Newspaper vendor knocked down by riot officer had earlier been shepherded out of the police’s way at G20 protests Ian Tomlinson seemed to be “in his own world” and was not responding to police officers on the day he died at the G20 protests, an inquest has heard. Tomlinson was struck with a baton and pushed to the ground by Metropolitan police officer PC Simon Harwood in the City of London at around 7.20pm on 1 April 2009. Witnesses have told the jury at the inquest into Tomlinson’s death that 10 minutes earlier in a separate location, the 47-year-old newspaper vendor looked drunk as he stood in the middle of the road blocking the way of a police carrier. The incident on nearby Lombard Street, which was partially captured by photographs, occurred as Tomlinson attempted to find a way home from work past police cordons outside the Bank of England. The jury heard that officers used minimal force to escort Tomlinson off the road so a carrier van could pass. A number of witnesses said he had not responded to instructions to move and seemed oblivious to what was going on around him. “He was open mouthed,” said James Stone, a City worker attending a gym on the street, in a statement read out to court. “He had a vacant expression everywhere he looked. “I remember looking at my watch and seeing that it was 7.15. I saw Mr Tomlinson and thought to myself: ‘Boy, does he look wasted.’ The inquest has been told that Tomlinson was an alcoholic and had been drinking on the day he died. Traffic had been blocked on Lombard Street, which was behind a heavy police cordon of riot officers when Tomlinson arrived. PC Gareth Edwards, who was driving the van, said he beeped his horn twice, leaned out of the window and shouted at Tomlinson to get out of the way but the father of nine did not react. The inquest then heard how a number of officers from the police cordon firmly pushed Tomlinson, moving him on to the pavement. The van does not appear to have touched Tomlinson and there was no evidence that he was injured in what appeared to be a minor encounter. One witness, Warren Fraser, an IT worker taking photographs in the area, said Tomlinson appeared oblivious to his surroundings. “His responses were slow,” Fraser said. “He looked as if he was in his own world.” Although Tomlinson was calm and did not appear agitated, he said, the encounter, which involved two or three police officers, did prompt some in the crowd to complain. Fraser said he heard one person, possibly with a megaphone, say: “It takes three policemen to move one old man.” Once the van and gone past, Fraser said an officer gave Tomlinson “an encouraging push”, as if to send him away from Lombard Street. But Tomlinson did not immediately leave. “I got the impression that he stayed where he was in order to show independence and defy police,” Fraser said. The hearing continues. Ian Tomlinson Police London Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Move to deputy chief operating officer confirms Rupert Murdoch’s youngest son is being lined up as his successor James Murdoch is moving from London to New York to become deputy chief operating officer of News Corporation. He will report to Chase Carey, who is number two at the media conglomerate run by his father, Rupert. Murdoch Jr will also become chairman and chief executive of News Corp’s international businesses, retaining his responsibilities for Europe and Asia. The move confirms that the youngest of Rupert Murdoch’s three children from his second marriage is being lined up as an eventual replacement for the News Corp founder, who is the company’s chairman and chief executive. Murdoch Jr has been based in London since November 2003, first as chief executive of BSkyB, the pay-TV company in which News Corp is the largest shareholder and of which it is attempting to take full control. In December 2007 he was promoted to BSkyB chairman and chief executive of News Corp in Europe and Asia. In this role he oversaw businesses including the Times, Sunday Times, Sun and News of the World publisher News International, and News Corp’s satellite TV businesses in Germany, Italy and Asia. The deputy chief operating officer job is the same post his older brother Lachlan occupied until he resigned in July 2005 . In a statement, News Corp said James will “work closely” with Rupert Murdoch in what it described as a “newly created role”. Murdoch will focus on News Corp’s international assets, developing strategies that “strengthen and further evolve businesses”, the company said. Murdoch joined the company in 1996 to run a portfolio of digital businesses before moving to Hong Kong in 2000 to run its Asian TV business Star, which was losing money. He has been executive chairman of News International, News Corp’s UK newspaper arm, since 2007, when Les Hinton moved to the US to take charge of the Wall Street Journal. He is also a non-executive director of pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline and auction house Sotheby’s. Murdoch said: “I feel extremely fortunate to continue to support News Corporation’s international growth and also be given the chance to contribute to important initiatives across the company. Most of all, I am delighted to work even more closely with Chase Carey, whose extraordinary leadership is felt in every part of the business.” Carey, News Corp’s deputy chairman, president and chief operating officer, added: “As we become increasingly global and consumer focused, we believe there are real opportunities to add new dimensions to our core businesses. We are confident that James’ deep knowledge of international markets, his proven leadership, and his passionate focus on building consumer relationships make him the ideal person to help us realise these opportunities across all our companies.” •
