Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 683)
Rupertgate Wednesday – Imagining The Domino.

enlarge No stranger to scandal but this one is a bit different, even for Teflon. Click here to view this media Amid the breaking news this morning that Newscorp/News International/Rupert Murdoch are abandoning their takeover bid for BskyB, and with the growing firestorm surrounding the phone hacking scandal at the now-defunct News Of The World becoming something of a Perfect Storm, questions are now being raised if in fact Rupert Murdoch will survive this scandal and if he will abandon the UK as any place to continue his empire. Bets are on he will, as he has done many times in the past. Whether his son James or his coveted, trusty assistant, confidant, whatever-she-is Rebekah Brooks will survive is another question. Odds are neither Rupert or James will be obliged to testify at the Home Affairs Select Committee Hearings, since neither are actual British Citizens (oh, that citizenship thing again), but Brooks will be since she is a British citizen, and it may make for very interesting theater on Tuesday (the day testimony is tentatively scheduled). As of yesterday there were calls by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller to begin hearings on Newscorps’ possible violations here while stockholders in Delaware are making their discomfort known. It has also been mentioned by various sources there is a wave of gripping fear overtaking Fox News at the moment. As was indicated last week when the bomb was dropped over the closing of News Of The World, the story is changing constantly and quickly. At the rate this is going, it may change again by Friday. But for the moment, here is BBC Radio 4′s PM Program with the latest as of this morning (afternoon in the UK). Stay tuned. Technical note: there is a portion of a 1989 interview with Murdoch missing. It was missing on the PM broadcast.

Continue reading …

Blast at industrial estate in Boston engages local emergency services and kills ‘up to five people’ Police have begun a forensic investigation after five people were killed and at least one other injured in an explosion at an industrial unit in Lincolnshire . The explosion occurred shortly before 7.30pm in the Broadfield Lane estate in Boston, a collection of light industrial outlets including a mechanic’s workshop and a vehicle wrecking yard. “Five men have been confirmed dead,” a police spokeswoman said. She added that a sixth man had been taken to Boston Pilgrim hospital and later transferred to the Queen’s medical centre in Nottingham. “Inquiries are ongoing and will be ongoing throughout the night to establish the cause of this explosion,” the spokeswoman said. “The circumstances at the moment are still unclear. There will be a full forensic examination of the unit,” she added. A spokesman for East Midlands Ambulance Service said: “We took a 999 call at 7.22pm this evening to attend an address on Broadfield Lane, Boston, Lincolnshire. We dispatched one double-crewed ambulance and transported one patient to Boston hospital. The call was to an explosion within an industrial unit. There have been fatalities.” Shazia Gill, of nearby Peck Avenue, said she had heard ambulances at 7.30pm. Another witness said a large number of emergency service vehicles had been seen at the site of the blast. More details soon. Firefighters Police Barry Neild guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

Blast at industrial estate in Boston engages local emergency services and kills ‘up to five people’ Police have begun a forensic investigation after five people were killed and at least one other injured in an explosion at an industrial unit in Lincolnshire . The explosion occurred shortly before 7.30pm in the Broadfield Lane estate in Boston, a collection of light industrial outlets including a mechanic’s workshop and a vehicle wrecking yard. “Five men have been confirmed dead,” a police spokeswoman said. She added that a sixth man had been taken to Boston Pilgrim hospital and later transferred to the Queen’s medical centre in Nottingham. “Inquiries are ongoing and will be ongoing throughout the night to establish the cause of this explosion,” the spokeswoman said. “The circumstances at the moment are still unclear. There will be a full forensic examination of the unit,” she added. A spokesman for East Midlands Ambulance Service said: “We took a 999 call at 7.22pm this evening to attend an address on Broadfield Lane, Boston, Lincolnshire. We dispatched one double-crewed ambulance and transported one patient to Boston hospital. The call was to an explosion within an industrial unit. There have been fatalities.” Shazia Gill, of nearby Peck Avenue, said she had heard ambulances at 7.30pm. Another witness said a large number of emergency service vehicles had been seen at the site of the blast. More details soon. Firefighters Police Barry Neild guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
WaPo, AP and NYT Furiously Spin Panetta’s ‘You’re Here Because of 9/11′ Statement to U.S. Soldiers in Iraq

