Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 585)
Abdul Fatah Younis ambush killing blamed on pro-Gaddafi forces

Libyan rebel army leader’s death announced at chaotic late-night press conference in Benghazi The Libyan rebels’ chief of army staff, Abdel Fatah Younis, has been killed in an assassination by pro-Gaddafi agents, according to the rebel authorities. The president of the ruling National Transitional Council, Abdul Mustafa Jalil, made the dramatic announcement of the death of Younis at a chaotic late-night press conference at a hotel in Benghazi. He told reporters that Younis had been called back from the frontline near Brega to Benghazi for questioning on the progress of the campaign, and suggested he had been killed by “pro-Gaddafi” forces on the route early in the morning. But questions remain over the lack of detail over how Younis died or who killed him. The general usually travels inside an armoured car in a multi-vehicle convoy with 30 armed guards, posing problems for any potential assassination team. Jalil said two senior rebel officers were killed alongside Younis, and demanded that what he called pro-Gaddafi elements he said were operating in Benghazi surrender or join the rebel forces. The shock announcement came after a day of heated speculation that Younis had been arrested on the orders of Jalil. Younis was Gaddafi’s former interior minister until he dramatically changed sides to join the revolution in February. The rumours were still swirling late on Thursday night, with armed men declaring their support for Younis appearing on the streets of Benghazi, claiming they would use force to free him from NTC custody. Soldiers loyal to Jalil from the 17 Brigade, Benghazi’s elite unit, had surrounded Younis’s house in the late afternoon. Then in the evening, Jalil said at the press conference that “with regret” he had to announce the death of general Younis. Jalil called him “one of the heroes of the 17th of February revolution”. Minutes later, gunfire broke out in the street outside the Benghazi hotel where the announcement was made, with machine gun bullets smashing windows. The press conference, which ended abruptly with the NTC president refusing to take questions, failed to explain how the general could have been ambushed in a highly guarded convoy. Younis has been a controversial figure as head of the rebel forces because – until the uprising – he was Muammar Gaddafi’s Interior Minister, one of his most trusted officials and confidants. The general’s friendship with Gaddafi dated from 1969 when he joined a group of fresh-faced army officers in deposing Libya’s king. But when riots came to the streets of Benghazi in February, he dramatically switched sides, joining the rebels and bringing the city’s interior ministry military brigade with him. That brigade was crucial in helping the under-armed rebels fight off the attacks by regime forces in the first days of the fighting, and command of this unit is believed to have been the key to the decision of rebel leaders in appointing him army commander. But his tenure as commander was stormy: he reportedly nearly came to blows with his rival for the army command, Klalifa Hefter, during a meeting in late March. For much of that month both men claimed to be in command of the ragtag rebel forces as they raced west towards Tripoli, only to be thrown back towards Benghazi in chaos and confusion. By April, Younis had won the political battle inside the National Transitional Council and was confirmed as chief of staff but he failed to use his new position to bring victory on the battlefield. Since April, the frontline has remained largely in stalemate, despite heavy Nato bombing of government forces around the key oil town of Brega. Younis launched an attack on Brega in June, only to see it beaten back. Two weeks ago, aided by some of the heaviest Nato tactical bombing of the war, he tried again, with a three-pronged attack on the town. Rebel military spokesmen repeatedly insisted that Brega was on the point of falling but, after a fortnight of fighting, the town remains in government hands. The rebels in the besieged city of Misrata have conspicuously refused to accept orders from Younis, to the extent of insisting that their fighters are not part of the Benghazi-controlled National Army. Many rebels were shocked by the news of the killing. “We respect him because he left Gaddafi; when he left a lot of colonels saw what Younis did and they defected also,” said Farouk Ben Ahmeda, a rebel fighter in Misrata. But few think that his military skills will be irreplaceable. “I don’t think that he was really a professional soldier; he didn’t command the soldiers well,” said Ben Ahmeda. The assassination will cause embarrassment and concern for the Foreign Office in the UK, as it comes just a day after the foreign secretary, William Hague, said that Britain would recognise the NTC as the legitimate government of Libya and expelling Gaddafi’s diplomats. London had hoped that after months of work, the NTC was now fit to govern. Unless Jalil can provide a full and public account of the assassination and the circumstances around it, that opinion may need to be revised. Libya Muammar Gaddafi Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Africa Chris Stephen guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

