andrea, with the President ten days ago, and I have to stress this was before his intervention at the Ground Zero mosque was that he wants to reanimate these themes that are prominent in his presidency, both notably in his Cairo speech, that he’s trying to reach out to the Muslim world and make progress of his very difficult issues of Israeli/Palestinian negotiations, that he is signaling a willingness, indeed a desire to reopen the negotiations with Iran about the nuclear program. These are themes that the President was really hitting hard and I think it’s- but in the case of Iran, it’s a real last attempt before we get on an inexorable clock with Iran heading towards nuclear weapons capability, see some other way to go.
More:
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Derides the ‘Heated’ and ‘Ugly’ Rhetoric from Those Who Oppose Mosque
Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County, Ariz., is issuing an invitation to President Barack Obama: If the president will come and spend a half hour with Babeu in Arizona, the sheriff says, he will convince the president he can succeed in securing the border and thus make himself into a hero who transcends partisan politics. Babeu’s southern Arizona county, while not contiguous with the border, has been designated by the Justice Department as part of a High Intensity Drug Trafficking region that is a major route for drug and alien smugglers bringing narcotics and illegal aliens into the United States from Mexico. Babeu has joined with Sheriff Larry Dever of neighboring Cochise County, Ariz.-which does sit on the border-as well as with Arizona’s two senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, in endorsing a ten-point plan for securing the border. Noting that President Obama has visited Afghanistan to assess the security situation there, CNSNews.com asked Babeu in a videotaped interview whether he would like the president visit with him in Arizona so he can have the opportunity to persuade the president that his plan to secure the border will work. “If the president gave me a half hour, I am confident that I could convince him and to show him the way that he can personally secure the border, and he would be the hero of everybody that truly transcends bipartisan politics and secures that border,” said Babeu. “I believe that if a leader truly wanted to do that we have the means and the resources necessary to secure our border and to protect America once and for all, and then we can get to the point in the future, only after the border is secure, that there is some type of discussion about what do we do with the approximate 13 million people who are here illegally.” The ten-point border security plan backed by Sheriffs Babeu and Dever and Senators McCain and Kyl includes provisions to complete 700 miles of double- and triple-layered border fending, significantly increase the number of drone surveillance aircraft patrolling the border, and deploy 3,000 National Guardsmen to the Arizona section of the Mexico border alone until the governor of Arizona in consultation with local law enforcement officials certifies that the border is secure. Crossposted at NB sister site CNSNews.com
Follow this link:
Ariz. Sheriff to Obama: Give Me Half Hour, I’ll Show You How to Secure Border
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged afghanistan, border, governor, hero, Hollywood, immigration, mexico, News, paul babeu, politics, president, security, sheriff, the-president, united-states
One may think that someone as well connected as long-time Washington correspondent and MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell might also connect the dots. After an unseasonably rough DC winter occurring right in the midst of the ClimateGate scandal, she would be aware of doubt being cast over the idea of manmade global warming. But if you want evidence her mind is made up regardless of any of this, you could detect from her reaction to a report from Politco’s Jim VandeHei that some Republican candidates are using the climate change debate to advance their campaigns. On MSNBC’s Aug. 18 broadcast of “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” Mitchell expressed her surprise that candidates would invoke this issue. “Well, you might think that the link between manmade greenhouse gases and global warming is clearly established science, but some Republican candidates are challenging conventional wisdom this year,” Mitchell said. Mitchell went on to play a TV spot from California GOP Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina, blasting incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., for her stands on global warming as a national security issue, even though many would argue there are other more serious threats on that front. “Fiorina is not alone as Politico reports today,” Mitchell said. “Joining me now is Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei. Jim, I got to tell you – John Kerry, Lindsay Graham and a whole group of retired generals are part of this national security initiative on climate change, so I just don’t completely get it, especially in California. How does this work in a general election campaign in California?” Mitchell was referring to an Aug. 18 Politico story by Darrel Samuelsohn , which she obviously didn’t read because it explained the strategy behind the use of this issue in a campaign. But VandeHei explained to it her and her viewers anyway. “There’s a big block of Republican candidates in California but also elsewhere, in Wisconsin where Rob Johnson