TBRNews.org



The Voice of the White House Washington, D.C., November 13, 2006: “I post an article on a planned Israeli attack on Iran and you get a quantity of shrill invective from Jews. Typical. What I said is true and that is that Israel wants to attack Iran and destroy its capacity to either build a bomb (they have several, thanks to friendly allies) or attack them with it (Iran has the capacity right now to accomplish this.) Much of this is pure bluff. Inside he Pentagon is a technical group that is capable of intercepting classified and scrambled telephone conversations. Over the last seven months, this group has been intercepting conversations and other electronic communications, of the Israeli Embassy and other entities in the United States. Much, if not all, of this presentation is based on notes from a friendly source. Israel could not launch any kind of a land war against Iran. Their worthless IDF would be torn to bits before it got started. They are not dealing with unarmed women and children here, after all. They do have atomic weaponry and have threatened to use it but if the enraged Iranians strike first, they won’t have any aircraft left, no airfields capable of launching a raid and certainly no pilots to man the wrecked planes. Bush, while fanatically pro-Israel, has been curbed by the results of the midterms and the U.S. would, under no circumstances, send troops to help Israel. It’s not that they won’t but they can’t. The Israelis are frightened that Bush’s loss of power means that their plans to have the U.S. draw their chestnuts out of the Middle East fire are wrecked. This threat about an attack is, like most of the Israeli mouthing, pure bullshit. Bush would certainly like them to do this attack but the U.S. can’t, and won’t, back it. Some time ago, both Israel and the Pentagon released “leaked” papers showing the U.S. was going to attack Iran. This was solely to put pressure on Iran and it fell really flat. Many of us believed it because there were actual plans in place but the execution of them was impossible. These threats from Tel Aviv are an attempt to regain face, lost when Hezbollah kicked the vaunted IDF in their asses and chased them back over the border. Of course Israel revenged itself by immediately killing unarmed Palestinians in Gaza. Bush approved the slaughter in Lebanon and would certainly wet himself over an even bigger slaughter in Tehran who has had the nerve to flip him the bird with impunity. None of our “allies” are going to support an attack on Teheran because they all buy Iranian oil. All Bush has left is the pathetic asskisser Blair and his days are certainly numbered. I predict Bush will end up talking to himself and eventually swallowing either a handful of pills or kissing a gun. People like that cannot stand being thwarted. Let up prey! In conclusion? An Israeli air attack against Iranian targets using their own aircraft and new U.S. tactical nukes designed to be fired from aircraft in rocket form, is not impossible. Israel is so frantic at this point that she might well attempt this and would also wish to present the U.S. with a fait accompli and force them into a support of Israeli activities. In this, Tel Aviv would be relying on the support of Jewish members of Congress, the very powerful Israeli lobby in America and strong support for Israel in both the Evangelical communities and the U.S. print and television media Would Israel launch such an attack? Given all of the circumstances, they might…unless Tehran struck first. This is certainly a strong possibility but to expect Israel to keep quiet about this subject, we can trust it to shout it from the housetops. It could well backfire in the end but they are so upset at the perceived loss of their power with the White House that reason is not part of their makeup at this point in time..” Iran vows to hit back if Israel attacks November 11, 2006 AFP TEHRAN: Iran's armed forces on Saturday vowed to hit back against any military strike after a top Israeli official refused to rule out attacking the Islamic republic over its disputed nuclear programme. "The armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran will firmly respond to any military and threatening move," Brigader General Ali Fazli, spokesman for Iran's latest round of 10-day war games, said. "The Iranian armed forces, which realise the different threats, have the capacity and capability to confront them," he added. Israeli Deputy Defence Minister Ephraim Sneh had told the Jerusalem Post on Friday he considered military action against Iran as a "last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort." His comments were seen as the clearest statement yet by an Israeli official that military strikes against Iran over its refusal to halt sensitive nuclear activities were not excluded. "The enemies of the Islamic republic are too weak and too abject to be a threat for a powerful Iran," added Fazli, who did not specify what the nature of Iran's response would be. Iran has been showing off its military prowess in recent days in the 10-day "Great Prophet II" war games, which have seen its fire its Shahab-3 longer range missile for the first time in manoeuvres and test-fire new weaponry. Meanwhile, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, complained to Secretary General Kofi Annan and the Security Council over Israel's "threats" on Friday following the comments by Sneh. "The letter, underlining threats from Sneh and other Israeli officials, regards these statements as illegal, ridiculous and a sign of the Zionist regime's criminal policies and terrorist intentions," the IRNA state agency said. "The Security Council should act in the face of such statements and the Israeli regime's terrorist acts. As a first step it should at least promptly condemn the Israeli regime's threats against Tehran," it said, quoting from the complaint. http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1063450 More Defeats for Bush Warrantless wiretaps unlikely to be OK'd November 11, 2006 by Laurie Kellman, Associated Press WASHINGTON - Legislation aimed at President Bush's once-secret program for wiretapping U.S.