Cash rules everything around me. Well, except during a recession. These are hard times, after all. But for anyone else looking for an unpaid internship in media and marketing, the Wu-Tang Clan is looking for talented candidates to help them with online promotions. In a Craigslist posting circulating the web that went up earlier yesterday, the
Continue reading …Archdiocese Blasts Magazine Over ‘Agenda-driven Travesty of Salacious Innuendo Masquerading as Journalism’
July 28, 2011 No CommentThis past month, Philadelphia magazine published what can only described as a vulgar, unfair, and reckless piece of yellow journalism designed to shock readers and lambaste the Catholic Church. Utilizing anonymous and discredited sources, writer Robert Huber authored a lengthy article seeking to portray the Church as a callous cabal that is oblivious to the pain of child sex abuse. Enter Donna Farrell, Director of the Office of Communications of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Following the publication of the article, Ms. Farrell issued the following statement: Unfortunately for Philadelphia magazine readers looking for honest, in-depth reporting, this piece is an agenda-driven travesty of salacious innuendo masquerading as journalism . It is built almost entirely on unsubstantiated comments recklessly offered by unattributed sources that Mr. Huber is all-too-ready to accept as fact. In reality, “facts” are hard to come by in this article. Mr. Huber fails to accurately represent everything from the simplest of factual details to more intricate truths. Regrettably, this 7,630-word piece, which is entirely one-sided, does not address the full story. It ignores fundamental and far-reaching changes Archdiocesan leaders have implemented and continue to implement in light of the 2005 and 2011 grand jury reports. This inaccuracy is especially galling because the Archdiocese arranged meetings between Mr. Huber and Mary Achilles, the Archdiocesan victim services consultant, and Gina Maisto Smith, the veteran child abuse prosecutor hired by Cardinal Rigali. Despite these and other conversations about the significant steps taken by the Archdiocese to protect children, prevent child abuse, and assist victims, Mr. Huber chose to omit these perspectives from his piece — which left it sensational, wildly unfair, and incomplete . Kudos to Ms. Farrell. While the archdiocese reached out to Mr. Huber to assist him with his article, the writer blatantly rebuked an opportunity for fairness. In addition to quoting unnamed and uncorroborated sources, Mr. Huber also uncritically cited the fickle Fr. Thomas Doyle , whose relationship with the truth has long been troublesome ( 1 , 2 ). He also cited the dishonest and discredited advocacy group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) . These sources should be red flags to any alert reader. Indeed, the reporting of the clergy abuse narrative in Philadelphia has been flimsy, to say the least. While the storyline from the media is that the archdiocese let molesters “run wild” in its care, the truth is that the Church in Philadelphia has worked very aggressively for the last several years to forcefully remove many priests whom it considered to be guilty of abuse. In other words, the media has portrayed the opposite of reality. (You can see this for yourself at the archdiocese's own web site . See also the links below.) In addition, as a high-profile criminal trial against Catholic clergy approaches in Philadelphia, the media has taken almost no interest in scrutinizing the actual claims against the Church. The media has wholeheartedly accepted the wild findings of a sensationalistic and dubious grand jury report from earlier this year. (See more links below.) Where is the fairness? Do the names McMartin and Amirault ring any bells to those in the media? Much has been written about the Catholic Church abuse narrative in the last two decades. Much of what has been written has been all too disgusting and real . All people of good will must demand justice and compassion for victims of clergy abuse. However, it seems that far too many in the media are all-too-willing to abandon honesty and decency in an effort to unfairly revile the Catholic Church. And that is not right. [Further reading: The Cases in Philadelphia: "Unfair in Philadelphia? A Closer Look at the Grand Jury Report" (March 2011) "Is the Fix In Against the Church in Philadelphia?" (March 2011) "Philly Abuse Panel Chair: Media Has Misrepresented My Article" (May 2011) "Philadelphia Catholic Clergy Abuse Trial Update" (June 2011) "Who is the Accuser of Fr. James Brennan?" (July 2011)] — Dave Pierre is the author of the book, Double Standard: Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church . Dave is also the creator of TheMediaReport.com and is a contributing writer to NewsBusters.