is conservative, challenging Russ Feingold,” VandeHei explained. “We see it in New Mexico. We see it in Nevada, these candidates who are really calling into the science behind global warming and also man’s role in causing global warming. This is obviously been a big debate. We had it during the energy debate on Capitol Hill. What is surprising to us is we found a large number of people on the campaign trail sounding like [Sen.] James Inhofe, who has been one of the most unspoken conservatives on this issue on Capitol Hill.” But the source of Mitchell’s confusion: She had thought that former Vice President Al Gore and “all of that” had settled this debate, as his word was final on the issue. “Well in fact, Sharon Angle said that – she said in June that greenhouse gas legislation was based on an unscientific hysteria over the man-caused global warming hoax,” Mitchell said. “It just seems that I thought that after Al Gore and all of that – that it was pretty much a settled issue . You could argue about the economics and the priorities over it, as Lindsay Graham and others have. I didn’t think that they would be arguing this year that it wasn’t settled science.” But as VandeHei said, there’s a group of people that think the issue as been used politically to get certain provisions written into legislation and that climate change created by carbon emissions isn’t the only way the globe’s temperature is impacted, as Wisconsin GOP Senate hopeful Rob Johnson said in an interview published on Aug. 16 in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel . “But there’s definitely a group of people who do not think it’s settled science, or at least they think that the science is being exaggerated to make a political case in favor of these caps on carbon emissions as part of the larger energy bill,” VandeHei said. “What you’re seeing now is that the feeling manifested in a lot of the rhetoric during these campaigns. Rob Johnson was very, very clear in this interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, where he said, ‘I don’t buy the science. I don’t buy that argument.’ He said that global warming could just as well be caused by, he pointed up in the sky, by sun spots. It’s just a different view and there’s a lot of conservatives who hold that view.”
Continued here:
Andrea Mitchell: I Thought Al Gore Settled the Global Warming Issue
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged al gore, Breaking News, california, celeb news, climate, climate-change, Hollywood, interview, jim vandehei, lindsay-graham, milwaukee, president, science
The director of Al-Arabiya TV, a popular Arab-language news station, wrote that “Muslims never asked for” the proposed mosque at Ground Zero, and “do not care about its construction,” in a column for London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on Aug. 16. “I can’t imagine that Muslims [actually] want a mosque at this particular location, because it will become an arena for the promoters of hatred, and a monument to those who committed the crime,” wrote Al-Arabiya director Abd Al-Rahman al-Rashid in the column , which was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute. “Moreover, there are no practicing Muslims in the area who need a place to worship, because it is a commercial district. Is there anyone who is [really] eager [to build] this mosque?” Al-Rashid said that President Barack Obama’s support of the mosque was similar to the administration’s previous decision to close Guantanamo Bay and try suspected terrorists as civilians. “”Muslims do not [really] yearn [to build] a mosque near the 9/11 cemetery, nor do they care whether bin Laden’s cook is tried in a civilian court [or a military one],” said al-Rashid, noting that “tens of thousands of Muslims, likewise accused of extremism, are imprisoned in [even] worse conditions in the Muslim countries.” According to the director, Muslims care about issues that impact “the destinies of [entire] peoples,” such as the creation of a Palestinian state. “The last thing Muslims want today is to build a religious center that provokes others, or a symbolic mosque that people will visit as a [kind of] museum next to a cemetery,” said al-Rashid. Al-Arabiya TV is based out of the United Arab Emirates, and is a direct competitor with Al-Jazeera, another Arab-language news station. Al-Arabiya “is consistently rated among the top pan-Arab stations by Middle East audiences,” reported BBC News in 2003. According to Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, al-Rashid’s column “should mean the end of plans for a mosque near Ground Zero.” “Mr. Al-Rashid supports President Obama’s stand for the mosque in principle (as he supports Obama-like or even beyond-Obama-like policies with respect to the Middle East). He’s no neocon. But his practical case against building the mosque is irrefutable,” wrote Kristol on the Weekly Standard website on Aug. 17. “It should lead well-meaning liberals to join with us dastardly conservatives (well, it would be too painful for them to join with us—they can simply act in parallel, on their own, while continuing to denounce us) in calling for the organizers to shelve the plans for a mosque at this site.”
View original post here:
Arab TV Director: Ground Zero Mosque would be ‘Monument’ for Terrorists
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged chevrolet, coal industry, Hollywood, media, michigan, mosque, muslims, president, president barack obama, seth doane
Breaking Sports Video
Pac-12 NCAA Sports
Justin Bieber Fan Site Breaking News