-foreign phone calls and computer traffic of suspected terrorists without warrants shows all the signs of not moving ahead, notwithstanding President Bush's request this week that a lame-duck Congress give it to him. Senate Democrats, emboldened by Election Day wins that put them in control of Congress as of January, say they would rather wait until next year to look at the issue. "I can't say that we won't do it, but there's no guarantee that we're going spend a lot of time on controversial measures," Democratic Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois said Thursday. In Senate parlance, that means no. Republicans for months have known that no bill accomplishing Bush's goal could get filibuster-proof support from 60 senators. Sealing off any hope was what Democratic leader Harry Reid put on his lame-duck to-do list. The warrantless domestic surveillance bill was conspicuous in its absence. As for next year, Bush should not expect Democrats to allow such legislation to pass without language establishing considerable congressional oversight of any expansion of warrantless wiretaps. "We have been asked to make sweeping and fundamental changes in law for reasons that we do not know and in order to legalize secret, unlawful actions that the administration has refused to fully divulge," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the next Judiciary Committee chairman. "If legislation is needed for judicial review, then we should write that legislation together, in a bipartisan and thoughtful way." The Bush administration has a backup plan. In speeches over the next few weeks, the Justice Department will launch a new campaign for the legislation by casting the choice as one between supporting the program or dropping it altogether — and appearing soft on al-Qaida. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will make the eavesdropping program the focus of a Nov. 18 speech at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Kenneth L. Wainstein, assistant attorney general for the national security, will make a similar pitch Wednesday to the American Bar Association. Leahy said that monitoring communications of suspected terrorists is essential but that "it needs to be done lawfully and with adequate checks and balances to prevent abuses of Americans' rights and Americans' privacy." After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Bush ordered the National Security Agency to monitor communications potentially related to al-Qaida between people in the U.S. and those overseas. He bypassed normal requirements for court approval of such eavesdropping, and the program came under harsh criticism after it was disclosed last December by The New York Times. Democrats and Republicans on the intelligence and judiciary committees spent much of the year trying to find out details from the administration, to little avail. Much of the information is classified, and the White House has insisted that revealing it would mean compromising the war on terrorism. The House passed a bill in September to allow warrantless wiretaps under certain restrictions. House and Senate intelligence committees and congressional leaders would have to be notified, the president would have to believe that a terrorist attack is imminent, and certification would have to be renewed every 90 days. A Republican measure in the Senate favored by the administration would require the Justice Department to report twice a year to the House and Senate intelligence committees the number and kind of any such operations. It would permit the surveillance to continue for up to one year without a warrant. Feeling Blue? After the Democratic sweep of Congress, President Bush's approval reaches a new low. But voters want Democrats to chart a moderate course. Novmber 11, 2006 by Marcus Mabry Newsweek President George W. Bush’s response was swift and decisive—if a little late. After voters gave Republicans “a thumpin’” at the polls, handing Democrats control of both houses of Congress, Bush banished his contentious defense secretary; invited the presumptive leaders of the new House and Senate to lunch (would-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had pasta; the president ate crow, a Bush aide joked); and suffered through two pained photo-ops with Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Nevada Senator expected to become Majority Leader. And what did the president get for listening to the voice of the American people? The worst approval rating of his presidency. President Bush’s job approval rating has fallen to just 31 percent, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll. Bill Clinton’s lowest rating during his presidency was 36 percent; Bush’s father’s was 29 percent, and Ronald Reagan’s was 35 percent. Jimmy Carter’s and Richard Nixon’s lows were 28 and 23 percent, respectively. (Just 24 approve of outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s job performance; and 31 percent approve of Vice President Dick Cheney’s.) Worst of all, most Americans are writing off the rest of Bush’s presidency; two-thirds (66 percent) believe he will be unable to get much done, up from 56 percent in a mid-October poll; only 32 percent believe he can be effective. That’s unfortunate since 63 percent of Americans say they’re dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country; just 29 percent are satisfied, reports the poll of 1,006 adults conducted Thursday and Friday nights. But the new poll