Continue reading …
Martin Chulov reports on the elusive Iranian with so much Iraqi influence that Baghdadis believe he is controlling the country There’s a story that the new CIA director, David Petraeus, likes to tell which harks back to his days as a four-star general in Iraq. Early in 2008, during a series of battles between the US and Iraqi army on one side and the Shia militias on the other, Petraeus was handed a phone with a text message from the Iranian general who had by then become his nemesis. The message came from the head of Iran’s elite al-Quds Force, Qassem Suleimani, and was conveyed by a senior Iraqi leader. It read: “General Petraeus, you should know that I, Qassem Suleimani, control the policy for Iran with respect to Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan. And indeed, the ambassador in Baghdad is a Quds Force member. The individual who’s going to replace him is a Quds Force member.” Petraeus hardly needed to be told. Much of the US military’s work with Iraq’s Shia Muslims had been undermined by Suleimani and the client militias of the Iranian general’s al-Quds force. So too had US government diplomatic efforts elsewhere in the Middle East, especially in Lebanon. Petraeus last year told a thinktank, the Institute for the Study of War, about the problem Suleimani created for him: “Now, that makes diplomacy difficult if you think that you’re going to do the traditional means of diplomacy by dealing with another country’s ministry of foreign affairs because in this case, it is not the ministry. It is a security apparatus.” As he prepared for the job of the US’s most senior spy, Petraeus would surely have been preparing for further shadow boxing. Suleimani’s reputation as the most formidable operator in the region has not diminished in the past three years. By some measures it has actually increased: Syria now also comes within Suleimani’s sphere of influence. The strength of the ties between Suleimani and Iraqi legislators has been revealed during weeks of interviews with key officials, including those who admire him and those who fear the man like no other. Iraq’s former state security minister, Sharwan al-Waeli is one who knows Suleimani well. A formal conversation between the Guardian and al-Waeli last year took on a very different tone as soon as Suleimani’s name was mentioned. The Shia legislator was a known ally of Iran, so much so that he was seen by secularists and Sunnis in parliament as someone prepared to do Iran’s bidding. He denied Iran played a pervasive role in Iraq until he was interrupted with a question that Iraqi officials have long prefered to ignore: when was the last time Qassem Suleimani came to the Green Zone, the fortified government district in the heart of Baghdad? Al-Waeli’s left hand trembled slightly and his brow furrowed. “You mean Sayed Qassem Suleimani,” he said, giving Suleimani an Arabic honorific reserved for the most esteemed of men. He refused to elaborate. In Baghdad, no other name invokes the same sort of reaction among the nation’s power base – discomfort, uncertainty and fear. “He is the most powerful man in Iraq without question,” Iraq’s former national security minister, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, said recently. “Nothing gets done without him.” Until now, however, few Iraqis have dared to talk openly about the enigmatic Iranian general, what role he plays in Iraq and how he shapes key agendas like no one else. “They are too busy dealing with the aftermath,” said a senior US official. “He dictates terms then makes things happen and the Iraqis are left managing a situation that they had no input into.” Suleimani’s journey to supremacy in Iraq is rooted in the Islamic revolution of 1979, which ousted the Shah and recast Iran as a fundamentalist Shia Islamic state. He rose steadily through the ranks of the Iranian military until 2002 when, months before the US invasion of Iraq, he was appointed to command the most elite unit of the Iranian military – the al-Quds force of the Revolutionary Guards Corp. The al-Quds force has no equal in Iran. Its stated primary task is to protect the revolution. However, its mandate has also been interpreted as exporting the revolution’s goals to other parts of the Islamic world. Shia communities throughout the region have proved fertile grounds for revolutionary messages and have formed deep and abiding partnerships with the al-Quds force. So too have several Sunni groups opposed to Israel – first among them Hamas in Gaza. But Iraq has been Suleimani’s key arena. The last eight years have witnessed a proxy war between Suleimani’s Quds force and the US military, the full effects of which are still being played out, as the US prepares for a full departure from Iraq and Iraq’s leaders ponder over whether to ask them to stay. Arabian heartland At stake is no less than who gets to shape the destiny of the heartland of Arabia. “His power comes straight from (the country’s lead cleric