Only hours after launching a smear-fighting campaign website, President Obama's latest campaign tactic has already become a widely-mocked target of conservatives. As explained at Hot Air , Not only are major papers running headlines about the site becoming a laughingstock , even respected liberals are admitting that they would have flipped out had Bush tried something similar. Do you think Attack Watch will weather the PR beating? Let us know your thoughts in the comments. The website was launched with an email from Obama for America campaign manager Jim Messina, who wrote that he is looking for people to report “phony attacks” on the president. Here's the deal: We all remember the birth certificate smear, the GOP's barrage of lies about the Affordable Care Act and the string of other phony attacks on President Obama that we've seen over the past few years… There are a lot of folks on the other side who are chomping [sic] at the bit to distort the president's record. It's not a question of if the next big lie will come, just when — and what we're prepared to do about it. Attack Watch has already criticized GOP frontrunners Gov. Rick Perry and former Gov. Mitt Romney, with Messina explaining the site can “nip [their] attacks in the bud before they show up on the airwaves and in emails.” Many feel the site feels too much like Big Brother to be taken seriously. Twitter users especially have taken to mocking the site , taking over the #attackwatch hashtag to hurl humorous insults to the campaign. At just over a year out from the 2012 presidential election, it is already clear that negative attacks are going to be a central part of campaigns. Do you think Attack Watch will weather it out to 2012?
Continue reading …
Article by WorldNews.com Correspondent Dallas Darling. “Boom! Boom! Boom!” Three loud explosions had just interrupted General Westmoreland’s interview with dozens of reporters. They had gathered to question Westmoreland, America’s commander of military operations in its war against Vietnam’s reunification, and to report on the 1968 TET Offensive. Although he tried to muster a smile, it was evident that Westmoreland was irritated, even dazed and confused. The Vietnamese had just attacked over one-hundred targets. Westmoreland was trying to reassure reporters that major combat operations were over. At first, he said EOD forces were setting off the explosions. But when more explosions occurred,…
Continue reading …
Miss America 1981 Susan Powell on the 90th Anniversary of the Miss America Pageant Chuck Cox interview, part 2 Police took journals, ‘embarrassing videos’ from Powell home HourlySearch says: michaele salahi, susan powell , up all night, solyndra, … bit.ly/hourlysearch
Continue reading …Turkey’s stance on Israel will reverberate in Washington | Mohammed Ayoob
September 14, 2011 No Comment
The Middle East will never be the same. America must recognise Turkey’s emergence as the region’s pre-eminent power Turkey’s expulsion of the Israeli ambassador , the downgrading of its diplomatic relations with Israel, and the Erdogan government’s increasingly firm position on the Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara signify more than a temporary hiccup in Turkish-Israeli relations. It is a clear signal that Ankara is fed up with Israel’s foot-dragging on the apology and compensation that Turkey has demanded as a precondition for the normalisation of Turkish-Israeli relations. The UN’s Palmer Commission report , which justified the Israeli blockade of Gaza but accused Israel of using “excessive force” against the flotilla, has been rejected by Turkey. Ankara now plans to take the case against the blockade to the international court of justice (ICJ). Meanwhile, Monday’s visit to Egypt by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister, can be interpreted as an indication both of his support for the emerging democratic process in Egypt (where public anger at Israel runs high) and his solidarity with Cairo over the killing of five Egyptian security personnel by the Israelis in Sinai . His announcement that he intends to visit Gaza is further indication that Turkey is ratcheting up its support for the Palestinian cause, especially in the run-up to the UN vote on Palestinian statehood. What Erdogan does in Egypt will be keenly watched throughout the region. The Turkish mood was summed up by the foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu , who stated: “The time has come for Israel to pay a price for its illegal action. The price, first of all, is being deprived of Turkey’s friendship.” While Davutoglu has indicated that an Israeli apology for the flotilla attack and compensation for the dead and wounded could restore normal diplomatic ties, Erdogan has made clear that Israel must end its naval blockade of Gaza for this to happen. The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has declared emphatically that Israel will not tender an apology. While his stance may be dictated by coalition politics, it has created a diplomatic impasse. The Obama administration – worried about the ramifications of a major rift between Israel and Turkey for US strategic interests but afraid of taking on the Netanyahu government for domestic reasons – has not put any pressure on Israel. It thus risks alienating Turkey, a crucial Nato member. This