At first Rick Perry had no problem that gay marriage became legal in New York state, telling reporters that it was fine with him. But as soon as he was interviewed by the extreme religious right’s Family Research Council, he flip-flopped and announced he was against it . Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), one of the country’s most prominent defenders of the 10th Amendment, is making an exception when it comes to gay marriage. After initially telling reporters that it’s “fine with me” if states like New York legalize same-sex unions through their own legislature, Perry is pulling a 180 and calling for a Federal Marriage Amendment. Perry, who is flirting with a presidential bid, clarified his position to Family Research Council president Tony Perkins in an interview. “I probably needed to add a few words after that ‘it’s fine with me’ and that it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue,” he said. “Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn’t changed.” Perry said he supported changing the Constitution in order to ban gay marriage, a position that he characterized as supportive of states’ rights even as it would overrule New York’s own decision on the matter. “The real fear is states like New York will change the definition of marriage for Texas,” he said. “That is the reason the Federal Marriage Amendment is being offered. It’s a small group of activists judges and really a small handful, if you will, of states and these liberal special interest groups that are intent on a redefinition, if you will, of marriage on the nation for all of us, which I adamantly oppose. Indeed, to not pass the Federal Marriage Amendment would impinge on Texas’ and other states’ right not to have marriage forced upon them by these activist judges and these special interest groups.” His latest statement represents a major about-face and may be a preview of how he might court social conservatives should he run for president. At a fundraiser in Colorado last week, Perry was extremely clear in his support for New York’s right to determine their own definition of marriage. Think Progress writes: Rick Perry Tosses Tentherism Under The Bus To Placate Anti-Gay Hate Group Perry’s claim that he supports states’ rights to govern themselves, while simultaneously supporting the anti-gay “Federal Marriage Amendment” is impossible to reconcile. The FMA provides that : Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups . So Perry’s position is that we should ram his anti-gay views down New York voters’ throats by rewriting the Constitution to make marriage equality illegal in all 50 states. The states can have any law they want, so long as Perry approves of them. Perry’s attempt to impose anti-gay bigotry on progressive states is also a stark contrast to his stance on economic issues. While Perry is perfectly willing to let the federal government force New York to discriminate against gay couples, he believes that Texas should have the right to flout Medicaid laws, ignore federal education laws and thumb its nose at environmental regulations . In other words, Perry doesn’t actually care one bit about the 10th Amendment — he doesn’t even care all that much about his own twisted tenther interpretation of the 10th Amendment — he just wants to force everyone to live the way he wants them to live. Does America really want another Governor from Texas elected as President? He certainly shares the flip-flopping quality that defines Mitt Romney’s political career. But his kowtowing to the religious right is straight out of George W. Bush’s playbook.

Continue reading …
Dan Savage Threatens to ‘Google Bomb’ Rick Santorum, Yet Again

Santorum’s “Google problem” might get worse. (Via The Atlantic) It all started in 2003 when then-Senator Rick Santorum compared gay sex with bestiality and pedophilia, adding: “I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.” The statements roused the ire of sex columnist, author and gay-rights darling Dan Savage, who proceeded