Continue reading …
Libya rebels withdraw from oil town as international coalition continue discussions over legality of arming them Troops loyal to the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, have retaken the key oil port of Ras Lanuf, forcing rebel fighters into a chaotic retreat under a barrage of tank and artillery fire. Nato planes bombarded the regime troops as their outgunned opponents continued to fall back from positions taken earlier in the week, when they had advanced within 60 miles of Sirte, Gaddafi’s home city. Meanwhile, as the debate within the anti-Gaddafi international coalition over the legality of arming the rebellion continued, the foreign secretary, William Hague, said that it would be possible to supply weapons under certain circumstances. Earlier, David Cameron told the Commons that no decision had been made but he “would not necessarily rule out the protection of civilians in certain circumstances”. The rebel’s rapid withdrawal came just days after insurgent fighters raced westwards following the destruction of government tanks and artillery in five days of aerial bombardment in the town of Ajdabiya. Ragtag opposition fighters have repeatedly been forced to retreat after fierce bombardments by the more disciplined government troops. “Gaddafi hit us with huge rockets. He has entered Ras Lanuf,” rebel fighter Faraj Muftah told Reuters after pulling out of the oil port. “We were at the western gate in Ras Lanuf and we were bombarded,” said a second fighter, Hisham. Scores of rebel four-wheel pick-ups raced east, away from Ras Lanuf, a Reuters journalist saw. Speaking to the Commons, Hague revealed that five Libyan diplomats had been expelled from the regime’s London embassy because they represented a potential security risk. Hague said that while the current arms embargo prevented weapons being provided to the whole of Libya, UN resolution 1973 allowed “for all necessary measures to protect civilians” to be taken. The British government’s view, which was not necessarily shared internationally, was that this meant rebels protecting civilians could be armed although ministers had “not yet taken a decision”, he said. Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said on Tuesday that she believed arming rebels was legal under the UN security council resolution which sanctioned the no-fly zone and air operations. But experts in international law have questioned this interpretation , saying that it would breach the arms embargo on Libya agreed last month. There also remain questions about who is represented in the interim national council (INC) guiding the uprising. In Washington, Admiral James Stavridis, Nato’s supreme allied commander in Europe, told the Senate that intelligence reports had suggested “flickers” of al-Qaida or Hezbollah presence within the rebel movement. A UK diplomat, Christopher Prentice, the ambassador in Rome, met rebel leaders in their stronghold of Benghazi on Monday and Tuesday, the Foreign Office has said. Cameron told the Commons during prime minister’s questions: “In terms of the situation on the ground it is an extremely fluid situation, but there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the ceasefire is still being breached and it is absolutely right for us to keep up our pressure under UN security council resolution 1973.” Asked by the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, whether the terms of the resolution that authorised “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians, overrode the arms embargo, Cameron said: “I have said before in the House that we must do everything to comply with both the security council resolutions. “The arms embargo applies to the whole of the territory of Libya, but at the same time UN security council resolution 1973 allows all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas. “Our view is that this would not necessarily rule out the provision of assistance to those protecting civilians in certain circumstances. We do not rule it out but we have not taken the decision to do so.” Cameron said coalition forces had “taken action yesterday against regime forces harassing civilian vessels trying to get into Misrata”, the rebel-held town in the west of Libya, under siege from Gaddafi’s troops for several days. The RAF had flown 24 sorties