Tag Archives: security

Justin Bieber’s VMA Rehearsal: An Inside Look!

Best New Artist nominee pulls out all the stops for performance. By Jocelyn Vena Justin Bieber rehearses for the 2010 VMAs on Friday Photo: Sohyung Kang/ MTV News LOS ANGELES — Justin Bieber, surrounded by his band and dancers, went virtually unnoticed during his security-heavy and enthusiastic VMA rehearsal Friday afternoon (September 10), though the fans who did spot him shouted excitedly at the surprise performance.

Follow this link:
Justin Bieber’s VMA Rehearsal: An Inside Look!

Mexico Mayor Has Been Gunned Down Inside His Own Office

Mexican mayor gunned down inside own office By the CNN Wire Staff September 8, 2010 9:29 p.m. EDT Mexican President Felipe Calderon condemns the “criminal and cowardly” killing. STORY HIGHLIGHTS * The mayor of El Naranjo was killed in his office * Four gunmen arrived at the city hall * Two stayed outside and two entered to shoot the mayor, authorities say (CNN) — The mayor of El Naranjo, Mexico, in the central state of San Luis Potosi was gunned down and killed inside his office Wednesday, officials said. Witnesses say that four armed and hooded men stepped out of a white truck at city hall, the San Luis Potosi government said in a statement. Two of the men posted themselves outside, and two went inside and to the top floor of the building, where they entered the mayor's office and shot him, the statement said. The attack happened in broad daylight, at about 1:30 p.m. (2:30 p.m. ET), and was brazen even by the standards of Mexico's violent drug cartel wars. At least seven mayors in various Mexican states have been assassinated in 2010. Mexican President Felipe Calderon condemned the “criminal and cowardly” killing of the mayor. “The federal government reiterates that it will continue working for the security of the citizens, with all the available resources of the state,” Calderon said. Alexander Lopez Garcia assumed office in October of last year as a candidate for an alliance between the Revolutionary Institutional Party (PRI), and the Ecologist Green Party. CNN's Mariano Castillo and Nick Valencia contributed to this report. added by: EthicalVegan

REPORT: Conservative Groups Gearing Up To Spend $400 Million On Midterm Election

http://www.newdeal20.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/picture-21.png In the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling earlier this year, corporations and special interest groups now enjoy the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. Now, with less than 10 weeks until November, it’s clear just how far conservative groups are willing to go to try to influence the midterm elections. According to a new report from ThinkProgress, conservative organizations have committed (or already spent) $400 MILLION to advance their conservative agenda at the ballot box this year. For comparison’s sake, this outside money alone is more than the Democratic campaign committees http://bit.ly/ahWQxY spent combined when they took back both houses of Congress in the last midterm election. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal notes that special interest groups have already spent three times as much in 2010 than they had in 2006 http://bit.ly/aKSlIP . Among the outside groups that plan to spend hundreds of MILLIONs of dollars electing conservatives are some familiar faces and some new ones as well. While the NRA and the Chamber of Commerce have long supported conservative causes, the former plans to double its spending from $10 MILLION in 2006 http://bit.ly/dmz7Gt to $20 MILLION http://bit.ly/bZHEsw now and the latter will triple its commitment http://http ://bit.ly/aKSlIP to $75 MILLION this year http://bit.ly/9v6ClV . Many new groups are also entering the scene in a big way, including Karl Rove’s American Crossroads group with $52 MILLION http://politi.co/awScg7 and Norm Coleman’s American Action Network with $25 MILLION http://bit.ly/aslsCg . Those conservative groups trying to use $400 MILLION in outside spending to tip the midterm election include: > – *Chamber of Commerce* has pledged to spend > – $75 MILLION http://http ://bit.ly/9v6ClV > – *American Crossroads* has pledged to spend > – $52 MILLION http://http ://politi.co/awScg7 > – *Americans for Prosperity* has pledged to spend > – $45 MILLION http://nyti.ms/a8gWtX > – *Republican State Leadership Committee* has pledged to spend > – $40 MILLION http://http ://bit.ly/aslsCg > – *American Action Network* has pledged to spend > – $25 MILLION http://bit.ly/aslsCg > – *American Future Fund* has pledged to spend up to > – $25 MILLION http://bit.ly/dywWzx > – *Club for Growth* has pledged to spend AT LEAST > – $24 MILLION http://bit.ly/cCKOS5 > – *National Republican Trust PAC* has pledged to spend AT LEAST > – $20 MILLION http://bit.ly/aKSlIP > – **An unnamed** *Health Insurance Industry Coalition* has pledged to spend > – $20 MILLION http://bit.ly/bST4bX > – *National Rifle Association* has pledged to spend > – $20 MILLION http://http ://bit.ly/bZHEsw > – *Faith and Freedom Coalition* has pledged to spend > – $11 MILLION http://bit.ly/ddcqhn > – *FreedomWorks* has pledged to spend > – $10 MILLION http://http ://nyti.ms/a8gWtX > – *Americans for Job Security* has pledged to spend > – $10 MILLION http://politi.co/cSUiQa > – *Susan B. Anthony List* has pledged to spend > – $6 MILLION http://bit.ly/9T5PLf > – *Our Country Deserves Better (Tea Party Express)* has ALREADY SPENT > – $5 MILLION http://bit.ly/ajFcGU > – *Tax Relief Coalition* has already spent > – $4 MILLION http://bit.ly/a0V4p2 > – *Republican Majority Campaign* has pledged to spend > – $3 MILLION http://bit.ly/avk0QQ > – *Campaign for Working Families* has pledged to spend > – $2 MILLION http://bit.ly/cpP6Bv > – *Heritage Action for America* has pledged to spend > – $1 MILLION http://bit.ly/9Wb55b > – *Financial Services Roundtable* has already spent > – $0.5 MILLION http://bit.ly/aQ4pNR > – *Family Research Council* FRC has raised > – $0.5 MILLION http://bit.ly/dx5RWf > – *Citizens United Political Victory Fund* has pledged to spend > – $0.2 MILLION http://bit.ly/caDIWO – ** TOTAL: $399.2 MILLION or $399,200,000 ** – Given the number of progressive accomplishments in the 111th Congress, including health care reform, the economic stimulus bill, and Wall Street reform, it’s no wonder that conservative groups are fighting tooth-and-nail to prevent a repeat next term. Chris LaCivita, a Republican strategist who has also been involved in many independent-expenditure campaigns, told Politico, “If there is a time for independent groups to step up, this is it. This is the year for independent groups to put up or shut up.” http://politi.co/cSUiQa Indeed, with conservative special interest groups putting it all on the line this November, their $400 MILLION pledge may even increase before long. added by: toyotabedzrock