Continue reading …
Ministry of Defence to axe 7,000 more civilian jobs

Cash-strapped department to make further redundancies in effort to bring soaring budget under control The Ministry of Defence is to axe a further 7,000 civilian jobs as part of the department’s desperate efforts to bring its soaring budget under control, the Guardian has learned. A letter signed by the permanent secretary, Ursula Brennan, will be sent to all staff explaining that cuts are necessary and conceding that the move “will raise questions which cannot be answered immediately”. The decision has infuriated union leaders and defence officials who say they were not consulted. They accused the department of acting in a cavalier fashion without thinking through the consequences. The move means the defence civil service, which is responsible for scrutinising contracts to ensure they do not run over budget, will have been cut by a third within nine years. Last week, the defence secretary, Liam Fox, outlined proposals to cut a further 7,000 military jobs from the army between 2015 and 2020. His statement to the Commons made no reference to civilian posts at the MoD, which are already being cut as part of last year’s strategic defence and security review (SDSR). The review outlined plans to get rid of 25,000 civil servants between now and 2015, and the fresh announcement, which could come on Friday, will add a further 7,000 to that total by 2020. The letter from Brennan, which is being circulated around Whitehall, says that the department needs to “bear down further on non-frontline costs”. “In the SDSR we planned for … a 25% reduction in the cost of civilian personnel by 2015, bringing the size of the MoD civil service down to a total of some 60,000 civilian posts,” the letter says. “As part of the package announced last week we need to make further reductions in … civilian manpower. For civilians, we will be extending the earlier planned reductions, coming down to a total of 53,000 civilians by 2020.” Brennan says she hopes that many of the job losses will be “achieved by natural wastage” and that “compulsory redundancy will only be used as a last resort”. However, the letter concludes: “We recognise that news of further staff reductions … will raise questions which cannot be answered immediately. We will let you have more news on this … over the coming months.” Union leaders said the announcement reflected “what the MoD can afford, not what it needs”. They believe the cuts could backfire with poor quality equipment being commissioned that could put the armed forces at greater risk. Steve Jary, national secretary of Prospect, the union which represents MoD civil servants, said: “A defence civil service of just 53,000 will be just half the size it was in 2005. The further cuts in civilian numbers were not mentioned in Liam Fox’s statement last week and have not been the subject of any consultation.” He added: “The MoD has consistently avoided open and detailed consultation on the changes since the SDSR was published. This is leading to a breakdown in trust; 53,000 is a totally arbitrary figure.” The saga over the MoD’s runaway budget has become one of the most difficult and enduring issues facing the coalition government. Despite all the cost cutting announced in the SDSR, there was still a substantial overspend in last year’s defence budget – estimated at more than £1bn. Officials at the MoD blamed this on the speed in which the review was undertaken, and also privately raised concerns that the government had not properly funded the reforms it wanted to make to the armed forces between now and 2020. This led to demands from the Treasury for further cost cutting. Last week Fox said the army will shrink from its present size of about 101,000 to 82,000 by 2020. The SDSR had already cut the army by 7,000 by 2015 – when troops will no longer have a combat role in Afghanistan. In return, the Treasury has promised that the armed forces will get a 1% real terms budget increase from 2015 to 2020 to help pay for the reforms. However, the Guardian has been told that this is far short of what the MoD believes it needs if it is to build the promised hi-tech Future Force 2020 . Ministry of Defence Military Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
White House plans emergency cuts as debt deadline looms

Uncertainty still rules as US political parties fail to compromise on a strategy to tackle economic crisis The White House is drawing up emergency plans for next week’s debt crisis deadline in the event that Congress fails to reach a last-gasp compromise. With only six days left, the White House dismissed as “political theatre” a new bill before the Republican-controlled House that would cut spending in return for raising the $14.3tn (£8.7tn) debt ceiling. The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, addressing the daily press conference today, said the bill was hated by the Democratic-controlled Senate and the White House and was “dead on arrival”. The Senate will not vote for it and, even if it did, Barack Obama would veto it. Fifty-one Democratic members of the Senate, a majority, published a letter pledging to vote against the House bill. Democrats in the Senate are preparing a bill of their own but the chances are Republicans in the House would vote that down too. Global markets, initially sanguine about the crisis and confident of an eventual compromise, were increasingly jittery on Thursday. There were early market falls but US stocks gained and the dollar rose during the day, buoyed by unexpectedly good unemployment figures. The Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, warned: “Default will rock our financial system to its core.” He expressed hope that there could still be a deal. “Magic things can happen here in Congress in a very short period of time under the right circumstances,” he said. The White House, too, expressed optimism that a compromise could be reached. Negotiations are continuing in private between the White House and senior Republicans and Democrats on a possible short-term emergency deal. But Carney admitted that, in the event there is no deal, the treasury would explain its plans in detail before 2 August. Carney said: “As we get closer to that date, the treasury will explain how it will manage a situation that is impossible.” He acknowledged for the first time that the uncertainty was already causing harm to the US economy. The White House will almost certainly make its priority paying interest on its debts so that the US does not default for the first time in its history. But the consequence could be delaying monthly payments to federal workers, soldiers and other employees, and millions of cheques to social security recipients, veterans and