carries sobering news for Democrats, too, still on their post-victory high. Just about everyone believes the Republicans lost the 2006 midterms more than the Democrats won it. Presented with a list of factors that may have contributed to the Democrats’ success, 85 percent of Americans said the “major reason” was disapproval of the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq, 71 percent said disapproval of Bush’s overall job performance, 67 percent cited dissatisfaction with how Republicans have handled government spending and the deficit, 63 percent said disapproval of the overall performance of Republicans in Congress, 61 percent said Democrats’ ideas and proposals for changing course in Iraq. Tellingly, just 27 percent said a major reason the Democrats won was because they had better candidates That means the new Congressional majority may be kept on a short leash. A majority of Americans, 51 percent, believe it’s a good thing that the Democrats regained control of Congress, including 18 percent of Republicans, while only 17 percent think it is a bad thing. (When the Republicans won the 2002 midterms, 30 percent thought it was a good thing that the GOP kept control, while 34 percent thought it was a bad thing.) That means the new Congressional majority may be kept on a short leash. A majority of Americans, 51 percent, believe it’s a good thing that the Democrats regained control of Congress, including 18 percent of Republicans, while only 17 percent think it is a bad thing. (When the Republicans won the 2002 midterms, 30 percent thought it was a good thing that the GOP kept control, while 34 percent thought it was a bad thing.) But the public is worried the Democrats will move too fast on Iraq and too slow on national security. For instance, 51 percent of Americans are very concerned that Congress will push too hastily for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq. (Only 20 percent say they are not too concerned or not at all concerned.) And 43 percent are very concerned that the new Congress may keep the administration from doing what is necessary to combat terrorism. Only 29 percent are not too concerned or not at all concerned. The good news for Democrats is that voters believe they know their mandate is limited. Half of all Americans, 50 percent, say Democrats will take a moderate approach, compared to 34 percent who believe they will try to take the country in a more liberal direction. Not surprisingly, Republicans are most skeptical: 52 percent believe the Democrats will try to push America to the left while 37 percent believe they will be more moderate. And there’s massive support for much of the Democratic Congress’s presumed agenda. For instance, 75 percent of Americans say allowing the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices for seniors should be a “top priority,” including 67 percent of Republicans. Increasing the minimum wage comes next (68 percent) on the public’s list, followed by investigating government contracts in Iraq (60 percent). There’s less support for rolling back Bush’s tax cuts: 40 percent say that should be a top priority and 24 percent say it shouldn’t be done at all. And since the election, Americans have become slightly less interested in investigating impropriety and wrongdoing by members of Congress. The number of Americans who think this should be a top priority has dropped from 62 to 55 percent. Overall, however, the public wants Congress and the president to put Iraq and national security before domestic issues like the economy and health care, by a margin of 51 to 33 percent. Fifteen percent say they should be equal priorities. But the public is not overly optimistic: 54 percent of Americans say partisan bickering will likely prevent important work from getting done, while 40 percent say the two sides will be able to work together. With just two years before the next presidential election, the Republicans have some rebuilding to do. Today 48 percent of registered voters would generally like to see a Democrat elected in ’08 (including 10 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of independents); compared to 28 percent who want a Republican (including just 3 percent of Democrats and 20 percent of independents). Twenty percent say they don’t know. When it comes to specific potential candidates, the ladies have it. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton registers the highest level of strong support, with 33 percent of registered voters saying there’s a good chance they would vote for her and 20 percent saying there’s some chance. But she also has high negatives: 45 percent of registered voters say there’s no chance they would vote for her. Similarly, 24 percent of registered voters say there’s a good chance they would vote for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and 27 percent says there’s some chance; but 43 percent say there’s no chance. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain have lower negatives: 24 percent of registered voters say there’s a good chance they would vote for Giuliani, 30 percent say there’s some chance, and 32 percent say there’s no chance. Twenty percent say there’s a good chance they would vote for McCain, 34 percent say there’s some chance, and 32 percent say there’s no chance. Twenty percent of voters also say there’s a good chance they would vote for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, while 19 percent say there’s some chance and 24 percent say there’s no chance. More than a third of voters, 34 percent, say they’ve never heard of him. Also-rans include former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry (16 percent good chance, 24 percent some chance, and 55 percent no chance) and Newt Gingrich (10 percent good chance, 17 percent some chance, and 58 percent no