over Libya on Tuesday night and Wednesday. “Tornado aircraft destroyed artillery and an armoured fighting vehicle near Sirte,” he told MPs. He also revealed that in his talks with the INC’s special envoy at Tuesday’s international conference on the Libya crisis, he had been “reassured” the group wanted its role to be transitional. “They are democrats. They are not tribal, and they want to see a future for the whole of Libya where the people have a choice over how they are governed.” Hague told the Commons afterwards: “To underline our grave concern at the [Gaddafi] regime’s behaviour, I can announce to the House that we have today taken steps to expel five diplomats at the Libyan embassy in London, including the military attache. The government also judged that were these individuals to remain in Britain, they could pose a threat to our security.” Libya Arab and Middle East unrest Muammar Gaddafi Middle East Nato James Meikle guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
enlarge Dave Weigel makes a good point in this piece: Public Policy Polling continues its tour of swing states that elected Republican governors last year and have already soured on them. In Florida, Rick Scott’s already deep in the negative zone. So Scott joins John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin in the ranks of GOP governors with horrible robo-poll numbers only three months into their terms. The Florida difference: There hasn’t been a robust union or Democratic protest movement of Scott. There’s just negative media coverage about how his family could benefit from his own policies, complaints from Republicans about his leadership, disapproval of his cuts to education and the state workforce (as he phases in an end to corporate taxes), irritation with the cancellation of the Tampa-Orlando rail line, etc and so on. I wrote earlier this month that the rejection of these governors’ austerity packages were potential problems for the GOP’s national ticket in 2012 — it’s hard to win without Ohio and Florida. These are still potential problems. We’ve already heard quite a bit about Walker and Kasich. But what’s Rick Scott done that’s so bad? Well … A disabled food stamp applicant has asked the Florida Supreme Court to overturn Gov. Rick Scott’s executive order suspending agency rulemaking powers. Lawyers for Rosalie Whiley filed the petition Monday. It alleges Scott overstepped his authority by transferring rulemaking from agencies under the governor to his office. That halted rules to simplify the reapplication process for food stamps. Whiley, who is blind, said the new rules would have made it easier for her to apply for food stamps online. Her lawyers include former Florida State University president Talbot “Sandy” D’Alemberte, who said the order halts actions urgently needed to protect vulnerable low-income citizens. He also said the governor doesn’t have the power to suspend state laws. And then there’s stuff like this … Gov. Rick Scott offered little Tuesday when asked whether he would consider ending his family’s financial stake in Solantic, the urgent care company he founded and which provides drug-testing services. Scott’s role in the firm was spotlighted when he signed an executive order ordering drug-testing for new state hires and random screening of current employees. “As I’ve told you, I’m not involved in that company,” Scott said, refusing to directly answer whether he would consider prohibiting the state from contracting with the firm. Scott, who reported a net worth of $218 million when he filed papers to run for governor last summer, had pledged to put his financial holdings into a blind trust, when elected. Instead, in January, Scott transfered his Solantic stock to his wife, Ann. And … Scott, lawmakers want less oversight of nursing homes In the weeks since Gov. Rick Scott called for the ouster of Florida’s top nursing-home watchdog, Republican lawmakers have introduced more than a dozen bills that critics claim would further “neuter” the ombudsman program. The state Department of Elder Affairs also has notified Florida’s 400 mostly volunteer ombudsmen, instructing them not to speak to the media without alerting a district manager about the conversation and detailing the questions asked. “My biggest concern is that we can still speak for residents, still do yearly assessments of the facilities, still handle residents’ complaints and not be muzzled by the industry or the governor or anyone else,” said Lynn Dos Santos, chairwoman of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman Council and a volunteer herself. “Under the new policy, I shouldn’t be talking now. But the truth has to be told.” The developments come as the U.S. Administration on Aging investigates the dismissal of Brian Lee, who led Florida’s Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program for the past seven years. In part, investigators are looking into allegations that Scott broke federal law by “interfering” with the watchdog program, which is supposed to be independent. In case you were