Ayatollah) Khamenei,” said one of Iraq’s three deputy prime ministers, Saleh al-Mutlaq, a secular Sunni. “It bypasses everyone else, including Ahmadinejad. “There is a saying in Islam that you should never get angry with your father or mother. The [Shia] interpret that as meaning what (Khamanei, via Suleimani) says has to be respected by every [Shia] inside, or outside Iran. “All of the important people in Iraq go to see him,” said Mutlaq. “People are mesmerised by him – they see him like an angel.” A second MP – a senior member of Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki’s inner circle who regularly meets Suleimani in Iran – said the general has only travelled once to Iraq in the past eight years. He described him as “softly spoken and reasonable, very polite”. “He is simple when you talk to him. You would not know how powerful he is without knowing his background. His power is absolute and no one can challenge this.” Silver-haired, slight and with a perennial serene smile, Suleimani comes across as the most unlikely of warlords. Those who met him during the one time he traveled to Baghdad at the height of the 2006 sectarian conflict say he walked around the compounds of his two key hosts without bodyguards. The
Continue reading …
Rebel security arrest head of group behind killing of Gaddafi defector Abdel Fatah Younis and his two aides The head of the Libyan rebel’s armed forces and two of his aides have been killed by gunmen, the head of the rebel leadership has said. The death of Abdel Fatah Younis was announced at a press conference in the rebel capital, Benghazi, by the head of the rebels’ National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil. He told reporters that rebel security had arrested the head of the group behind the killing. Rebel security had earlier summoned Younis for questioning about suspicions his family still had ties to Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. Younis was Gaddafi’s interior minister before defecting to the rebels early in the uprising. Abdul Jalil said Younis had been summoned for questioning regarding “a military matter.” He said Younis and his two aides were shot before they arrived for questioning. Abdul Jalil called Younis “one of the heroes of the 17th of February revolution’, a name marking the date of early protests against Gaddafi’s regime. While he criticised Gaddafi for seeking to break the unity of rebel forces, he did not say directly that Younis’s killers were associated with the regime. Instead, he issued a stiff warning about “armed groups” in rebel-held cities, saying they needed to join the fight against Gaddafi or risk being arrested by security forces. Libya Muammar Gaddafi Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Africa guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Steve Hilton policy leaks show Downing Street divide over David Cameron aide
July 28, 2011 No Comment
Despite praise for his ‘blue-skies’ thinking, outspoken ideas man has detractors at heart of coalition government Downing Street and Treasury aides have often been at odds since the autumn over how to boost economic growth after the deepest recession since the war, say senior Whitehall sources. The disclosure that Steve Hilton, the prime minister’s policy guru, proposed abolishing maternity leave was the most powerful example of the battles that have been playing out behind the scenes in Whitehall. “Steve Hilton comes up with lots of ideas – they do not all see the light of day,” said one senior figure who is familiar with Hilton. “Some of his ideas work and some do not.” Tory sources blamed the Liberal Democrats for leaking Hilton’s thoughts, a view which took hold when Vince Cable dismissed his ideas on the airwaves at lunchtime. “That most definitely is not government policy,” the business secretary told Radio 4′s The World at One regarding Hilton’s proposal to abolish maternity rights. “Steve is a fine blue skies thinker but this is not part of what we are going to do. We are looking at labour legislation in general but it has got to be sensible and balanced and I think that particular proposal isn’t.” The leaking of Hilton’s thoughts to the FT appeared to owe more to the investigative powers of the newspaper rather than to an operation by a particular faction in government. But the fact that a series of Whitehall figures felt free to speak in dismissive terms to the FT about Hilton’s ideas show that he has detractors at the heart of the government. A number of Lib Dems around Nick Clegg regard Hilton as a refreshing but somewhat wacky thinker. Furthermore, some figures in the Treasury believe that Hilton’s loose thinking was partly to blame for George Osborne’s failure to create a coherent and compelling message for the Tories’ election campaign. There was much mirth among these groups when the FT reported that Hilton had suggested that maternity rights and all consumer rights legislation should be abolished to help revive the economy. Hilton even