SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (710681)11/2/2005 8:28:33 PM
From: trouthead  Respond to of 769670
 
Yes and you are free to spew slander and libel and break the law even though it is unlikely you'll ever go to jail because that's the kind of good christian you are.

jb



To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (710681)11/2/2005 10:32:05 PM
From: paret  Respond to of 769670
 
AIM Report: New York Times Smears Patriots - November A
October 27, 2005
Since the Times twice attacked Burlingame by name, she asked for an opportunity to reply. Editorial Page Editor Gail Collins would not take her call or express interest in granting her op-ed space.,

By Wes Vernon
A wall of silence by most of the national mainstream media has obscured a Cultural War victory over the forces of "political correctness."
The winners in this David vs. Goliath story are families of 9/11 victims and the heroes and survivors of the police and firefighters who responded to the call after the terrorist planes struck the World Trade Center Towers.
The losers are New York City's powerful liberal establishment—led by the New York Times—and also some people with an inside track to the Bush White House. Beyond New York City, the national media largely ignored the controversy and treated it as a local story, even though it involved tax-payers nationwide.
The public part of the story that raged all summer in a campaign by the 9/11 families and first responders was settled in their favor on September 28. On that date, New York's Governor George Pataki ousted a museum that had planned a "politically correct" exhibit at Ground Zero—the site of the Twin Towers. The planners hoped to tie 9/11 to historical issues that have nothing whatever to do with the memory of the nearly 3,000 Americans who died on the day of the most barbaric foreign attack on the Continental United States in nearly two centuries.
Two museums were originally selected as part of a proposed arts complex on the World Trade Center site. One was the International Freedom Center (IFC), whose CEO is Hollywood moneyman and New York real estate baron Tom Bernstein—an old Yale classmate of and later a major fundraiser for President George W. Bush. He also heads Human Rights First, which has opposed the administration for "prisoner abuse" and detaining enemy combatants (many of them with terrorist records) at Guantanamo Bay.
Looking at the list of officials of the IFC and other groups involved in its efforts at Ground Zero, one finds many links to the richest foundations, corporations, white-shoe law firms, labor organizations, academia, entertainment, the news media, and prestigious groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations.
The other was the Drawing Center which, according to a July 4 Washington Post story, had recently installed the image of a hooded detainee at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and linked President Bush to Osama bin Laden. (Following the protest by the 9/11 families, this organization "pulled out of the deal," declaring it would not be "censored.")
A visitor looking for the 50,000 square foot memorial to the dead and heroes of 9/11 would have had to traipse through 300,000 square feet of tutorials on Jim Crow and lynching in the Old South, slavery, and Native American genocide. Those experiences would be lumped together with Adolph Hitler's holocaust and Joseph Stalin's gulags.
It should come as no surprise that billionaire leftist George Soros was providing much of the money to fuel the tank of this slap in the face of the survivors of the victims of the terror attack on America.
Federal Money
But he was not alone. You too were expected to help foot the bill. Federal money was involved. That attracted the attention of New York Congressmen Peter King, John Sweeney, and Vito Fosella, who called for a congressional investigation. Ultimately, the project was opposed by former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose 2006 re-election campaign did not need organized opposition from 9/11 families and police and firefighters unions.
Pataki's eviction notice to the IFC was the end result of a bitter public four-month-old battle that began on June 7 when Debra Burlingame (sister of pilot "Chic" Burlingame whose plane was hijacked by terrorists and crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11) blew the whistle in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece.
The New York Times led a sustained editorial campaign against Burlingame and her group, calling them "un-American" and charging they had "a political ax to grind" and wanted to "censor" the exhibits of 9/11, even though critics noted those other issues could be addressed in many available venues: just not at Ground Zero. They believed that to mix the memorial with "political correctness" was akin to graveyard desecration.
Since the Times twice attacked Burlingame by name, she asked for an opportunity to reply. Editorial Page Editor Gail Collins would not take her call or express interest in granting her op-ed space.
The day after Burlingame's original Wall Street Journal article appeared, an administration official in Washington was asked for the White House view. The official quickly redirected the conversation to general praise for the heroes of 9/11.
Outside of the New York area, there was very little media mention of the controversial plans afoot at Ground Zero.
The Washington Post ran two stories of its own plus an AP story reporting Governor Pataki's decision against the IFC.
In response to an AIM inquiry, CBS reported there were no stories at all regarding the Ground Zero controversy on the "CBS Evening News" in the relevant time period (June 7-October 11). NBC said with "apologies" that it was unable to fulfill our request for the number of mentions of the story on its "NBC Nightly News." As for the "ABC World News Tonight," that network ignored us altogether.
The Wall Street Journal—two days after the Burlingame op-ed—ran a reply by its former assistant publisher Richard Tofel, also President and COO of the IFC.
Burlingame later told the Journal that one of several "political players in Washington" who tried to persuade her to drop her opposition to the IFC was John Bridgeland, a former director of the Bush White House Domestic Policy Council.
She told AIM that in their conversation, she kept trying to get Bridgeland to focus on the political correctness concept. "He resisted mightily," Burlingame said.
In a letter to the editor of the Journal, Bridgeland said he had reviewed IFC plans and rejected the charge that they were of the "Blame America First" mentality. He did not get any more specific than that.
Our core question is: Should this story have been national news? For the moment, let us hypothesize that in the forties, powerful groups had planned a taxpayer-subsidized memorial in Hawaii that dishonored or slighted the memory of the dead at Pearl Harbor. Would the media have treated it strictly as a Honolulu story in the same manner they decided Ground Zero was merely a New York story?
Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer & broadcast journalist.