wondering, all of those stories occurred over the span of one day . I cannot imagine what other damage Scott is doing to his state on a regular basis. Maybe I should get a daily Google News alert on him just to satisfy my morbid curiosity. (Incidentally, America, I did try to warn you about this last year. You didn’t listen to me, but that’s OK. I still love ya.) But for Democrats, there is an upside to all this: From Scott to Walker to Kasich, all of the biggest jerkwad GOP governors are in swing states. An intelligent Democratic campaign for 2012 — and yes, I know, I shouldn’t assume any such thing — would go to voters in those states and say, “Hey, do you like the fact that your grandmother’s nursing home contracted her out to clean up toxic waste because Rick Scott decided that nursing homes don’t need oversight? Well you’ll love what the GOP is gonna do when they take over the entire federal government!” I’d also recommend the national Dems get involved in firing up their base voters in these key states by running campaigns against Republican lawmakers who have aided and abetted unpopular GOP governors. A simple campaign pledge of “I won’t force your granny to clean up toxic waste!” would be sufficient to get Democrats to turn out to the polls in droves. Hell, I think swing voters might find themselves attracted to that messaging as well. This sort of strategy can really get your base motivated to work and can also help peel independents away from the GOP. You guys gotta do something, because the prospect of a second Obama administration isn’t exactly making anyone excited right now. UPDATE : Or, alternatively, you can just play this video of Wisconsin GOP Rep. Sean Duffy saying that he’s “struggling to meet his bills” despite the fact that he makes $174,000 a year.
Continue reading …Roseanne Barr: ‘I’m Going to Run for President on Behalf of Tax Paying People’
March 30, 2011 No Comment
In case you were worried about the future of the United States, your problems have been solved. On Tuesday evening, while filling in for Joy Behar on HLN, comedienne Roseanne Barr announced that she's running for president (video follows with transcript and commentary): MICHAEL MOORE: Start supporting this. ROSEANNE BARR: Start, yes, start being active. Right? Start being active. MOORE: Yes, but not just going to demonstrations. You need to organize your neighbors, your churches, your schools and can I just say — BARR: Yes, but we`re running out of time. MOORE: Can I just say this into your camera? Some of you need to run. You need to run for office. BARR: I`m running. That`s what I was going to ask in the next — MOORE: You need to run. BARR: — in the next segment. I`m going to run for President of these United States. MOORE: Wow. BARR: On behalf of the tax-paying people. MOORE: Wow. BARR: I`m thinking about it, anyway. On this Red Bull. Let's hope this isn't just the Red Bull talking.
Continue reading …One of the most stressful things about being a liberal blogger is having to watch as congressional Democrats stand openmouthed at the plate, watching the fastballs fly by. Steve Benen really nails it. Go read the rest: At face value, congressional Republicans went into budget talks playing a strikingly weak hand. They’re an unpopular party, pushing unpopular spending cuts, going up against a more popular president. Of the three main players — the House, the Senate, and the White House — the GOP controls about one-half of one-third of the relevant institutions. And yet, who seems to be calling the shots here? The New York Times had an interesting summary of the lay of the land, emphasizing the fact that Democrats seem to realize they let this debate slip away from them. Both parties remain uncertain about which of them would bear the brunt of public anger if Congress cannot agree on financing federal operations for the final half of this fiscal year and government agencies shut down or drastically scale back the services they can provide. Even many Democrats believe that House Republicans have gotten the better of the antispending, antigovernment argument. But Democrats insist that is because much of the public does not appreciate the impact the Republicans’ $61 billion in proposed reductions would have on spending for popular social programs if those cuts were to become law with just half of the current fiscal year remaining . Democrats are right; most of the country has no idea the extent to which the GOP’s proposed cuts would be devastating to key domestic priorities. These are cuts that, if put to a poll, the vast majority of the American mainstream would reject out of hand. But here’s another thought: maybe most of the country has no idea how brutal these cuts are because Dems haven’t told them . Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! No coherent, consistent message, a new logo that looks like a sign for a bus stop and an overwhelming need to cooperate with the slash-and-burn Republicans who want to decimate these very popular programs. Why not stand up for people instead of helping them cut?