suggested that Britain should ignore EU labour rules on temporary workers, much to the annoyance of the No 10 permanent secretary, Jeremy Heywood. “Steve asked why the PM had to obey the law,” one Whitehall source told the FT of a meeting in March to discuss the government’s growth strategy. “Jeremy had to explain that if David Cameron breaks the law he could be put in prison.” Hilton also suggested that Whitehall could do its bit to cut the fiscal deficit by abolishing hundreds of central government press officers and replacing them with a single person in each department who would blog. He also said that Jobcentres should be closed and replaced instead by community groups. One source who works close to Hilton said that many of David Cameron’s team were startled by his proposal in opposition to buy cloudbursting technology to provide more sunshine. Hilton’s fans rallied to his defence. One said: “Steve is brilliant. He has such a fresh and lively mind. He makes boring documents sparkle.” Another said it was important to understand the mindset of one of Cameron’s closest allies who has known the prime minister since their days together at Conservative Central Office in the late 1990s. “You have to realise that Steve is an impatient revolutionary. He really will be furious if, at the end of our five years in government, we have not completely transformed this country and freed people up to run their own lives.” Hilton has been a central figure as No 10 and 11 have struggled since the autumn to develop a coherent strategy for growth. There were reports earlier this week that Downing Street’s two neighbours and their aides were at odds over the government’s core economic strategy – the elimination of the structural deficit over the course of this parliament. This was wrong. But there have been tense discussions dating back to the spending review last autumn over how to stimulate growth. Hilton has lined up in the modernisers’ corner as he lobbies for radical deregulation and a focus on innovative new industries. The Treasury welcomes many of Hilton’s ideas but is more cautious and does not want to lose sight of the importance of established industries. One Whitehall source spoke of “institutional differences” between Hilton’s team at No 10, which was instrumental in the prime minister’s “new economic dynamism” speech to the CBI last October, and the Treasury and the business department. They take what is described as a traditional and “quite corporatist view”. Hilton prevailed in that speech when the prime minister warned that the traditional model of business, in which goods are shipped around the world, has been “blown apart”. He was instrumental in writing this into the speech: “There has been a surge in new, young, high-growth, highly innovative firms. It wasn’t long ago that Apple, Cisco and Google didn’t even exist – now each one has a market value of over $100bn … The impact this change is having on our economic landscape is unprecedented. In 1950, the average life of a company in the S&P index was 47 years. By 2020, it will fall to just 10 years.” Treasury sources say there are no differences with No 10. They point out that in the budget in March, the chancellor announced an entrepreneurial investment scheme and tax break for entrepreneurs. “George thinks it is great that Steve agitates and pushes his ideas,” one source said. “Ideas are discussed and challenged in a process by people who all work very well together.” Liberal-Conservative coalition Conservatives David Cameron George Osborne Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg Economic policy Welfare Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Keith Ellison Responds to King’s Refusal to Allow Him to Testify in His Upcoming Muslim Witch Hunt
July 28, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Rep. Keith Ellison talked to Keith Olbermann about Rep. Peter King refusing to allow him to testify during his upcoming Homeland Security hearing, which is shaping up just to be another witch hunt, scapegoating Muslim Americans. After Ellison’s emotional testimony during the last one, it’s not all that surprising. As Dave noted in his post on the media’s terrible coverage of the terrorism in Norway : It might actually be a good idea if Peter King wants to hold hearings on domestic terrorism. But it needs to tackle the whole threat, and not just the one our xenophobic myopia readily identifies. The Minnesota Star Tribune gave their take on the upcoming hearings and King’s refusal to allow Ellision to testify here — Short take: Peter King vs. Keith Ellison : U.S. Rep. Peter King takes his last name a little too seriously. The New York Republican is chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, and he’s very concerned about Islamic radicalization. So concerned, in fact, that he held yet another hearing on the topic Wednesday as a sequel to a similar session in March. There’s no doubt the subject is worthy of thoughtful, objective congressional