Continue reading …
Bachmann: Questions about gay therapy are out of bounds

Click here to view this media Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann Thursday refused to say if she thought reparative therapy could “change gay people into being straight” because it was not relevant to her campaign. “Recent reporting has revealed the clinic you co-own with your husband engages in a kind of therapy that helps people get over their homosexuality,” National Press Club president Mark Hamrick told Bachmann. “Do you believe that reparative therapy can change gay people into being straight and has any federal funding gone for your clinic?” “Well, I’m extremely proud of my husband and I have tremendous respect and admiration for him and we’ll celebrate our 33rd wedding anniversary this coming September,” Bachmann began. “But I am running for the presidency of the United States.” “My husband is not running for the presidency. Neither are my children, neither is our business, neither is our foster children,” she said. “I am more than happy to stand for questions on running for the presidency of the United States.” “To be clear, you don’t believe your personal finances are something that should be questioned by the American people?” Hamrick asked. “I am running for the presidency of the United States and I have no doubt that every jot and tittle of my life will be looked at and inspected prior to November 2012,” Bachmann replied.

Continue reading …
CBS’s Schieffer Wrongfully Claims Social Security Checks Can’t Go Out Without Debt Resolution

On three occasions between July 22 and July 26, 2011, CBS's Bob Schieffer carried water for President Obama when he echoed the Democrat's inaccurate claim about Social Security: ” Millions of Americans … may not get their next [Social Security] check if the debt ceiling crisis is not resolved .” In reality, there is enough federal revenues and authorized expenditures to pay for the program [audio clips available here ]. Schieffer gave a preview of the CBS Evening News nine minutes into the 8 am Eastern hour of the July 22, 2011 Early Show with his dire warning about Social Security: SCHIEFFER: Every month, millions of Americans depend on Social Security to support their families and make ends meet. But now, they may not get their next check, if the debt ceiling crisis is not resolved. [ Video clips below the jump ] More than ten hours later, the CBS News anchor repeated his hype about the federal program as he introduced correspondent Michelle Miller's story, which was filled to the brim with potential sob stories if the false prediction came to be. Miller included a clip of the President's own: SCHIEFFER: The late developments in Washington mean that a deal between Congress and the White House is now very much in doubt on the debt limit, and if the government does default, the people who rely on Social Security may end up being the first to get hurt . Here's Michelle Miller. MILLER (voice-over): …For 26 years, Mattie Jones worked as a nurse's assistance in south Florida….Now 69, Jones completely depends on her monthly Social Security check. JONES: $955. MILLER (off-camera): Every month? JONES: Every month. MILLER: And you live entirely off of that? JONES: Yes. MILLER (voice-over): Jones's next check and rent bill are both due August 3, the same day a debt ceiling deadlock could stop the Treasury from seconding out checks . PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3 if we haven't resolved this issue. JONES: It's scary, you know? Because you don't know what's going to happen. MILLER: Nearly 55 million people received Social Security benefits in June. That monthly check was the primary source of income for almost nine million recipients ages 65 and older. Many, like Mattie, also depend on government-funded services, like this meal plan at her local senior center. Now, her most important daily meal could be on the chopping block . But seniors aren't the only ones at risk. More than four million beneficiaries are children like ten-year-old Anthony Hines ….Anthony has autism. His mother, Claudia Pachon, is a single parent. She had to quit her full-time bank job and take part-time work, without benefits, to find time to care for her son….She gets $400 a month from Social Security to help make up the difference. PACHON: For me, losing this $400 a month is a lot. I mean, I can't- it's not an option for me. MILLER: Government money also covers the cost of Anthony's special needs school. PACHON: Everyday, you got to struggle, and I just pray that everything is going to get better, not worse. MILLER: On August 3, Pachon, Jones, and 27 million other Americans could find the system they paid into does not have the money to pay them back . Fear mongering notwithstanding, there is actually enough money to pay the checks to those who depend on Social Security. On July 8, The Weekly Standard cited a study from the Bipartisan Study Center which “projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there's enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion).” As NewsBusters's Noel Sheppard noted, even left-wing hero Senator Bernie Sanders acknowledged on Ed Schultz's MSNBC show on July 13 that “you can figure out a way…[to] make sure that seniors and disabled vets get their checks….[W]e can pay Social Security.” Despite this, Schieffer took to the airwaves one more time at the beginning of the July 26 edition of CBS Evening News to trumpet that it was “one week and counting to August 2, the day the President says the government will run out of money and, among other things, will have to stop sending out Social Security checks .”