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

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

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

Paris Hilton Tweets About Rumors After Cocaine Bust

‘I know the truth,’ the reality starlet writes. By Mawuse Ziegbe Paris Hilton in Las Vegas police custody on Friday Photo: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Paris Hilton appears to be learning that not everything that happens in Vegas stays in Vegas — especially when you’re a globe-trotting, high-profile heiress. On Friday, the reality starlet was arrested for cocaine possession after the SUV she was riding in was pulled over when a cop smelled the strong aroma of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. Police allegedly discovered 0.8 grams of cocaine in Hilton’s purse, and on Monday, she was charged with felony cocaine possession . Now Hilton, who served a 23-day sentence in 2007 stemming from a 2006 DUI charge, is staring down a possible sentence of up to four years in prison and is due in court October 27. Hilton took to Twitter early Wednesday (September 1) to refute recent whispers about her. “These rumors going around are so ridiculous, untrue and cruel,” Hilton wrote. “I’m not going to even pay attention to them, because I know the truth.” Hilton didn’t elaborate on which rumors she claims are false, but headlines detailing her situation paint a grim picture. According to reports, her boyfriend, Cy Waits, who was behind the wheel when police stopped the pair and was charged with driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, has lost his nightclub job. In addition, a spokesperson for Wynn Resorts Limited confirmed to The Associated Press that Hilton has been banned from the Wynn Las Vegas and Encore resorts. Hilton has denied that the purse containing the cocaine belonged to her, and her attorney, David Chesnoff, has insisted the amount allegedly found is “negligible, the purse it was found in wasn’t hers and Paris was illegally searched .” A source close to Hilton told Radar Online that because the socialite was removed from the scene and searched at the nearby Wynn Las Vegas resort, the assertion that she was searched illegally may hold merit. “Cops discovered the cocaine inside the security offices where Paris was taken,” the source said. “Because Paris was taken away from the scene where the car was pulled over, this could potentially be an illegal search of a person. … Las Vegas Metro didn’t follow standard procedures when Paris was arrested, and her lawyer will be talking to the D.A. about this.” What do you think about the rumors surrounding Paris’ arrest? Share your thoughts in the comments below. Related Photos Moments In Paris Hilton’s Legal Life

See the article here:
Paris Hilton Tweets About Rumors After Cocaine Bust

Obama Declares Iraq War is Over – Troops Coming Home!

Barack Obama formally brought an end to US combat operations in Iraq last night, seven years and 165 days after the invasion began, and declared it was time for America “to turn the page”. In a televised address to the nation from the Oval Office, the president said America had paid a huge price for the war begun by George W Bush to topple Saddam Hussein. “Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country,” he said. Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki hailed the restoration of sovereignty to Iraq: “Iraq today is sovereign and independent. With the execution of the troop pullout, our relations with the United States have entered a new stage between two equal, sovereign countries.” More at the link… added by: jubal

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

Sotomayor Says Court May Rule to Limit First Amendment in Response to Wikileaks

On Thursday, talking to students at the University of Denver, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Wikileaks case will result in the Court likely weighing the First Amendment against national security. She made the comment in response to a question posed by a student. That was not the beginning of that question, but an issue that keeps arising from generation to generation, of how far we will permit government restriction on freedom of speech in favor of protection of the country,” Sotomayor said. “There’s no black-and-white line.” According to Sotomayor, the balance between national security and free speech is “a constant struggle in this society, between our security needs and our first amendment rights, and one that has existed throughout our history.” Following the release of over 90,000 documents by Wikileaks in July, the Pentagon found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field. The Pentagon review team consists of military intelligence analysts, lawyers and others working for the Joint Chiefs of Staffs and other elements of the Defense Department. The Obama administration and certain members of Congress, however, have portrayed the release as a dire threat to national security. Obama asked Britain, Germany, Australia, and other allies to consider criminal charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the organization is guilty of “moral culpability” in the murder of U.S. soldiers. The ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King, said the release of documents violates espionage laws and amounts to treason. The FBI is investigating and the Justice Department said it was looking into pursuing criminal charges in the case. Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, has demanded the death penalty for SPC Bradley Manning, the man arrested and charged with providing the documents to Wikileaks…. Continued at: http://www.infowars.com/sotomayor-says-court-may-rule-to-limit-first-amendment-i… added by: Dagum

Ariz. Sheriff to Obama: Give Me Half Hour, I’ll Show You How to Secure Border

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