scrutiny. Those who too quickly write off the inquiry should take time to study the homegrown radicalization of Twin Cities men with connections to Al-Shabab, the terrorist group with links to Al-Qaida. Earlier this month, a sixth person pleaded guilty in what officials have called “Operation Rhino,’’ the counterterrorism investigation into how local Somalis were recruited to their homeland to fight for Al-Shabab. Since the probe started, at least nine Minnesota men are believed to have been killed while fighting in Somalia. It’s understandable that King’s Homeland Security committee would pay attention. Federal law enforcement officials have had the Twin Cities on the radar for years, and King invited William Anders Folk, a former prosecutor in the Twin Cities, and St. Paul Police Chief Tom Smith to testify. Where King failed the credibility test — in addition to his record of anti-Muslim rhetoric —was in his refusal to hear from those who might disagree with him. In orchestrating Wednesday’s lineup,King stiffed Rep. Keith Ellison, the Minnesota Democrat who pointed out in a letter that his Fifth District has the largest Somali community in the country. King responded that the meeting is an extension of the March hearing, at which Ellison did testify. The Minnesota congressman deserved a seat at the table because of his work with local and federal law enforcement. The fact that he’s Muslim only adds value to his views. Nevertheless, in a clear congressional kiss-off, King denied Ellison’s request and asked him to submit easily ignored written testimony. Given the level of partisan dysfunction in Washington, King’s treatment of Ellison is no surprise. In return, the New Yorker should expect his motives to be called into question. That’s putting it mildly. Keith Olbermann was a bit less charitable to say the least, calling King an “asshole” after his interview with Ellision. I don’t disagree, but also don’t think it’s terribly productive. I think he could have stuck to just calling out his fearmongering and bigotry without making it personal.
Continue reading …
Heavy fighting as rebels attack government positions in Ghazaya and Al Jawsh in attempt to clear supply lines Libyan rebel forces in the Nafusa mountains, south-west of Tripoli, launched a major offensive against government positions in an attempt to capture the strategic town of Ghazaya. Reports in opposition media said the rebel fighters had reached the outskirts of Ghazaya with heavy fighting involving tanks and artillery. The town is significant because it is close to the Tunisian border and is a base for government forces shelling roads leading over the border that are used by rebels to bring in supplies. “We have started attacking Ghazaya with rockets and tanks,” a rebel spokesman, Mohammed Maylud, told Reuters. A second town, Al Jawsh, was reportedly captured but then rebels were unable to hold it, despite deploying several tanks captured from forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. Nafusa is a narrow chain of mountains running east into Libya which rebel fighters have dominated for more than a month. But, to date, their lightly armed forces have struggled to move off the high ground to capture important roads and towns they need to consolidate their position and pose a direct threat to Tripoli. Radio reports from rebel sources said four fighters had been killed and 18 pro-Gaddafi soldiers captured. One injured pro-Gaddafi soldier, who gave his name as Hassan, told Reuters: “We don’t want to keep fighting. Everybody is against us.” Guma el-Gamaty, the UK co-ordinator of the National Transitional Council (NTC), said he had spoken to military commanders who hoped to “retake and clear” several towns and villages in the mountain area within days. “That will be a strategic shift,” he said, explaining that capture by the rebels would put the towns out of reach of Gaddafi forces’ missiles. He added: “The other strategic benefit of retaking these villages and towns is that it literally clears the way [from the Tunisian border down the coast towards Tripoli].” Yesterday’s offensive came amid confusion surrounding the rebels’ military commander, Abdel Fatah Younis, who was reported to have been arrested and detained at a military base in Benghazi. The former interior minister, who served under Gaddafi until he defected in February, was reported to have been questioned over alleged links with the regime in Tripoli. That could not be confirmed. Al-Jazeera television reported that rebel troops loyal to the general, had returned from the eastern front and were in the streets brandishing firearms and demanding his release. As Libya approaches the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, there is little sign of an imminent resolution to the five-month conflict. Yesterday, el-Gamaty sought to play down any suggestion that the NTC would agree to a settlement that would see Gaddafi staying in the country – a proposal briefly floated in recent