Aaron Brown a true patriot - in other words, what is best for the country and our allies, right Aaron?

Halliburton, revenge and cronies aren't on the agenda for you, huh? Could it be that college students are actually in good hands with appropriate dissonance? If it's Aaron? The answer is always.........yes.

Summit Calls For Moderation in U.S.-Muslim World Relations (Click on)

...Various panelists addressed the specific problems surrounding Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, and the Arab-Israeli conflict at different times during the summit.

Aaron Brown, former host of CNN's NewsNight and the keynote speaker at the summit, said that after 9-11, "whatever goodwill we had around the world, whatever sense of national unity and purpose we had at home, was squandered in the way we went to war with Iraq."...

More gossip from the UN - Little information about policy. While at the Clinton gathering it was nothing but policy and impowerment

1002

I wouldn't call Bush by such names as Cowboy and Former Drunk. I'd just call him a loser. President Chavez is right about that. The American Indian genocide. It's true. The USA Calvary almost wiped them out.

1013

I won't call the American Press a free press exactly. I do believe there are a few journalists in jail these days.

Judgment Calls

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4185

How top editors decide whether to publish national security stories based on classified information

By Rachel Smolkin Rachel Smolkin

(rsmolkin@ajr.umd.edu) is AJR's managing editor.

The outcry over decisions by major newspapers to disclose the Bush administration's secret monitoring of international banking transactions was fast and furious.

Although the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post also published articles describing efforts to trace the financial records of suspected terrorists, the New York Times broke the story on the Web and bore the brunt of the outrage. The administration had asked the New York Times and L.A. Times not to publish. But both papers ultimately decided to anyway, posting their pieces the evening of June 22 and publishing them on page one the following day.

The clash between the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press and the patriotic duty to protect American lives and uphold national security puts the media in an uncomfortable position. For the second time in six months, the New York Times had infuriated the administration by exposing a secret program in the war on terror. The piece followed a December 16 story disclosing the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States. In that instance, too, the administration had pleaded with the Times to withhold publication. But after delaying for more than a year to conduct additional reporting, the Times published the article--and won a Pulitzer Prize for it.

On June 26, President Bush condemned the global banking records story. "Congress was briefed," he said, answering questions from reporters. "And what we did was fully authorized under the law. And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America."
Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in more pointedly the next day. "Some in the press, in particular the New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs," Cheney said in a June 27 speech. He called the Times' Pulitzer for its NSA story "a disgrace."

Those statements were positively temperate compared with the reaction among administration allies. Sen. Jim Bunning, a Kentucky Republican, accused the New York Times of "treason." Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican who chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security, asked the U.S. attorney general to launch a criminal investigation of the paper. On June 29, the House of Representatives voted 227-to-183 to condemn the publication of classified information and to urge news organizations' cooperation in the war on terror. In early August, Sen. Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican, introduced a bill that would criminalize the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

The punditry was even more vociferous. On June 28, San Francisco talk show host Melanie Morgan told the San Francisco Chronicle that New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller should be jailed for treason for approving publication of the banking records story. "If he were to be tried and convicted of treason, yes, I would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber," Morgan told the Chronicle. "It is about revealing classified secrets in the time of war. And the media has got to take responsibility for revealing classified information that is putting American lives at risk." ...

... Describing their calculus for weighing whether to publish, editors cite an imprecise combination of case-by-case evaluations, a balancing test of public interest versus national security, and, ultimately, some reliance on their gut. "It starts with instinct," Bradlee says. ...

1027

There is some question about the actual statements by Nikita Khrushchev and where and when he stated them. This is an entry from Wikipedia. I realize people challenge the source many times, but, this would have been a glaring error on their part, so I think it has some brevity.

We will bury you
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev famously used an expression generally translated into English as "We will bury you!" ("Мы вас похороним!", transliterated as My vas pokhoronim!) while addressing Western ambassadors at reception in Moscow in November, 1956. [1] The translation has been controversial because it was presented as being belligerent out of context. The phrase may well have been intended to mean the Soviet Union would outlast the West, as a more complete version of the quote reads: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you" - a meaning more akin to "we will attend your funeral" than "we shall cause your funeral".
Several online sources incorrectly claim that he made this statement at the United Nations General Assembly on October 11, 1960, when he is said to have pounded the table with his shoe, or with an extra shoe he had brought with him explicitly for that purpose. [2] (Occasionally these incorrect reports give the date October 12, the date this incident was reported in most newspapers.)
Speaking some years later in Yugoslavia, Khrushchev himself remarked, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you" [3], a nod to the popular Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism." Khrushchev later went on to explain that socialism would supplant capitalism in the same manner that capitalism itself supplanted feudalism.

1030

Even Time Magazine has it reported differently than David Gergen stated it. Sorry, Anderson, you lose.

"We Will Bury You!"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,867329,00.html

Posted Monday, Nov. 26, 1956At the final reception for Poland's visiting Gomulka, stubby Nikita Khrushchev planted himself firmly with the Kremlin's whole hierarchy at his back, and faced the diplomats of the West, and the satellites, with an intemperate speech that betrayed as much as it threatened.
"We are Bolsheviks!" he declared pugnaciously. "We stick firmly to the Lenin precept—don't be stubborn if you see you are wrong, but don't give in if you are right." "When are you right?" interjected First Deputy Premier Mikoyan—and the crowd laughed. Nikita plunged on, turning to the Western diplomats. "About the capitalist states, it doesn't depend on you whether or not we exist. If you don't like us. don't accept our invitations, and don't invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not. history is on our side. We will bury you!"

1033

Death Squads? Or Defense Squads?