He said it, he meant it, and there's no denying it. On Monday, in a statement carried at the Washington Post , the Associated Press , the New York Times (Page A8 of Tuesday's print edition), and elsewhere, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told U.S. troops at Camp Victory in Baghdad: “The reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked. And 3,000 Americans — 3,000 not just Americans, 3,000 human beings, innocent human beings — got killed because of al-Qaeda. And we’ve been fighting as a result of that.” That sound you hear is a Democratic Party meme shattering into teeny tiny pieces. The attempts to put Humpty Dumpty together again, both by Panetta himself and the establishment press contingent following him, have been pathetic and ineffectual, which is what happens when one is up against succinctly stated truths. Aaron Worthing at Patterico's place correctly characterizes Panetta's statement “the Mother of All Kinsley gaffes.” Named after lefty journalist Michael Kinsley, it actually has its own Wikipedia entry , where it is defined as “a politician inadvertently saying something publicly that they privately believe is true, but would ordinarily not say publicly because they believe it is politically harmful.” Perhaps indicating that the Defense Secretary himself realizes the extent of his Kinsley gaffe, Panetta's statement does not appear in any of the four reports the Armed Forces Press Service filed from Camp Victory ( here , here , here , and here ). We wouldn't want the troops getting the wrong idea, eh Leon? Panetta's own attempt at the impossible walkback is as follows: Pressed by reporters to elaborate, Panetta said: “I wasn’t saying, you know, the invasion — or going into the issues or the justification of that. It was more the fact that we really had to deal with al-Qaeda here; they developed a presence here and that tied in.” His aides then intervened and shooed the press corps away. Sorry, Leon, yes you were saying that 9/11 justified the invasion. That there is substantial evidence that there were meaningful ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is an inconvenient truth the left and Democrats have attempted to shout down and whitewash for almost eight years. Stephen Hayes's September 1, 2003 Weekly Standard report (“Saddam's al Qaeda Connection”) cited the many items known before the Iraq War began, including the following: A letter from CIA Director George Tenet to Senate Intelligence chairman Bob Graham said that “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qa'ida going back a decade.” “Iraqi defectors had been saying for years that Saddam's regime trained 'non-Iraqi Arab terrorists' at a camp in Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. U.N. inspectors had confirmed the camp's existence, including the presence of a Boeing 707.” Though there seems to have been reluctance to tag Al Qaeda recruits as being among the “non-Iraqi Arab terrorists,” it's not like there were dozens of such organizations at the time. Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia . “According to a report in the Christian Science Monitor, an (Al Qaeda affiliate) Abu Sayyaf leader who planned … a bomb attack in Zamboanga City in the Philippines) bragged on television a month after the bombing that Iraq had contacted him about conducting joint operations. Philippine intelligence officials were initially skeptical of his boasting, but after finding the telephone records they believed him.” Hayes also noted information obtained after Saddam Hussein was toppled, some of which includes the following: “Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and Saddam's longtime outreach agent to Islamic fundamentalists, has been captured. In his initial interrogations, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994. According to administration officials familiar with his questioning, he has subsequently admitted additional contacts, including a meeting in late 1997. Hijazi continues to deny that he met with bin Laden on December 21, 1998, to offer the al Qaeda leader safe haven in Iraq. U.S. officials don't believe his denial.” … “(That) meeting was reported in the press at the time.” The day after a hawkish Bill Clinton speech about “an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals,” specifically on February 19, 1998, “according to documents unearthed in Baghdad after the recent war by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein's intelligence service wrote a memo detailing upcoming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered with Liquid Paper. The memo laid out a plan to step up contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda.” “According to U.S. officials, soldiers in Iraq have discovered additional documentary evidence like the memo Potter found. This despite the fact that there is no team on the ground assigned to track down these contacts–no equivalent to the Iraq Survey Group looking for evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Interviews with detained senior Iraqi intelligence officials are rounding out the picture.” Hayes correctly faulted the Bush administration for not more aggressively building and publicly noting evidence of the AQ-Saddam Hussein connections and cooperation. Support for the AQ-Saddam connection is also nicely accumulated here by a person who says he was a high school student at the time, and who clearly had more willingness to

Continue reading …
On PBS, Stephanopoulos Insists Obama’s ‘Done Remarkably Well’ in Office Despite Tough Times