days by Britain and France, and by the rebel leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil. “I think we are coming to the end of all these silly political initiatives and all this talk about Gaddafi staying in Libya,” said Gamaty. He added: “Will he be allowed to stay in Libya? Will he not be allowed? Will he resign? Will he not resign? All these political initiatives, if they are not based on Gaddafi and all his sons leaving power and leaving Libya, these are initiatives that are not even worth talking about.” The NTC received another diplomatic boost when Portugal followed the example of Britain and others by saying it had granted official recognition to the rebels. In a statement, the foreign ministry said it supported “the Libyan people’s aspirations in the construction of a free and democratic society”. In London, a day after Hague announced the expulsion of all remaining Gaddafi regime diplomats from the Libyan People’s Bureau, attention shifted to the financial consequences of the recognition. Gamaty said he hoped all the £12bn-worth of Libyan assets frozen by Britain since the start of the conflict would be unblocked. Britain is to attempt to unfreeze some of the assets, running into the hundreds of millions of pounds, but the bulk is expected to remain blocked until Gaddafi falls. “The NTC cannot run two-thirds of Libya on just a few hundred millions … we need billions for that,” said the UK’s rebel co-ordinator. He insisted the money would be used for basic services and medical supplies in the war-torn nation, and not for the purchase of weapons. However observers have said that in practice this would be hard to regulate. Libya Arab and Middle East unrest Muammar Gaddafi Middle East Africa William Hague Chris Stephen Lizzy Davies guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Pakistan’s military accused of escalating draconian campaign in Balochistan
July 28, 2011 No Comment
Human rights groups criticise lack of action by civilian leaders to check torture and execution of nationalists in border region Pakistan’s military has escalated its brutal campaign of abduction and extra-judicial execution targeting nationalist rebels in Balochistan province, human rights groups have said. In a new report on “enforced disappearances” by military and intelligence officials, Human Rights Watch (HRW) criticised the failure of Pakistan’s civilian leaders to halt what it termed a human rights “free-for-all”. “The national government has done little to end the carnage,” said HRW’s Asia director, Brad Adams. “President Asif Ali Zardari has to realise it cannot just be wished away.” Covered in desert, mineral-rich and strategically located between Iran and Afghanistan, Balochistan is home to some of the most brutal state-led human rights abuses in Pakistan. Suspected nationalist rebels or sympathisers are routinely picked up in broad daylight, taken to centres where torture is rife and, in an increasing number of cases, later found dead on the roadside with a bullet wound in the head. Local groups have counted more than 180 bodies, mostly of men who reportedly disappeared at the hands of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) in co-operation with Frontier Corps paramilitaries. The military leadership is accused of orchestrating the violence as it seeks to crush a small rebel force it believes is being covertly boosted by arch-rival India – an accusation some western spies say is true. The nationalists are also guilty of gross human rights violations, in particularly the targeted killing of Punjabi “settlers”, teachers, politicians and anyone deemed to be co-operating with the military. A sense of lawlessness and impunity reigns in the province, which covers 43% of Pakistan’s land mass but accounts for just 5% of the population. One former detainee said his captors told him: “We can torture you, or kill you, or keep you for years at our will. It is only the army chief and the [intelligence] chief that we obey.” Army spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said the accusations were false. “We’ve responded to all this before. It’s basically untrue,” he said. Conflict in the western province receives relatively little attention because unlike the Taliban, Baloch rebels have secular politics and pose little serious threat to the army. Pakistani security officials estimate there are just 1,000 nationalist fighters, whose leaders are largely exiled in the UK, Switzerland and Dubai. But analysts say the barbarity underscores the fragility of Pakistani unity and could be a harbinger of unrest elsewhere. The rebels want independence from Pakistan, saying that after decades of neglect from the centre they would be better off on their own. The fighting is small-scale: rebels attack electricity pylons, rail tracks and military convoys; the military responds by detaining those thought to be responsible. HRW says that in military detention camps, prisoners are beaten, hung upside down and deprived