Iraq torture report by UN angers Washington
By Tim Reid of The Times in Washington
The Bush Administration angrily rejected a claim by a United Nations official today that more Iraqis are being tortured now than when Saddam Hussein was in power.
Manfred Nowak, the UN's chief anti-torture campaigner, has never been to Iraq but said he based his claim on interviews with people in Amman, Jordan and other sources.
"What most people tell you is that the situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand," Mr Nowak said in Geneva.
"The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein."
Nowak, an Austrian law professor, was speaking following a UN report which showed that the number of Iraqi citizens killed in July and August was 6,599, a record-high number.
More than 5,100 were murdered in Baghdad and many victims had been tortured. Violent civilian deaths in July reached an unprecedented 3,590, an average of more than 100 a day.
A State Department official in Washington, asked about Professor Nowak's comments, told The Times: "How anyone could compare state-sanctioned torture under a dictator to the situation today is beyond us.
"We definitely don't agree with his remarks. We don't agree with his assessment of the situation at all."
According to the UN report, torture is rampant in Iraqi detention centres and in sectarian killings across the country.
Bodies found in the Baghdad morgue "often bear signs of severe torture including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances, missing skin, broken bones - back, hands and legs - missing eyes, missing teeth and wound caused by power drill or nails," the report said.
"You have terrorist groups, you have the military, you have police, you have these militias. There are so many people who are actually abducted, seriously tortured and finally killed," Mr Nowak said.
"It’s not just torture by the government. There are much more brutal methods of torture you’ll find by private militias," he added.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2368770,00.html

1037

Just a repeat of last night. Ho-hum. Waiting for the punch line in the second hour.

1114

President Chavez is winning over the world. The interesting part is that he really means it. He feels 'the threat' of Bush's administration and military and isn't about to take it lying down. He is providing the impetus to contain Bush. He just might.

The USA Near Borders in two years, I suggest the people of the USA turn their country around and soon.

Top U.S. Leader On S. America Warns Against Venezuela
September 21, 2006 6:35 p.m. EST
Matthew Borghese - All Headline News Staff Writer
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - A U.S. military commander says Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez continues to export political instability to Latin America.
Army Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, the outgoing head of U.S. Southern Command, which oversees South America, says Chavez has become "bigger than a nuisance."
"I think there's an exporting of instability coming out of Venezuela. I think it's unfortunate. There's a glut of money there from oil. Money talks in a lot of parts of the world. It buys things, influence."
According to the Pentagon, Craddock's comments came on the same day Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called President Bush "a devil" during a speech to the U.N. General Assembly. The general said the United States should take such inflammatory speeches seriously.
Improving relations between Venezuela and Iran is also "of concern." The General adds, "We have to watch that."

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004940286


Venezuela's Hugo Chavez boosts heating oil program for U.S. poor

Ian James, Canadian Press
Published: Thursday, September 21, 2006
NEW YORK (AP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez visited a Harlem church Thursday and promised to more than double the amount of discounted heating oil his country ships to needy Americans, while he also took another sharp swipe at U.S. President George W. Bush.
A day after he called Bush "the devil" in a speech to the UN General Assembly, Chavez said of the president: "He's an alcoholic and a sick man."
Chavez received a round of applause from the crowd at Mount Olivet Baptist Church, which included activists and other supporters as well as actor Danny Glover.
Bush has acknowledged that he had a drinking problem when he was young but gave up alcohol 20 years ago.
Chavez also called Bush's policies in Iraq criminal, adding he hopes Americans will before long "awaken" and elect a better president. The Venezuelan leader said that while he opposes Bush, the American people "are our friends."
Some in the church laughed and applauded when Chavez compared Bush to the cowboy movie icon John Wayne.
Chavez also announced that Citgo, the U.S.-based refining arm of Venezuela's state-run oil company, plans to more than double the amount of discounted heating oil it is offering Americans this winter to 380 million litres, up from 150 million litres.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=d7785063-3c00-454f-a59d-d3f2a23d7668&k=38778



CHAVEZ'S ANTI-U.S. FERVOR
Emerging force among nonaligned nations
Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, September 21, 2006
He pops up almost everywhere -- Africa, Asia, the Middle East, South America and this week at the United Nations, denouncing U.S. policy with revolutionary fervor.
Like a recurring bad dream for the Bush administration, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is molding himself into one of the world's most pre-eminent anti-American leaders.
Days before he addressed the United Nations -- where he called President Bush the devil Wednesday -- Chavez hosted the equally anti-American Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Caracas. They cemented an increasingly close alliance by signing more than 20 trade and investment deals, and Chavez promised to cut off oil supplies to the United States in the event of a U.S. military attack on Iran.
At last week's summit in Cuba of the 116-nation Non-Aligned Movement, Chavez emerged as the heir apparent of the movement's longtime patron, the ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro. However, Chavez has something Castro never had -- huge oil revenues that will last for decades to come.
"Unlike Castro, who depended on the Soviet Union, Chavez is completely independent economically, which gives him a large margin to maneuver," said Luis Lander, a professor of social sciences at the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas.
Although Chavez came to power in 1999, his global influence has expanded dramatically in the past two years as his oil revenues boomed. He is pouring aid into leftist allies Cuba and Bolivia, providing discounted oil to Caribbean and Central American nations, buying high-tech weaponry from Russia and even spreading Venezuelan wealth around western Africa. If Venezuela succeeds in its attempt to gain a two-year rotating seat on the U.N. Security Council, Chavez will have a big new megaphone on the global stage.
"Chavez is wildly popular in places where you wouldn't imagine people had even heard of him," said Carlos Mendoza, who was Venezuela's ambassador to Russia until last year and previously was ambassador to Saudi Arabia. "In the (Persian) Gulf states, for example, everyone knows who he is, they admire him and love him."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/21/MNGPDL9LS51.DTL

enough