Continue reading …

In the first video, Jon Stewart destroys Bill O’Reillys lame arguments that Anders Breivik wasn’t a Christian, even though he printed a 1,500-page Christian manifesto, but the Ft Hood killer was a Muslim because he printed up cards. In the second video, Stewart captures how many times FOX News guests attack liberals with vicious rhetoric and false smears while claiming they are the ones being victimized. Raw Story: Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart noted Wednesday that Fox News conservatives have been quick to use the killings in Norway to play the victim card while attacking liberals for doing the exact same thing. “I actually feel sorry for the pundits and anchors who have added this story to their file of grievances that are perpetrated against them,” Stewart said. “Not because they are actually victims of persecutions, but because I know the sense of grievance and victimization that appears to pervade their every waking moment is actually something they hate in others.” What followed might be The Daily Show ‘s most impressive takedown of Fox News ever. Hey, Liberals are only called traitors, anti-American, baby killers. pro-Jihadist and corrupters of our youth almost every day by conservatives, but that’s not mean, is it? The Hannity clip near the end explains it all. Plus, it also contains the already-immortal description of Sean Hannity’s doublespeak: STEWART: That is, if I may say, some of the most free-range, organically grown, disingenuous, ideologically marinated un-self-awareness I’ve ever seen in the wild.

Continue reading …

In the first video, Jon Stewart destroys Bill O’Reillys lame arguments that Anders Breivik wasn’t a Christian, even though he printed a 1,500-page Christian manifesto, but the Ft Hood killer was a Muslim because he printed up cards. In the second video, Stewart captures how many times FOX News guests attack liberals with vicious rhetoric and false smears while claiming they are the ones being victimized. Raw Story: Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart noted Wednesday that Fox News conservatives have been quick to use the killings in Norway to play the victim card while attacking liberals for doing the exact same thing. “I actually feel sorry for the pundits and anchors who have added this story to their file of grievances that are perpetrated against them,” Stewart said. “Not because they are actually victims of persecutions, but because I know the sense of grievance and victimization that appears to pervade their every waking moment is actually something they hate in others.” What followed might be The Daily Show ‘s most impressive takedown of Fox News ever. Hey, Liberals are only called traitors, anti-American, baby killers. pro-Jihadist and corrupters of our youth almost every day by conservatives, but that’s not mean, is it? The Hannity clip near the end explains it all. Plus, it also contains the already-immortal description of Sean Hannity’s doublespeak: STEWART: That is, if I may say, some of the most free-range, organically grown, disingenuous, ideologically marinated un-self-awareness I’ve ever seen in the wild.

Continue reading …

This 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 …