ABC's George Stephanopoulos appeared on Tuesday night's Charlie Rose show to discuss what Rose described as “the political implications of the debt-limitation talks.” Rose tried to compare Obama to Clinton. Stephanopoulos resisted the idea that Obama was more “cautious.” In fact, when asked how Obama is doing overall, Stephanopoulos pulled out the old line about how nobody “in our lifetime” has been dealt a tougher hand coming into the White House, as if Ronald Reagan had it easy faced with Carter-era inflation and unemployment. Grading on a recession curve, he's “done remarkably well,” said George: CHARLIE ROSE: How is he doing overall in your judgment, the president? GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Solid. I mean, it`s hard to imagine — I`m trying to think in our lifetime if anybody has been dealt a tougher hand coming into the White House. And given that, I think he has done remarkably well. The fact, if you just looking at the politics first, the fact that he`s been able over the course of two years now to maintain a personality favorability for most of the time above 50 percent when he has had most of the time nine percent unemployment, that is pretty remarkable. That's pretty steady. I think people respect him even more than they like him. I think that. I think in terms of the big policy decisions he has had to make, and I know a lot of people would disagree with this, I think that any president that came in in January of 2009 would have had to make the moves he did, shore up the financial system. There is no question. To talk up Obama's personal favorability rating is a sure sign of spin — Bush's was higher than his low job approval rating. Denizens of the Rose show would have laughed at trying to tout Bush's favorability numbers. To pick up where it left off, Stephanopoulos favored a bigger “stimulus,” just like the liberal Clinton aide who felt Dick Morris was dragging Clinton too far right, but didn't think it was politically feasible: ROSE: He had to stop that, stop the slide before doing anything else. STEPHANOPOULOS: On the stimulus, you know, I was going to say I understand the argument, the critics on both sides. I tend to agree personally more with those who say that more was necessary then. On the other hand — ROSE: They should have made it $1.3 trillion or something. STEPHANOPOULOS: See, I don`t think that was possible. ROSE: It wasn’t. That’s what they say. STEPHANOPOULOS: I mean Paul Krugman may have a valid argument when he says, and I know a lot of people disagree with it, when he said you needed a $1.3 trillion. I’m 99 percent sure that there was no way that you were going to get anything with a “1″ in front of it through the Congress.