chance). Keith Olbermann Taps a Well of Discontent as the Anti-O'Reilly November 12, 2006 by C.W. Nevius San Francisco Chronicle Keith Olbermann just needed to find his voice. He'd been a droll sportscaster, a serious news anchor and a bickering critic of Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. But none of those personas really clicked. Then he found one. A little over a year ago, as the White House fumbled and botched the Hurricane Katrina recovery, Olbermann finally blew up. He concluded a broadcast of his MSNBC cable news show, "Countdown,'' with an indignant rant in the rat-a-tat-tat cadence of his idol, Edward R. Murrow. He called it a "Special Comment.'' And just like that, Olbermann found his voice -- the angry everyman. He became a liberal counterpoint to conservative media ranters like O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, and an Internet star, too. The result has been a cultural earthquake. "Here's what happened,'' Olbermann said in a phone interview this week. "Five years ago (on Sept. 11), 50 percent of the country went quiet. There was this self-imposed censorship. Suddenly it became unimaginable to criticize the administration. And no one else was brave or stupid enough to say, 'I don't remember signing that document.' '' Today Olbermann is hot, in every sense of the word. He likes to say that the first step to creating one of his blistering editorials is to "get pissed off,'' and that's certainly how he sounds. But there's something more to it, too. Conservatives may hate his attacks, but no one doubts that he comes across as one of the smarter guys in the room. When he laid into then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Aug. 30, he threw in references to Neville Chamberlain and the policy of appeasement. Let's see NBC network anchor Brian Williams pull that off. Not that he would try it. "Broadcast networks are not interested in the controversy,'' Olbermann says. Well, maybe they'd better start thinking about it. "I think,'' says MSNBC General Manager Dan Abrams, "that Keith Olbermann may become a model for the newscast of the future.'' And sure, Abrams is going to say that because he's Olbermann's boss. Besides, the MSNBC ratings have been on a roll lately -- helped by the 67 percent jump in viewership for Olbermann's show in the year since he began channeling Howard ("I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!'') Beale from the movie "Network.'' But there's something more at work here, a possible new model for the next age of electronic media. Olbermann isn't just getting more viewers. He's getting more views -- lots and lots more. It may have been the Rumsfeld piece that struck a nerve. Captured on YouTube, it was e-mailed all over the country and watched again and again. A month after it appeared on "Countdown,'' it had been seen more than 100,000 times. "I was told that this thing was flying all around to various places,'' he says. "To hear that as many, if not more, people were seeing it there than had seen it in the original was amazing.'' Not only was it a rock-solid indication that Olbermann was pulling younger viewers, but there was legitimate proof that he could move product as well. The day the Rumsfeld piece aired, pre-orders for Olbermann's new book, "The Worst Person in the World,'' placed it 19,000th on Amazon.com's best-seller list, according to mediabistro.com, a media news Web site. After the commentary aired, the book moved to 19th. It's tangible evidence of what Olbermann calls the "proverbial ripples on the pond.'' Not that he needed the book sales to convince him. Wherever he goes, people rush up to tell him that they've seen one of his "Special Comments'' and that he speaks for them. "Six weeks ago,'' Olbermann says, "a woman burst into tears. I was at a restaurant with my girlfriend and she came up to me and started crying.'' Suddenly, everyone wants Olbermann. Last week, he and political veteran Chris Matthews teamed up to anchor MSNBC's midterm election coverage. The result? Abrams called it "a major turning point for this network.'' Ratings were up across the board and the coveted 25-to-54 age demographic increased 111 percent from the 2002 midterm election. What's next? Expect to see Olbermann in even more mainstream settings. The one thing he is resisting, however, is pressure to produce more "Special Comments.'' He has to feel them, he says. "Otherwise I will turn into a cartoon of myself.'' Certainly it is the passion that carries the day. As Abrams says, "Keith isn't faking this, and the viewers can see that.'' But now that he has everyone's attention, everyone is asking Olbermann the same question: With the result of the election and the resignation of Rumsfeld, where will he find targets? "I'm giving the Democrats six months,'' he says. "And then they may be in for some 'Special Comments' of their own.'' Don't think he's kidding. He has found a point of view and he isn't afraid to use it. Keith Olbermann reports To watch his MSNBC show, "Countdown," go to msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677 . C.W. Nevius' column appears regularly. His C.W. Nevius.blog and podcast, "News Wrap,'' can be found at SFGate.com. E-mail him at cwnevius@sfchronicle.com. POLL: Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? 87% YES! By: sealion on: 13.11.2006 Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? 87% YES out of 376957 responses, so far... Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? 87% YES out of 376957 responses, so far... 1) Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 87% 2) No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors." 4.4% 3) No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. 6.4% 4) I don't know. 1.9% Take the POLL at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904