diplomatic episode has important implications for the future of the Middle East. First, it demonstrates that Israeli dominance of the eastern Mediterranean will no longer go unchallenged. Erdogan has made clear that the Turkish navy will play a more active role in the area, and Turkish sources have indicated that it may even escort flotillas carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. Any future attempt by Israel to prevent aid from reaching Gaza could spark a military confrontation. Second, it demonstrates that Israel’s defiance of international law, especially regarding its treatment of the occupied territories, will face increasing challenges in international forums. A referral to the ICJ will bring to the fore Israel’s violation of provisions of the fourth Geneva convention that prohibit the demographic transformation of occupied lands, as well as its responsibility regarding the welfare of the occupied population. The issue of West Bank settlements will again become a topic of heated debate. Such debate will emphasise that the Obama formula of “land swaps”, in which Israel would keep major Jewish settlements even if a two-state solution were reached, contravenes international law. This, combined with Palestinian efforts to have the state of Palestine recognised by the UN , will add to an already volatile situation in the region. Third, the Turkish stance, coming in the wake of democratic uprisings in the region, will further align Turkey with mainstream Arab opinion on Palestine and Israeli occupation. This will boost Turkish standing in the Arab world and put increasing pressure upon Arab governments to take a more active role on Palestine. Countries in democratic transition are already under domestic pressure to take a harder line with Israel, and there is talk of Egypt and Jordan withdrawing their ambassadors, following Turkey’s example. Fourth, it is clear that the current Turkish position would have not been possible without the consolidation of Turkish democracy. Not only must foreign policy now respond more directly to pressure from the electorate, but the elected government can finally pursue its policies without fear of military intervention. The recent resignation of four leading generals and their replacement by officers acceptable to the civilian government is testimony to this fact. Military top brass, who have close relations with Israeli counterparts, have long been Turkey’s primary pro-Israel constituency. Given the historic importance of the military to Turkish politics, a hard line against Israel would have been unthinkable even a few years ago. Finally, this episode signifies the coming of age of Turkey as a strategic power connecting the Middle East with Europe; it is Ankara’s declaration of independence in terms of its foreign policy. The Middle East will never be the same again. This calls for a major revamp of America’s policy. A just and speedy solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is essential if the US is to preserve its strategic interests in the Middle East. Washington must reassess its unconditional support for Israel and adopt a visibly even-handed policy, including a softening of its position on the Palestine resolution in the UN general assembly. Above all, the US must not underrate Turkey’s strategic importance as the emerging pre-eminent power in the region, and as the bridge between the west and the Muslim world. • Comments on this article will be switched on at 9am British summer time Turkey Israel Middle East Palestinian territories Gaza flotilla Gaza Arab and Middle East unrest Egypt United Nations United States US foreign policy Mohammed Ayoob guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Since the Bush administration mired the US in two ruinous wars, Republicans have been divided on defence and security A man sitting in a cave in a remote corner of the world easily predicted the general thrust of the conservative-led response to a major terror attack on America. Once one knows the general thrust, it becomes easy to develop a plan to respond to the response. Muhammad Ali called it “the rope-a-dope”: just when they think they have you where they want you, you have them where you want them. Our enemy has been engaging us for ten years in Afghanistan and eight years in Iraq, with thousands of our soldiers and Afghan and Iraqi civilians dead, and billions of dollars spent. Their most important goal has been to bring terrorism into the lives of average citizens at home in order to affect the political process by creating internal turmoil. Mission accomplished. Since 9/11, conservatives have laboured to build the image that Republicans are strong on security and, conversely, that Democrats are weak. But the facts show that conservatives have been ineffective and inconsistent on national security policy – and now, their myth is crumbling. During the Bush years, neoconservatives labelled detractors of the wars as unpatriotic and weak, and accused them of forgetting 9/11. A Republican refrain was “fight them over there, not here.” The enemy would rather have it that way, too, because it is much easier to fight us on their home turf, in places such as Tora Bora or Sadr City, than for al-Qaida to continually plan terror attacks that take years to put in place and are often discovered at their