Continue reading …Four proposals seek to ban or limit US government’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions The US Senate is due to vote as early as Wednesday on measures that would strip the Obama administration of its powers to act on climate change. Up to four separate proposals in circulation this week would seek an outright ban – or at the very least severe limits and delays – on the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. President Barack Obama was expected to deliver a speech later on Wednesday pledging to cut America’s oil imports by one-third over the next decade, by ramping up domestic oil production and increasing energy efficiency. White House officials said Obama would continue to press for new nuclear plants, despite the still-unfolding crisis at Japan’s stricken Fukushima plant, and also said that the president would make a call for the manufacture of more electric cars. The various measures in front of the Senate would prevent the EPA from going ahead with new rules on greenhouse gas emissions from major power stations that started to come into effect this year. The measures were expected to be attached to a small business bill. The leading Republican proposal would impose a ban on any future EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and prevent further improvements in car emissions standards after 2017. But it is the other proposals, put forward by Democrats, that could in the end destroy the last hopes of any strong action on climate change during Obama’s remaining two years in the White House. Even the most ardent opponents of the EPA’s climate change mission, such as Oklahoma senator James Inhofe, were unsure on Tuesday whether opponents of the climate regulation had the votes to pass an absolute ban. The White House has also said it would veto bills blocking the EPA. Inhofe told reporters he hoped the votes would put Democrats in coal and heavy industry states under pressure. “I do think this will force some Democrats to go on the record. And then the next time isn’t going to be quite so easy.” he told The Hill newspaper . But a Democratic proposal initially put forward by Jay Rockefeller, from the coal-mining state of West Virginia, was also gaining traction. Rockefeller’s proposal would put a two-year hold on EPA regulation on major installations. The idea is expected to pick up some support from coal state Democrats or those from conservative areas who are facing tough re-election fights in 2012 against conservative Tea Party Republicans. Obama administration officials had initially hoped to push Congress to pass climate change legislation, arguing that it was a better alternative to expanding government regulation through the EPA. Obama also offered deep compromises on his energy agenda to try to win over Republican support. He expanded offshore drilling only a few weeks before the BP oil disaster, extended $36bn in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants, and just last week opened up 7,500 acres for coal mining in Wyoming . But the strategy of using the EPA to scare Republicans into action backfired. After climate change legislation failed in the Senate , EPA action became the only course left to the Obama administration. Meanwhile, a new breed of conservative Republican vehemently opposed to government regulation began mobilising against the EPA and climate change regulations, calling the move to protect the climate a “job killer”. “It was a threatening argument [regulation through the EPA] – it did not help,” Senator Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, told reporters on Tuesday. “It was clearly meant to be intimidating, but it did not succeed and the pushback now is strong.” Climate change Carbon emissions Obama administration United States Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Ouattara envoy claims forces loyal to would-be president control two-thirds of war-torn country after Gbagbo loses more towns Rebel forces in Ivory Coast say they are advancing towards the capital after seizing two more towns in the heart of the war-torn country. Militias loyal to presidential claimant Alassane Ouattara have taken control of Sinfra and Bouafle , according to his defence spokesman, Captain Leon Alla. Both are west of the capital city, Yamoussoukro. Earlier this week the rebels took three towns