To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (710681)11/2/2005 11:15:05 PM
From: paret  Respond to of 769670
 
Saddam's 500-ton Uranium Stockpile
newsmax.com ^ | Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2005 9:58 p.m. EST

Thanks to Leakgate Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's decision to indict "Scooter" Libby last week, Bush administration accuser Joe Wilson is once again the toast of Washington, D.C. - recycling the fifteen minutes of fame he first purchased in July 2003 with the claim that Bush lied about Iraq's plan to acquire uranium from Niger.

Why was Bush's uranium claim so important? Because if true, the mere attempt by the Iraqi dictator to acquire uranium would show that he had clear and incontrovertible plans to restart his nuclear program.

Maybe that's why the press seldom discusses the fact that Saddam already had a staggering large stockpile of uranium - 500 tons, to be exact.

And if his mere intention to acquire uranium was enough to justify fears of Saddam's nuclear ambition, what would the average person deduce from that fact that he'd already stockpiled a huge quantity of the bombmaking fuel?

In its May 22, 2004 edition, the New York Times confirmed a myriad of reports on Saddam's nuclear fuel stockpile - and revealed a chilling detail unknown to weapons inspectors before the war: that Saddam had begun to partially enrich his uranium stash.

The Times noted:

"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, . . . . holds more than 500 tons of uranium . . . . Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium."

Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that "the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.

"A country like Iran," Mr. Cochran said, "could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium."

The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."

Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

Luckily, Iraq didn't have even the small number of centrifuges necessary to get the job done.

Or did it?

The physicist tapped by Saddam to run his centrifuge program says that after the first Gulf War, the program was largely dismantled. But it wasn't destroyed.

In fact, according to what he wrote in his 2004 book, "The Bomb in My Garden," Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: "Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003."

"I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he revealed.

And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq's nuke program at a moment's notice.

Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home.

"I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," he explained. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions.

"The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," Dr. Obeidi said in his book. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."

Consider: 500 tons of yellowcake stored at Saddam's old nuclear weapons plant, where he'd managed to partially enrich 1.8 tons. And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator's disposal.

If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago - in President Bush's favor.

One more detail that Mr. Wilson and his media backers don't like to discuss: the reason Niger was such a likely candidate for Saddam's uranium shopping spree.

Responding to the firestorm that erupted after Wilson's July 2003 column, Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters:

"In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger."



To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (710681)11/2/2005 11:17:52 PM
From: paret  Respond to of 769670
 
CBS Comes to Castro's Aid
By Roger Aronoff | October 28, 2005

CBS's 60 Minutes has run a segment on Elian Gonzalez, five years after the Clinton administration sent him back to the communist prison island. He had come to America as a refugee, without his father, who was back in Cuba and under pressure from the communist regime to demand him back. The Clinton administration complied, seizing the little boy at the point of a gun. It made a mockery of America's reputation as a free society open to refugees fleeing persecution.

Continuing to play Castro's game, 60 Minutes gave the impression that Elian was doing fine under the Castro dictatorship, and that all the time he was in Florida, he really wanted to return to Cuba to be with his father. While the segment offered a couple of sound bites from people with opposing views, the real failure of the story was in not putting the events of five years ago into proper context.