of food and sleep for long periods. Over the past year the bodies of detainees have turned up on the roadside across the province, triggering protests in the provincial capital, Quetta. The exact number of those detained is unclear. In 2008 the interior minister, Rehman Malik, said at least 1,100 people were missing, but last January the Balochistan home minister put the figure at just 55 people. Targeted killings of “settlers” and other accused collaborators by rebels is carving up the province along worrisome ethnic lines – in Quetta, for instance, non-Baloch doctors refused to work in Baloch areas, fearing harm. The Zardari government has tried to appease nationalist sentiment through a generous aid package and greater funding, but the disappearances and deaths have fuelled nationalist sentiment. A supreme court judge said last year that disappearances from Balochistan posed “the most burning issue in the country”. But a judicial enquiry into the matter has been largely toothless due to a lack of military co-operation. Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Today Raúl Grijalva, a tireless champion on behalf of America’s hard-pressed working families and an old and trusted friend of Blue America’s– our only endorsed candidate with a dedicated Act Blue Page — will be spending an hour with us here from noon to 1pm, PT, 3-4pm back East to help us understand the machinations of the debt ceiling debate roiling Washington– and the financial markets– of late. He’ll be answering questions in the live forum in the comments section below. Aside from representing a sprawling southern Arizona congressional district that encompasses everything from the western half of Tucson down to Nogales on the Mexican border and across to Yuma on the California border, Raúl is also the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (with Keith Ellison ). The Progressive Caucus is Congress’ largest, with 76 Members. In the Great Shellacking last year, when Democrats lost the House in a rout, the CPC essentially held it’s ground. While the conservative Blue Dogs lost more than half their members, the CPC only lost 4, all swept away by the refusal of Democratic and left-leaning voters to put their disappointment in Obama aside and turn out to vote. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Phil Hare (D-IL) and John Hall (D-NY) were the casualties. The Caucus picked up 3 new members at the same time: Karen Bass (D-CA), David Cicilline (D-CA) and Frederica Wilson (D-FL). I spent some time on the phone with Raúl yesterday trying to get a better grasp on what the Caucus does and what it hopes to accomplish. Unlike the Blue Dogs, it is not a fundraising powerhouse. They are hardly the darlings of the K Street lobbyists and power-brokers who distribute the legalistic bribes to the members and the organizations that doing their bidding. When the Murdoch scandal started to break, one of the first things we saw was that his PAC was donating heavily to the Blue Dogs. Find a scandal or an outrage in any newspaper and you’ll find a source of contributions to the Blue Dogs– though never to the CPC. Members dues, meager, go to pay a single staffer and for some office supplies. Raúl sees the CPC was a vehicle to unify Congress’ disparate progressive voices and to go beyond just unifying around individual votes. He has been working diligently to assert a kind of independence from the party leadership based on solidly progressive values and principles. “We’re often taken for granted,” he told me. “Leadership thinks ‘they have nowhere else to go’.” That’s why we’ve seen Pelosi, and especially Hoyer, making legislation and strategy more and more conservative to lure Blue Dogs and other conservatives, while basically ignoring progressives. But Raúl and Keith have forged together an inner core of nearly three dozen members who are serious about breaking away from playing the insider game that always leaves progressives coming up short. They are building relationships with grassroots activists and advocates for the progressive agenda around the country, groups dedicated to working families, education, the environment, equality, peace… all the issues that differentiate progressives from conservatives. And they are making their members available to the media and helping give them national visibility beyond their own districts. Raúl tells me that they even plan to utilize the CPC Pac to help elect progressives in districts held by Republicans and in open districts. Yesterday Raúl cut our chat short to get to a CPC meeting where they resolved to endorse Peter Welch’s H.R. 2663, The America Pays its Bills Act. The bill calls for a clean debt ceiling vote in order to end the Republican-created Default crisis. They also resolved that “failing a timely, satisfactory legislative agreement to end the Republican-created default crisis, the CPC urges the President to use his powers granted under section 4 of the 14th amendment to raise the ceiling.”
Continue reading …FNC’s Ed Henry Does His Job, Jay Carney Scolds: ‘I Know You’re Creating a Thing Here for Fox’
July 28, 2011 No CommentAfter only his third day on the job, Fox News senior White House correspondent Ed Henry was accused by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney of intentionally “creating” a dispute to please his new employer. “I know you're creating a thing here for Fox,” charged Carney toward the end of a testy exchange with the former CNN correspondent during Wednesday's press briefing. As members of the White House press corps giggled off camera, Henry retorted: “That's not what I'm doing, you know better than that.” [Video follows page break] Continuing a line of questioning he initiated on Monday – his debut in the briefing room as a Fox News correspondent – Henry pressed Carney to lay out President Barack Obama's deficit-reduction plan, noting that, unlike House Republicans and Senate Democrats, the administration has yet to submit a proposal to the Congressional Budget Office. When Carney insisted the president's “principles” as outlined in a speech in April constituted a plan with “quite a lot of detail,” Henry fired back: “That's not a plan.” For asking tough questions and expecting serious responses, Henry was accused by Carney of parroting Republican talking points. As Glynnis MacNicol at Business Insider observed , “That the White House thinks it's already okay to attribute his totally normal badgering to the network he works for, for the second day in row, says a great deal more about how the White House views Fox than vice versa.” In response to Carney's insults, FNC anchor Greta Van Susteren wrote on “Greta Wire” yesterday that the press secretary took a “cheap shot” at Henry, according to Chris Ariens at TV Newser . Ariens also reported that “all was calm” between Henry and Carney at the Thursday briefing. A transcript of Ed Henry's exchange with Jay Carney during the July 27 press briefing can be found below: ED HENRY, FNC senior White House correspondent: Jay, you just said there's not a lot of great detail the president's put out in a plan. When are you going to submit a plan to the Congressional Budget Office? JAY CARNEY, White House press secretary: I understand – we can do this again, okay. HENRY: No, but when are going to submit it to CBO like Boehner did and Reid did? CARNEY: Has the Speaker of the House shown you the positions that he took in detail in the negotiations that were designed actually to achieve a compromise, as opposed to have a show vote, have a show vote? (Crosstalk) CARNEY: Ed, we put forward a budget, we put forward a framework – HENRY: It didn't get through. CARNEY: – as has every measure that the Republicans have put forward, okay. Both leaders, the senior-most Republican in the land, third in line, okay, a powerful figure, with great authority, sat in a room with the President of the United States and worked out a detailed compromise. It is the nature of these kinds of difficult things that you do that in a way so that you agree on the tough choices, you come out together, and you announce them, and you begin to make the argument. A hard argument, for each person, to his party, that this is what we need to do for the sake of the country, that this is a good deal, okay. HENRY: As Chuck said yesterday, have a senator introduce it as an actual bill. We're six days away. CARNEY: Chuck, I mean Ed, you know, the speaker walked away from this deal. HENRY: Right, but you got this great deal so put it out there. Let the American people see it. CARNEY: I think I've answered the question. HENRY: Okay, one quick thing. CARNEY: I know you're creating a thing here for Fox. (Laughing from the press corps) HENRY: That's not what I'm doing, you know better than that. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
Continue reading …