further to the west. Ally Coulibaly, Ouattara’s ambassador to Paris, claimed that rebel forces now control three quarters of the country. He said the incumbent president, Laurent Gbagbo, had been given every chance to step down following his defeat in last November’s election but Ivorians eventually had to take up arms to avoid a massacre of the civilian population. A spokesman for Gbagbo called for a ceasefire and mediation but warned that the battle was far from over. Spokesman Don Mello told Radio France International: “We call for an immediate ceasefire and the opening of talks under the mediation of the African Union high representative. Failing which, we will use our legitimate right of defence. “We have adopted a strategy of tactical withdrawal. We hope that dialogue will open very shortly. It is useless to head into conflict and increase the number of victims.” Over the past few days the rebels – who have controlled northern Ivory Coast since the civil war of 2002-3 – have advanced east toward the centre of the country. They have claimed to have seized two major cities, Duekoue and Daloa. Roads from Daloa lead south to the port of San Pedro, which could be used to resupply the rebels who do not have access to the sea, and east to Yamassoukro. The capture of Yamassoukro would be symbolic but not decisive. Gbagbo’s seat of power is in the commercial capital, Abidjan, where fighting has raged for months between rival factions. Pro-Ouattara forces also made progress in the east, near the Ghana border. They took Bondoukou in the north-east before marching 200km (125 miles) south to, and through, Abengourou unopposed, residents said, leaving them 200km north-east of Abidjan. The UN accused pro-Gbagbo forces of shooting dead up to 10 civilians in the Abidjan suburb of Abobo on Tuesday. Gbagbo’s government spokesman dismissed the report and said Abidjan was “impregnable” to rebel attack. Violence in Abidjan may escalate after Gbagbo’s army spokesman called on his youths to join the fight. “The hour for their enrolment has arrived,” Colonel Babri Gohourou told state TV. “They will be called up from Wednesday.” Gbagbo’s Young Patriots have targeted UN staff for weeks, beating them, burning UN vehicles and sometimes abducting them. A Nigerien UN peacekeeper was seized by unknown attackers two weeks ago and remains missing, according to security sources. “We think one of our soldiers in the Nigerien contingent in Abidjan was kidnapped in the week from 12 to 19 March,” a security source in Niamey, Niger’s capital, told Reuters. “The UN is investigating.” The international community and Ivory Coast’s electoral commission say Ouattara won the presidential election. But Gbagbo refuses to give up power. More than one million people have fled the fighting that has ensued and at least 462 have been killed since the election, according to UN figures. Ouattara’s camp puts the death toll above 700. In the town of Doekoue, up to 30,000 people took refuge in a church compound to escape the fighting. A missionary told the BBC that many of those who had sought refuge at the mission were migrants from other West African countries who had been working in the surrounding cocoa plantations. Sources said electricity in Duekoue has also been cut, apparently as a result of the fighting, depriving people in the area of water. Amnesty International called on the UN mission in Ivory Coast, known as UNOCI, to take urgent action to protect civilians in Doekoue. Veronique Aubert, its Africa deputy director, said: “The UNOCI mandate in Ivory Coast requires the peacekeepers to protect civilians at imminent threat of physical violence. They must act immediately to prevent further bloodshed.” “Their camp is only about 3km from Doekoue and we’re urging them to use all means necessary to protect civilians against the violence taking place on their own doorstep.” A UN spokesman added that “robust patrols” had been deployed to protect the church and those inside. Ivory Coast African Union United Nations David Smith guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Michael Moore sat down with Stephen Colbert to talk about the Republican governors and corporate America’s assault on the working class in America.
Continue reading …In Libya Interview, Sawyer Asks Obama About Praying Like Lincoln and ‘How Much Do You Think Kentucky Will Win By?’