Continue reading …
Rupert Murdoch gives up BSkyB takeover bid

After the biggest single reverse of his career, the News Corp chief faces an appearance before a judicial inquiry and a fight for the right to broadcast in the UK Rupert Murdoch capitulated to parliament and abandoned News Corporation’s £8bn bid for BSkyB, as he faced the prospect of appearing in front of a judicial public inquiry to salvage his personal reputation and the right for his company to continue to broadcast in the UK. After 10 days of sustained public outcry over phone hacking, and facing the prospect of a unanimous call by MPs to withdraw his bid for total ownership of the satellite broadcaster, Murdoch succumbed at a morning board meeting at his London HQ in Wapping. Company insiders indicated Murdoch was not making a tactical retreat and that a future bid for total control of BSkyB was now unlikely. The media giant said it was likely to “deploy our capital elsewhere” to avoid any more damaging battles in the UK. The News Corp deputy chairman, Chase Carey, said the bid had become “too difficult to progress in this climate”. The withdrawal represents the biggest single reverse of Murdoch’s mercurial career, but may presage even further commercial damage not just in the UK, but worldwide. On a cathartic day at Westminster in which politicians acted as if they had been liberated from the thrall of the Murdoch empire, David Cameron announced a sweeping public inquiry into widespread lawbreaking by the press, alleged corruption by police officers, and the failure of the initial police investigation into phone hacking. The prime minister said: “What has happened here is a massive firestorm of allegations that have got worse and worse.” The inquiry will also look at a new system of independent regulation of the press, the inadequacies of the previous Labour government to investigate newspaper malpractice and the potentially critical issue of future cross-ownership between press and television stations. There is certain to be renewed pressure to reduce the number of foreign owners of the British media, as well as a big Liberal Democrat push to impose stricter rules to prevent market domination. The public inquiry will be led by Lord Justice Leveson, and will have the power to summon witnesses, including proprietors, Cameron, past prime ministers and senior newspaper executives, even if some of them are in jail. In the first instance the judge, advised by a panel of experts, will look at future regulation before turning to specific allegations of corruption or lawbreaking. Cameron, regaining some of the political initiative after 10 days on the back foot, made it clear he expected Rupert Murdoch to give evidence, saying: “If you own the media in this country, you should be able to be called under oath.” The prime minister also vowed that he was willing to see those found guilty in any future court cases stripped of the right to run a media company. He said: “The people responsible – whether they are directly responsible for the wrongdoing, whether they sanctioned it or whether they covered it up, and however high or low they go – must not only be brought to justice; they must also have no future role in running a media company in our country.” Cameron also announced that he will be rewriting the ministerial code so ministers, permanent secretaries and special advisers will be required quarterly to record meetings with senior media executives, including social meetings. Cameron admitted the relationship between media executives and the politicians had become unhealthy. He said: “It was too close. Too much time was spent courting the media and not enough time confronting the problems.”He revealed a new anger towards his former No 10 communications director, Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor who has always insisted he knew nothing of phone hacking during his editorship of the paper. As Ed Miliband described his appointment as a catastrophic misjudgment, Cameron said: “If it turns out he lied, it won’t just be that he shouldn’t have been in government, it will be that he should be prosecuted.” The Guardian has published fresh details of warnings the paper’s executives had given to Cameron’s chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, over Coulson. Downing Street said Llewellyn could not recall an additional warning given in October 2010. In an extraordinary speech during the truncated Commons debate on BSkyB, a passionate and sometimes raw Gordon Brown defended himself from the charge that he had been complicit in acceding to the regulatory demands of News International during his premiership. He rounded on the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, for opposing his plan to set up a judicial inquiry into phone hacking when he was in office. Quoting the confidential advice, he said O’Donnell admitted “there was a media culture permissive of unlawful activities and deliberate obfuscation by News International” but that “targeting the News of the World would have been deemed to be politically motivated because it was too close to the general election and would inevitably have raised questions over the motivation and urgency of an inquiry”. O’Donnell is understood to be seeking an urgent consultation with Brown to release the full memorandum. Some Labour sources said Brown lacked political support within his cabinet to set up the inquiry so close to a general election. Faced by its rout on Wednesday, News Corp and the Murdoch family now face a battle to ensure that Rupert’s son James, who was in charge of the British newspapers, can remain as chairman of BSkyB in the face of emerging City unrest. “James Murdoch’s position is a concern,” one investor said. Pension funds were being urged to call for him to go. Alan MacDougall, managing director of PIRC, which advises pension funds and councils, said: “In light of current events it is time for the board to review whether BSkyB and its shareholders would benefit from a new, independent chair. And if shareholders agree it is time for reform, they should say so.” Murdoch’s move capped a disastrous 10 days for a company that had been poised to win approval for the BSkyB takeover until the Guardian revealed that the News of the World had targeted the mobile phone of Milly Dowler, listening to and deleting messages left for her and giving her family false hope that she was alive when she had in fact been murdered. That triggered widespread public revulsion and an almost constant deluge of adverse media coverage, forcing Murdoch to close the News of the World. Mark Lewis, the lawyer who represents the Dowler family, and also brought the first phone-hacking cases, said: “This shows the power of the public to stand up to something – however big an organisation is, however far-reaching, however worldwide – and say no, something isn’t right.” Murdoch agreed to give up on the Sky bid before Cameron’s appearance at prime minister’s questions at noon, but no attempt was made to inform No 10. The announcement did not emerge until shortly after 2pm, when it was leaked to Sky News, a couple of hours before MPs were due to debate and vote. Shares in BSkyB fell 4% after the announcement, but rebounded as uncertainty about the company’s immediate future was lifted and closed 2% higher, at 705p. News Corp lost several billion dollars in market value after the scandal broke last week, but its shares rallied after the company said on Tuesday that it was buying back $5 billion of its own shares. On Wednesday shares rose 71 cents, or 4.6%, to $16.06 in afternoon trading in New York. Rupert Murdoch BSkyB Television industry BSkyB News Corporation Media business News International Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers News of the World Phone hacking David Cameron House of Commons Ed Miliband Gordon Brown Patrick Wintour Dan Sabbagh Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