genesis. Because of the difficulty in tracking and identifying our foes, much of our effort to engage the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan has consisted of pushing our troops into enemy territory and baiting them into attacking. It has taken us this long to understand that this fight involves much more than just “taking the fight to the enemy”; it means building local institutions, government, infrastructure, economies, trust and public support. It has just as much to do with international development as it does with military action. Conservative thinking regarding the Middle East and the Arab Spring has been a model of inconsistency. Some called the events a ” Muslim Brotherhood nightmare ” or blamed the Obama administration ‘s approach for not holding it together (despite homegrown movements and previous decades of inconsistent US policy). Some have called for swifter decisive action, with others against taking any action , even calling it ” unconstitutional “. Conservative positions on Afghanistan range from supporting withdrawal, to “staying the course”; and on Pakistan , they vary from continued support for the government, to taking diplomatic or even military action against it. Over the last three years, the US has caught or killed more al-Qaida members and launched more targeted drone attacks against terrorists than in the previous eight years. Muammar Gaddafi has been in America’s sights since Ronald Reagan was president and Osama bin Laden was the most wanted man in the world since 9/11. Both were taken down under a Democratic administration – without spending a trillion dollars, sending in thousands of ground troops, or taking a decade to accomplish the task. And these outcomes were achieved with international support and legitimacy. As campaigning for 2012 ramps up, Republican candidates are divided, with some having been accused of turning into isolationists after supporting withdrawal from Afghanistan and arguing against the successful intervention in Libya . They still claim to be national security champions, despite many championing defence cuts before accepting even small targeted tax increases. Conservatives were willing to support “regime change”, boots on the ground in massive numbers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and their associated costs, with much less legitimacy and international support. Yet they opposed the intervention in Libya despite support from the UN, Nato and the Arab League – and without the need and cost of ground troops. It would seem that the conservative view of when and how military force should be applied is based simply on who occupies the White House. The proof is in the facts. Ineffective and inconsistent policies, and choosing politics over security, have led to the crumbling of the myth of conservative strength on defence and national security – a myth Republicans had worked so hard to build. US national security US military US foreign policy al-Qaida Afghanistan Iraq United States US politics Republicans Democrats Libya Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest United Nations Global terrorism September 11 2001 Chris Miller guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Congressman Paul Ryan, Chair of the House Budget Committee, has become the GOP’s go-to guy for everything economical, and there are two reasons why: first, he is courageous enough to jump into the water and get the pool party started. As with his Path to Prosperity, his budget, and his plan for Medicare, Mr. Ryan Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : Big Government Discovery Date : 14/09/2011 15:02 Number of articles : 3
Continue reading …Michael Moore, Elisabeth Hasselbeck Clash Over Bin Laden Death On ‘The View’ (VIDEO)
September 14, 2011 No Comment
Michael Moore and Elisabeth Hasselbeck had a fierce argument about whether it was right not to try Osama bin Laden in court on Wednesday’s “The View.” Moore was on to promote his new book, but the conversation turned to his controversial comments about bin Laden that drew so much attention in the wake of his death in May. Moore said he believed bin Laden had been “executed” and that America had “lost something of our soul” by not trying him for his crimes. Hasselbeck came to the “View” desk ready for a fight, and she cut Moore off midway through his first sentence. “I think that we did a very smart thing putting the Nazis on trial,” he began. “That was after the war was over,” Hasselbeck cut in. “The war is over,” Moore said. “Michael, we’re still at war!” she snapped. “No, we’re not, actually,” Moore snapped back. He said that the U.S. has spent countless time and money fighting things that have “nothing to do with the real threat,” and that the country should not be in Afghanistan. “My point is that the way we show the world that we’re different is that we give even the most heinous person their day in court,” he said. “You’re telling me Osama bin Laden deserves a trial?” an outraged Hasselbeck replied. “Where? In New York City? Absolutely not! How dare — and why, because Casey Anthony’s trial went so well?” “What are we afraid of?” Moore said. “We’re Americans, man!” “Our rights are not afforded to him!” Hasselbeck shot back. The argument continued in that vein until a reluctant Whoopi Goldberg was forced to cut to a commercial. WATCH:
Continue reading …PA GOP Wants To Divvy Up State Electoral Votes By District – Whose Redistricting Lines They Control
September 14, 2011 No CommentOddly enough, this isn’t one of the pieces of legislation pushed by our friendly corporate interests at ALEC – in fact, they’re on the record opposing elections by popular vote. But it’s not outside the realm of possibility that they dreamed up this twisted variation on what they oppose, since they do get control of redistricting. This would be a serious problem for Democrats: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that Gov. Tom Corbett and state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi are proposing that the state divide up its Electoral College votes according to which candidates carried each Congressional district, plus two votes for the statewide winner. The system is used by Maine — which, despite the system, has never actually split its four electoral votes — and by Nebraska, which gave one of its five votes to Barack Obama in 2008. Pennsylvania, however, will have 20 electoral votes in the 2012 election. What’s more, the measure would give even greater meaning to the state’s redistricting for the House of Representatives, giving it a powerful effect over the presidency in addition to the House. Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1992, and voted for Barack Obama by 55%-44% in 2008 . Indeed, over the past 50 years it has only voted Republican in presidential landslides for the GOP: 1972, 1980, 1984, and finally 1988. While the results have sometimes been narrow for the Dems, it is a state that can be expected to vote Democratic for president in the context of a close national campaign , such as its votes for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. Had this proposed system been in place in 2008, when Obama won the state by a ten-point margin, he in fact would have only taken 11 out of the state’s 21 electoral votes at the time — due to a combination of past Republican-led redistricting efforts to maximize their district strength, and Obama’s votes being especially concentrated within urban areas. As can be expected, the Post-Gazette reports that Democrats are attacking the proposal as a partisan power-grab, while Republicans are standing by it as a reform that would focus attention on districts throughout the state: Blasting the idea as “a disturbing effort to put their self interests and party interests ahead of the people,” Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills, said the plan would dangerously link the presidential vote to redistricting. In a written statement, Mr. Costa asked: “Will we now be looking at state gerrymandering that serves a larger, national agenda?” Mr. Pileggi and others disagreed, saying congressional districts that are more competitive would receive more attention and would not be overshadowed when the state leans one way or another politically. Let me tell you a little bit about state Sen. Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi: He’s an important piece of the famously corrupt Republican machine in suburban Delaware County, part of their TV-friendly “new breed”. He also served as mayor of Chester — one of the poorest cities in America, a town that’s been abused and sucked dry by the Republican powers that be for a very long time, especially its school district . He’s not much better to Philadelphia , either. He says that before they come to him for money, Philadelphia should fix patronage in city government. You’d have to know Delaware County to know how funny that is. One relevant example: Pileggi collected $35,000 as an assistant county solicitor to pad his $60,000 salary as a state senator. Funny, how that works. This is just the long way of saying that if Dominic Pileggi’s for it, I’m against it.
Continue reading …
Amid fresh setbacks in politicians’ struggle to rescue Greece, the US treasury secretary is set to take part in meetings in Poland Europe’s struggle to come good on pledges to rescue Greece from bankruptcy and save its single currency has descended into confusion amid political feuding and parliamentary setbacks across the eurozone. Angela Merkel’s coalition in Germany was embroiled in rows about whether Greece should be allowed to fail; a parliamentary committee in Austria delayed a vote to ratify plans for a strengthened bailout fund; and in Slovakia the eurosceptic parliament speaker demanded that Greece be allowed to go bust, making clear that he would seek to undermine the plan hatched at a eurozone summit in July in Brussels. Amid the cacophony, José Manuel Barroso, head of the European Commission, voiced exasperation at the failure of EU national leaders to keep their promises and talked up the benefits of eurobonds, a pooling of eurozone government debt. The Polish finance minister said the survival of the EU was at stake. “Europe is in danger,” Jacek Rostowski told the European Parliament in Strasbourg. “If the euro area breaks up, the European Union will not be able to survive.” Poland currently holds the EU presidency and Rostowski faces a tough challenge on Friday when he chairs a meeting of EU finance ministers in Wroclaw which will now be consumed by the crisis. International pressure on Merkel and other European leaders surged, with the US, China, Russia and others demanding they