March 30, 2011 No Comment
The broadcast evening news anchors all got ten minutes with President Barack Obama on Tuesday afternoon in New York City to press him about contradictions in his Libya policy, ceding authority for foreign entities and how he’s a hypocrite after his criticism of President Bush for unilateral actions and not getting congressional approval, but instead they simply prodded him to provide arms to the rebels and pushed him to take action in Syria. But ABC’s Diane Sawyer stood out for her obsequiousness as the Kentucky native ended by giddily bringing up the college basketball tournament: “How much do you think Kentucky will win by?” Before that, she cued him up to agree he’s as burdened as Abraham Lincoln: What about the famous quote from another beleaguered President, Abraham Lincoln, who said he had been driven many times to his knees because his own wisdom and that around him “was insufficient for the day”? Obama assured her: “I do a lot of praying.” Following the interview except, Sawyer personalized her “beleaguered President” theme: By the way, on that avalanche of crises the President faces every day – from Libya to Iraq to Afghanistan to nuclear crises in Japan – the President goes home every day to talk to his daughters about his day. I ask him what does he say to them about days like this? And you can see that at ABCNews.com/World News. She had teased World News : “One on One: I ask the President about cutting a deal with Moammar Gadhafi and does he ever say ‘what's going on with this avalanche of world crises’?” Brian Williams teased the NBC Nightly News : “‘Not ruling it out.’ Tonight, in our conversation with President Obama, he leaves the door open to arming those rebels in Libya.” For CBS, Erica Hill landed the sit-down with Obama, which she teased: “Tonight, keeping up the pressure on Gadafi. The new air strikes and a diplomatic push. We talk to the President.” Hill posed about the toughest question, which shows just how soft the sessions were: “The supreme allied commander for NATO said today that there are flickers of al Qaeda and Hezbollah amongst these rebels. How do we know what their end goal is? And how do we know they won't, in fact, turn on the U.S. and on our allies?” Diane Sawyer’s questions to Obama as aired on the Tuesday, March 29 ABC World News : – In my interview with the President I started by asking about Gadhafi and those reports he is trying to make a deal. [To Obama:] As of this moment, any sign Gadhafi wants out? – If Gadhafi ends up in a villa someplace in Zimbabwe with no war crimes trial, is that okay with you? – Have you made, or would you make any calls to say “take him”? – We are hearing tonight, it’s fierce fighting, the U.S. must send munitions. How long would it take to get there? – Can we say that we could have it [arms] in there in a day, in two days? – I want to try to clarify what you’re saying today to the people of Syria. [Sawyer narration: We specifically asked the President, is he saying to the protesters in Syria that if they meet the five criteria he laid out last night] Are you saying to them we will be there for you as we were there in Libya? – Even if these paper criteria are met? – What about the famous quote from another beleaguered President, Abraham Lincoln, who said he had been driven many times to his knees because his own wisdom and that around him “was insufficient for the day”? [Obama: “I do a lot of praying.”] – Just a final question: How much do you think Kentucky will win by? Erica Hill’s questions to Obama as excerpted on the CBS Evening News: – Earlier today I spoke with President Obama here in New York. He has made it clear, from the beginning, he wants Gaddafi out. But what if he doesn’t go? – Are there also discussions and even perhaps meetings at all with people in Muammar Gaddafi's camp? – The supreme allied commander for NATO said today that there are flickers of al Qaeda and Hezbollah amongst these rebels. How do we know what their end goal is? And how do we know they won't, in fact, turn on the U.S. and on our allies? – Can you give us an idea of what some of those goals are [for the Libyan rebels]? Beyond just removing Qaddafi from power? – You mentioned the region. There's obviously so much focus on the region at this point. From everything we've seen over the last couple of months, there is renewed focus, though, on Syria. What would it take, what circumstances in particular would lead to direct involvement from the U.S. in Syria? The questions from Williams to Obama run on the NBC Nightly News: – The moment your speech ended last night the Associated Press put out an item that read: “President Obama’s speech was about defending the first war launched on his watch.” How does it end? – What if it doesn’t work? What if the rebels find themselves bogged down, this becomes protracted? – How do you not offer the rebels direct assistance of some sort? – Due respect, Mr. President, watching the reportings of our two correspondents in Libya, what it appears the rebels need is military equipment. Some of their equipment dates back to World War II. Are you ruling out U.S. military hardware assistance? – Three weeks from now, if a member of your circle makes an impassioned case to do the same in Syria, to finally de-couple it from Iran, what do you do? – So when people hear words like “values” and “interests” and your phrase “the flow of commerce” – which some people couldn’t help but substitute oil – they shouldn’t think that there is any blanket policy, this may be an ad-hoc business if this so-called Arab Spring turns into Arab Summer and we keep at this, watching countries change? — Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
Continue reading …