We’ve been saying all along — practically since it happened, in fact — that the right’s claims that Tea Partier Kenneth Gladney, a black man, was victimized by SEIU “thugs” during a health-care protest was dubious at best, and Gladney’s subsequent claims (particularly that this was a “hate crime” ) even more ludicrous. Now it seems that a Missouri jury agrees : CLAYTON, MO –(KMOX)–Almost two years after the national uproar over health care reform, a jury has acquitted two labor union activists accused of assaulting a man selling conservative buttons outside a Cogressman Russ Carnahan town hall forum. Service Employees International Union members Elston McCowan and Perry Molens had been accused of misdemeanor assault in the August, 2009 tussle with button salesman Kenneth Gladney. The fight caught national attention at a time when there was rampant speculation the union had been dispatched to tamp down opposition to President Obama’s health care reform. Jurors heard conflicting testimony in the two-day trial over who actually started the fight, and they viewed video tape showing the end and aftermath of the brawl — but no video showed who threw the first punch. Of course, the wingnutosphere — particularly those like Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit (aka the World’s Dumbest Blogger) , who heavily promoted the claims in the first place — is outraged, outraged we tell you. But as Adam Shriver at St. Louis Activist Hub observes: The conspiracy pushed relentlessly for the past two years by Dana Loesch, Jim Hoft, Andrew Breitbart, Fox News, and the tea party has been shown at long last to be a complete fraud. Two innocent men have been harassed and threatened for two years as a result of a tea party smear campaign with only one objective: to make unions look evil. Shriver covered the trial, and pointedly observed that Gladney’s own testimony doomed the prosecution : Gladney’s testimony was the most damaging to the prosecution’s case. For starters, Gladney appeared in a neck brace, which brought back memories of him showing up at a tea party rally in a wheel chair despite the fact that he was running around with no obvious discomfort immediately after the altercation took place. The defense lawyer said that Gladney’s neck brace, which he was wearing because of surgery for a herniated disc, had nothing to do with the altercation, and Gladney did not challenge him on that point, so I assume it’s true. But this opened up a criticism from the defense lawyer who asked Gladney why he showed up at the tea party rally in a wheelchair. Gladney said, basically, that it was hot and he was on medication and “they didn’t have folding chairs or lawn chairs.” Ouch. … A more important problem for Gladney was that his previous descriptions of what happened did not match his current testimony. He previously had claimed that Elston McCowan, a black minister, had called him the n-word. In today’s testimony, he now claimed that Perry Molens, a white man, also called him the n-word, which would be a strange detail to leave out of all of his previous interviews. More importantly, he had previously claimed that 4 different people “attacked” him, yet now he clams only two. He also claimed that he “never said a word” to McCowan, which I’m pretty sure is at odds with his previous interviews. And finally, his story of the altercation provided no explanation of why Elston McCowan was seen lying on the ground at the beginning of the video And all of this was despite the fact that he told the defense attorney that his memory today was as good or better as immediately after the incident happened. And as Riverfront Times noted : The defense also hammered Gladney on why he was seen walking around virtually unscathed in the immediate aftermath of the fight only to show up in a wheelchair two days later at a Tea Party rally. Shriver also completely demolishes Hoft’s new conspiracy theory about Gladney with an impressive array of facts. This guarantees, of course, that it will continue to enjoy a significant half-life of several more years as one of the Right’s classic Zombie Lies. Eric Boehlert is (as always) on the money: As I said, the incident was regrettable and I’m sure everyone involved, if they had a chance to go back, would make sure the night did not unfold the same way again. But the idea that the mini-altercation was some sort of on-command union attack directed from the Oval Office and that it represented a looming wave of left-wing violence in this country? That was always a sick joke. It was a sick joke played at the expense of Gladney, and at the expense of two union members who were crucified by the right-wing press and called every conceivable name. All without a shred of evidence to support the union-bashing denunciations.