get a grip. In a display of Washington’s alarm, the US Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, is to take part in the EU meetings in Wroclaw. The American fear is that a Greek collapse would trigger a renewed European banking crisis which would spill over into the US, a reverse of what happened in 2008, when the collapse of Lehman Brothers was exported across the Atlantic. A fresh crisis could plunge America back into recession and damage Barack Obama’s re-election hopes. Similar fears are gripping the Elysée Palace in Paris. A Greek collapse would impact severely on French banks eight months before Nicolas Sarkozy faces a second-term presidential election. Another leader under pressure, Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, has won a vote of confidence, paving the way for its austerity package to be voted through. The governing coalition has been fighting over the details of the fiscal consolidation plan for weeks but Berlusconi mustered enough of a majority to win the vote. At a teleconference Greek prime minister George Papandreou told Merkel and Sarkozy his country was determined to meet all obligations agreed with international lenders in exchange for an EU/IMF bailout. Officials from the European Commission, European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund returned to Athens to try to get the Greek rescue package back on track. All three leaders have a vested interest in playing for time over Greece despite the sense that time is running out. “The President and the Prime Minister have repeated in unison France’s determination to do whatever it takes to rescue Greece,” said the French government spokeswoman, Valérie Pécresse. According to senior EU diplomats, this month the three officials departed from Athens “in despair” at the Greek government’s failure to honour the stiff terms of the bailout deal. In July, eurozone leaders pledged a second €109bn bailout for Greece, to boost the funding of the bailout pot, the European Financial Stability Facility, and to empower it to replace the ECB in buying up stricken government bonds. But the plans have run into several problems. The level of involvement by Greece’s private creditors in rolling over debt remains lower than foreseen. The 17 countries of the eurozone have to ratify the new scheme promptly, but ratification has been delayed in Austria, Slovakia, Finland and possibly Slovenia, and run into rebellion among Merkel’s coalition partners. While Barroso talked up the prospect of eurobonds yesterday, Germany’s economics minister and liberals’ leader, Philipp Roesler, ruled them out. Pécresse in Paris said they would not be a quick fix. “Eurobonds are for us the end of a process of consolidation in the eurozone because sharing debt also requires the convergence of our budget policies.” In Bratislava, Richard Sulik, the eurosceptic parliament speaker and leader of one of four parties in the ruling coalition, said the bailout fund was a bigger threat to the euro than Greece. “It has often happened that a city within a country goes bankrupt, and that does not have consequences for the currency. We must let Greece go into bankruptcy,” he told Austrian radio. “The rescue plan tries to overcome the debt crisis with new debt. We are saying that this is equally a threat to the euro.” That echoed growing calls among political leaders across eurozone creditor countries. The Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, was the first eurozone head of government formally to propose recentlynew arrangements enabling fiscal recalcitrants to be expelled from the single currency. Barroso said: “Solid, feasible and concrete proposals have been made. They have been agreed upon. But they have taken too long and have not yet been fully delivered.” European debt crisis European banks Angela Merkel US economy Silvio Berlusconi Euro European Union Economics Greece Europe Economic policy Ian Traynor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
I’m running! Today, I am launching my campaign to represent the people of Massachusetts in the United States Senate. After listening to people all across our state who know that we can do better, folks who are frustrated like I am that Washington just doesn’t get it, I’m running for the Senate so I can fight every day for Massachusetts families. I hope you’ll take a minute to watch this short video: Washington gives some of the biggest corporations in the world special loopholes and tax breaks, while middle-class families and small businesses struggle. That is wrong. Our hard-working families deserve someone who believes in them, someone who is going to stand up and fight for their interests. That’s why I’m running for the United States Senate. I’ve fought all my life for working families, and I’ve stood up to some pretty powerful interests. Now those interests are sure to line up against our campaign — and that’s why I’m asking you to help me build the grassroots support we need to beat them. Please click here to watch my announcement video – and while you’re there, be sure to sign up to join our campaign. Then I hope you’ll share my announcement video on Facebook or Twitter. We have a chance to help rebuild America’s middle class. We have a chance to put Washington on the side of families. We can do this – together.
Continue reading …