On Thanksgiving Day, 1999, Elian Gonzalez was found clinging to part of a capsized boat two miles off the coast of Florida. His mother and 10 others died when the boat overturned after having nearly completed the 90- mile journey of escape from Castro's communist dictatorship. Three, including Elian, survived and were brought ashore in Florida. Elian had numerous relatives in Miami, including aunts, uncles and cousins. Elian's father was pressured by the Castro government to ask to be reunited with his son and to have his son sent back to Cuba.

After much legal and diplomatic wrangling, Elian was seized in a raid code-named Operation Reunion on Easter weekend, 2000. In the pre-dawn hours, 151 officers were involved in the raid on the home of his great-uncle where he had been staying. They broke down the front door of the house with a battering ram. They kicked and pepper-sprayed many of the people protesting and standing vigil outside the home. They had guns and pointed them at Elian and his Miami family.

The Justice Department had initially insisted that custody of Elian was a matter best dealt with in the Florida state courts, as a family matter. But soon the Clinton administration, through the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and Justice Department, reversed itself and went to court seeking to remove Elian from his Miami relatives and give custody to his father, who came to the U.S. for that purpose.

That was despite the fact that the State Department, in February of 2000, had declared Cuba to be "a totalitarian state controlled by President Fidel Castro…Castro exercises control over all aspects of Cuban life through the communist party…"

The force and brutality of the Easter raid raised many questions about the use of force and the rule of law. In light of the overzealous and bloody attack on Waco under Attorney General Janet Reno's watch, this raid was all the more shocking. And it wasn't just conservatives and the Cuban-American population that were outraged.

Liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said, "I think it was a direct violation of the constitutional rights of the family whose home was invaded and of the child who was forcibly taken." Dershowitz also said that "By enforcing its own order, without the judicial imprimatur of a court mandate, the Justice Department has reinforced a precedent that endangers the rights of all American citizens."

Another Harvard law professor, Laurence Tribe, concurred: "Ms. Reno's decision to take the law as well as the child into her own hands seems worse than a political blunder. Even if well-intended, her decision strikes at the heart of constitutional government and shakes the safeguards of liberty." Tribe also said, "I think it was a direct violation of the constitutional rights of the family whose home was invaded and of the child who was forcibly taken."

What was their legal justification?

The morning after Elian was seized, Doris Meissner, commissioner of INS, told CBS's Face the Nation that her legal authority was a search warrant from a federal judge at 6 o'clock that evening. But just two days earlier they had gone into federal court for an order to remove Elian, and the court refused. So they turned instead to a federal magistrate, seeking search and arrest warrants on the grounds that Elian was in the country illegally, a legal argument that the 11th circuit court and civil libertarians had rejected. Many argued that the warrant was obtained illegally because it was based on false information provided to the magistrate judge. It said he was here illegally, though the law of the land was that if someone escaping Cuba made it to U.S. soil, they were automatically granted asylum.

Why was the Justice Department so determined to use a massive show of force?

Then-Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) said it was about Clinton's legacy—that Clinton wanted to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba and that Elian's life in the U.S. as a free person stood in the way. But Clinton's dream of establishing relations with Castro never came true.

A.M. Rosenthal, former editor of the New York Times, declared the "shocking abduction of the boy" to be "so unconstitutional and cruel that [it keeps] the hope alive that this time the courts and Congress will not allow the White House to get away with it."

But the Clinton White House did.

In the 60 Minutes segment, reporter Bob Simon asked Elian how he felt about his Florida relatives. Elian said, "They were telling me bad things about [my father]…they were also telling me to tell [my father] that I did not want to go back to Cuba… and I always told them I wanted to." The family denied that Elian ever said that. Elian also said that he wanted to see his Florida family again, but that the way they had handled the situation "was wrong."

The low point of the segment was when they showed Castro honoring Elian, and Bob Simon said, "That's quite something for the president of a country to say he's proud to have a kid as a friend." Elian responded, "Not only [do I think of Castro] as a friend, but also as a father."

It's obvious that Elian had been rehearsed, brainwashed or pressured in some other way to make these kinds of statements that provide a propaganda victory for Castro, who has executed thousands, and who demonstrated absolute loyalty and served as a base of operations in this hemisphere for the Soviet Union.

CBS, to its shame, certainly knew what it was doing in providing this opportunity for Castro. We won't know what Elian, or his father, was really thinking, then or now, until they are free from the hold of Castro's brutal regime. Exploiting this poor boy, who was denied the opportunity to grow up in freedom, was a low point for 60 Minutes.



Roger Aronoff is a Media Analyst at Accuracy in Media and the writer/producer of the documentary "Confronting Iraq." He can be reached at ar1@aim.org.