Continue reading …

We’ve been saying all along — practically since it happened, in fact — that the right’s claims that Tea Partier Kenneth Gladney, a black man, was victimized by SEIU “thugs” during a health-care protest was dubious at best, and Gladney’s subsequent claims (particularly that this was a “hate crime” ) even more ludicrous. Now it seems that a Missouri jury agrees : CLAYTON, MO –(KMOX)–Almost two years after the national uproar over health care reform, a jury has acquitted two labor union activists accused of assaulting a man selling conservative buttons outside a Cogressman Russ Carnahan town hall forum. Service Employees International Union members Elston McCowan and Perry Molens had been accused of misdemeanor assault in the August, 2009 tussle with button salesman Kenneth Gladney. The fight caught national attention at a time when there was rampant speculation the union had been dispatched to tamp down opposition to President Obama’s health care reform. Jurors heard conflicting testimony in the two-day trial over who actually started the fight, and they viewed video tape showing the end and aftermath of the brawl — but no video showed who threw the first punch. Of course, the wingnutosphere — particularly those like Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit (aka the World’s Dumbest Blogger) , who heavily promoted the claims in the first place — is outraged, outraged we tell you. But as Adam Shriver at St. Louis Activist Hub observes: The conspiracy pushed relentlessly for the past two years by Dana Loesch, Jim Hoft, Andrew Breitbart, Fox News, and the tea party has been shown at long last to be a complete fraud. Two innocent men have been harassed and threatened for two years as a result of a tea party smear campaign with only one objective: to make unions look evil. Shriver covered the trial, and pointedly observed that Gladney’s own testimony doomed the prosecution : Gladney’s testimony was the most damaging to the prosecution’s case. For starters, Gladney appeared in a neck brace, which brought back memories of him showing up at a tea party rally in a wheel chair despite the fact that he was running around with no obvious discomfort immediately after the altercation took place. The defense lawyer said that Gladney’s neck brace, which he was wearing because of surgery for a herniated disc, had nothing to do with the altercation, and Gladney did not challenge him on that point, so I assume it’s true. But this opened up a criticism from the defense lawyer who asked Gladney why he showed up at the tea party rally in a wheelchair. Gladney said, basically, that it was hot and he was on medication and “they didn’t have folding chairs or lawn chairs.” Ouch. … A more important problem for Gladney was that his previous descriptions of what happened did not match his current testimony. He previously had claimed that Elston McCowan, a black minister, had called him the n-word. In today’s testimony, he now claimed that Perry Molens, a white man, also called him the n-word, which would be a strange detail to leave out of all of his previous interviews. More importantly, he had previously claimed that 4 different people “attacked” him, yet now he clams only two. He also claimed that he “never said a word” to McCowan, which I’m pretty sure is at odds with his previous interviews. And finally, his story of the altercation provided no explanation of why Elston McCowan was seen lying on the ground at the beginning of the video And all of this was despite the fact that he told the defense attorney that his memory today was as good or better as immediately after the incident happened. And as Riverfront Times noted : The defense also hammered Gladney on why he was seen walking around virtually unscathed in the immediate aftermath of the fight only to show up in a wheelchair two days later at a Tea Party rally. Shriver also completely demolishes Hoft’s new conspiracy theory about Gladney with an impressive array of facts. This guarantees, of course, that it will continue to enjoy a significant half-life of several more years as one of the Right’s classic Zombie Lies. Eric Boehlert is (as always) on the money: As I said, the incident was regrettable and I’m sure everyone involved, if they had a chance to go back, would make sure the night did not unfold the same way again. But the idea that the mini-altercation was some sort of on-command union attack directed from the Oval Office and that it represented a looming wave of left-wing violence in this country? That was always a sick joke. It was a sick joke played at the expense of Gladney, and at the expense of two union members who were crucified by the right-wing press and called every conceivable name. All without a shred of evidence to support the union-bashing denunciations.

Continue reading …
White House Bans Reporters from Shouting Questions to President Obama

Despite the fact that the White House press corps is comprised mostly of members who are ardent liberal Democrats who want to see President Obama triumph over Republicans, it has grown increasingly clear that the feeling of respect is not mutual. The White House made that apparent today by laying down a new rule for reporters covering Obama's news conferences there: No more shouting questions at the president. While the shouting practice has long been a tradition of presidential press conferences, Obama's staff, as Politico reports , has often used “still sprays” to exclude print and TV journalists who might capture Obama snubbing an unexpected query or being forced to answer an unscripted question. When Carney was asked why these reporters were barred from the group covering the deficit meeting between the White House and congressional leaders, he responded that there had already been two press conferences in the past two weeks that allowed TV cameras, during which time, “People shouted questions at [Obama].” The strict policy has riled up many reporters. As Politico explains, The White House Correspondents’ Association has protested exclusion of print and TV from pools — and several reporters in the briefing room took Carney’s comment as an annoyed expression of presidential displeasure with shouted questions. “It's an absurd reason to say that because we asked questions you're not going to allow cameras in there. He's capable of ignoring our questions. He does it all the time,” said Chip Reid of CBS. It didn’t end there. “Can I ask you to clarify — there's no reporters allowed in today's meeting because reporters misbehaved?” asked another scribe. “Earlier it sounded like you were punishing us.” Carney, who used to sit in the same seats as these journalists as a White House reporter for Time magazine, dismissed the reporters by saying “the president has taken questions quite a lot lately, as you know, and so he's not taking questions today. He may tomorrow. Or he may later, you know, but today, we're just doing a still spread, which is not unprecedented.” For an administration that promised to be the most transparent in history, blocking reporters from press events does not bode well in its favor.

Continue reading …
Pakistan may free doctor who helped CIA track Osama Bin Laden

Official position on Dr Shakil Afridi appears to have softened as Pakistan’s spy chief visits US Pakistan moved closer to releasing an imprisoned doctor who had helped the CIA track Osama bin Laden after the country’s spy chief flew to the US to try to rescue intelligence ties between Washington and Islamabad. The official position towards Dr Shakil Afridi, the subject of weeks of high-level negotiations between the countries, seemed to have softened as a senior Pakistani official said that he may not have known he was working for the CIA. “If it is confirmed that he [Afridi] did not deal with Americans and didn’t know he was working for the CIA, he didn’t break any laws,” the official said. “He also did not spy on Pakistan or violate the official secrets act. So there may be no reason to charge him … if he was misled and did not know he was working indirectly for a foreign intelligence service.” The Guardian revealed this week that Afridi had been recruited by the CIA to try to obtain a DNA sample from the house in Abbottabad, northern Pakistan, where it was suspected that Bin Laden lived. Washington fears for the safety of Afridi, who has been in the custody of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency since late May, and may have been tortured. Afridi has become a pawn in the highly charged renegotiation of the US-Pakistan military and intelligence relationship that has followed the Bin Laden raid. The visit of Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, head of the ISI, to Washington on Wednesday gave both sides the chance to discuss Afridi, US and Pakistani officials said. Pasha’s visit was to discuss future intelligence ties in general. The ISI is furious that the CIA secretly recruited Pakistani citizens to spy on the al-Qaida leader’s house in Abbottabad. Afridi appears to be the Pakistani most involved and is thought to be the only one still held by Pakistan for his role. Washington, for its part, has demanded an explanation of how Bin Laden was able to live comfortably in Abbottabad for five years, amid suspicions elements within the ISI or military had harboured him. Information sharing is said to have almost ceased after the Bin Laden operation on 2 May. Pasha will meet the acting CIA director, Mike Morrell, and other senior security officials to hammer out what CIA activities the ISI will allow in Pakistan. Afridi has given the Pakistani side another bargaining chip. Washington wants the ISI to agree to joint intelligence operations against suspected militants in Pakistan. Top of the American hit list is Bin Laden’s successor as al-Qaida chief, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is believed to be hiding in Pakistan’s tribal area. Washington will also press more visas for CIA personnel to enter Pakistan. Pasha’s trip was being seen as a sign of a slight thaw in the bitterly entrenched positions of both sides. “Pasha will offer co-operation in certain areas but not all,” said Hasan Askari Rizvi, an analyst based in Lahore. “The ISI will be resistant to independent CIA operations in Pakistan.” Afridi set up a fake vaccination programme for the CIA in Abbottabad, in order to provide an excuse for a nurse to enter the Bin Laden compound, with the idea of extracting DNA in a syringe from a blood family member. The US authorities were trying to confirm the al-Qaida leader lived in the house. It may be Afridi was easy prey for the CIA. It emerged that in the past he was suspended from his job on corruption charges, as the government doctor in charge of Khyber, part of the tribal area, though he was later cleared. Around 2009, locals said, Afridi clashed with a warlord called Mangal Bagh, who runs a Taliban-style militia in Khyber, which is a thinly disguised racket for smuggling. Afridi had treated one of Bagh’s gunmen but the surgery did not turn out well. As punishment, Bagh imposed a fine of £7,500 on Afridi, probably more than a year’s salary for the doctor. Friends claimed that Afridi met some US embassy personnel at a function in Islamabad, late last year or early this year, and then made a trip to the United States. It is not known if he was recruited for the CIA in this way. Pakistan United States Osama bin Laden al-Qaida Global terrorism Saeed Shah guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …