Easy way to get Lou Dobbs off the air.

It is the time now to stop watching racial, religious hatred promoted by Lou Dobbs by stop watching his show. Switch to another news channel when Lou Dobbs goes on air. This will bring down the ratings, which result in less commercial revenue. CNN can’t afford to lose money on prime time news. The drop in ratings will force CNN to fire Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs hate make me sick.

Stop watching Lou Dobbs and in few months he will get off the air.

Reed copy and paste your message in this post. This is what I do when his show started change the channel.

Copy and Paste the Below Message to YOUR favorite Blog Sites;
Tired of Lou Dobbs Constant Whining and *****ing?
BOYCOTT LOU DOBBS !!!!

All Lou Dobbs does is give the impression (Whether it is true or not, This is the impression he gives That he is an old man bitter about everything and everyone. He is quick to criticize while simultaneously failing to offer any REAL solutions thus giving him a bitter disposition. In my opinion he is bitter because he does not have the support to run for president himself. Just Google the words “Lou Dobbs President” to find out all about his Fund Raising Campaign (Or lack of Fund Raising to be more precise). Laughably and Ironically with his bitter views on Racism, The Economy, Government and Immigration he will never have support, which in turn causes him to be bitter. (Catch 22)

When Lou Dobbs airs; Turn the Channel to MSNBC! This is a channel that deserves and appreciates your viewing. Send the CNN Franchise a message by turning away from not one, but all of their stations, During the Lou Dobbs time slot, and going to a competitors Station instead.

MSNBC is on:
Direct TV Station # 356
Dish NetWork Station # 366
Time Warner Station # 84 (but may be different for your area)

Do not let Prejudice go unchallenged. Send CNN a crystal clear message from the person they listen to most, Their Finance officer!

Republican Presidential Debate. Ron Paul was impressive.

The Republican Presidential candidates participated in debated in Florida, the majority of the Republican candidates, like Democrats front runners, wanted to continue Bush failed policies in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is only one Republican Presidential candidate who is honest truthful not scared to say what is right is Ron Paul who unfortunately did not get much time to speak but whenever he get a chance to speak he was impressive. The other Republican Presidential candidate was Mike Huckabee from conservative ideology. The two front runners Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani get the most of the time but their answers were exactly what voters wanted to hear. The question related to terrorism get the most applause by the audience which were answered by Mitt Romeny Rudy Giuliani Fred Thompson Tom Tencredo and Duncan Hunter, they all believe that permanent occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is necessary to fight the war on terror. It was Ron Paul who pointed out very correctly that the main cause of Islamic terrorism is the wrong US foreign policies of interference in Middle East and Al Qaida was created as the result of US presence in Saudi Arabia. Ron Paul is intelligent and he knows that US can’t win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq so his proposal is to withdraw all the US occupation troops from these two countries which will definitely hurt Al Qaida agenda.

This is a known fact that Al Qaida is gaining popularity and general public sympathies because of Bush policies of invasion and occupation. Osama Bin Laden can lose all the support and find it very difficult to attract people to join their fight if US stop their stupid war on terror the way they started it and fighting after 9/11.

Ron Paul on the Republican Presidential candidate who has the plan to bring stability in US as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who has the, like Ron Paul, to end this endless conflict.

John McCain with Fred Thompson Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney Tom Tendcredo Duncan Hunter all believe that US is winning the war in Iraq. The fact they ignored that US has make peace agreement with the Iraqi Sunni resistance which is working in some areas and the Shiite South is clam because British troops have handed over the security to Iraqis, completely withdrawing their troops from the area. Iraqi Sunni resistance is getting lots of financial support from US and my analysis is that they are presently busy in strengthening their power by acquiring weapons, trying to create unity between all the resistance groups for the final fight with US occupation military, the chances are that Shiites will be on board when this final battle start. The fact which these morons ignore that Iraqis did not wanted permanent US military bases in their country and over 72% Iraqis want US troops out of their country.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich will not get the nomination of their parties so the “war on terror” will continue for decades. The next elected President will be Republican or Democrat front runner who will continue Bush policies.

Thanks to Jones who pointed out my mistake referring Duncan Hunter as Chris Dodd.

US Politicians and American Policies.

The Bush regime is sending envoy to meet Pervez Musharraf to end the emergency rule and hold fair and transparent elections in January. The Bush regime also wanted Pervez Musharraf to be tough on their war on terror without realizing that is the main reason of Pervez Musharraf unpopularity loosing support of people. The Bush regime wanted the democracy and continue the war on terror which is not possible whoever get elected in January elections.

There was CNN Democrats Presidential debate last night where the front runner did not answer single question with honestly and intelligently, Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards responses were confusing, talking what people wanted to hear. Wolf Blitzer, the most biased dishonest person, was the moderator, completely ignorning Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich who had the clear plan to bring stability to US, restoring America’s image in the world. Dennis Kucinich is the only Presidential candidate who had pointed out  that the US policies are the main cause of Anti Americanism in Middle East and Muslim countries where they see these wars against Islam.

The front runners Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards with Chris Dodd, Joe Biden were answers on Iraq, Iran and Pakistan were similar to Bush regime promising not to let Iran build nuclear weapon, put more pressure on Pervez Musharraf to be tough in their war on terror, keep Afghanistan and Iraq under US occupation. Hilary Clinton might get the nomination of Democratic party because majority of Democrats believe that she has the best chances of beating Republican candidate in next general elections, just like when the Democrats nominated the wrong Presidential candidate John Kerry. Hilary Clinton might get the nomination but she will lost in next year elections.

The IAEA report on Iran Nuclear Program was due on Wednesday, which maybe made public which I have not read it yet. Bush regime and Britain Brown is wasting no time promising to be tough on Iran.

Consequences of Attack on Iran for US.

The military expert told Congress that Iran attack will have dire consequences for both sides. This was my point of view since the beginning that Iran attack will be suicide for US military and the country. The Iranians will face more deaths and destructions because of US air power and WMD, but they have to defend their country and honor if attacked.

What would happen if the U.S. launched a shock and awe style attack against Iran?

Members of Congress today put that question to top military strategists. The answer — dire consequences for both sides.

Let’s turn to CNN’s senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre — Jamie, not a very optimistic scenario.

What did they say?

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, right Wolf. You would expect a debate over the pros and cons of attacking Iran to have a mixed reaction. But this panel on Capitol Hill found basically very few pros and a lot of cons.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE (voice-over): Even with its military stretched to the limit in Iraq, the U.S. retains the ability to launch punishing air strikes against Iran — targeting both terrorists and nuclear facilities.

But what would the air war accomplish?

Not much, according to military strategists who testified before a House subcommittee on national security.

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON (RET.), FORMER ADVISER TO COLIN POWELL: The more widespread strikes, while devastating — they would be — would solidify a nation of 70 plus million people — a great number of whom are under 35 years of age — a nation that is anything but solidified. And the uniting factor would be nationalism and a visceral hatred for America.

COL. SAMUEL GARDINER, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): We can destroy three to five years of construction. We know how long it took to build those. But the effect on the nuclear program, we may accelerate it. As a strategist, I would say you don’t take military action when you don’t know the outcome.

MCINTYRE: In fact, the strategists argue, going to war with Iran would just reinforce the belief it must have nuclear weapons to protect itself.

PAUL PILLAR, FORMER CIA OFFICIAL: Many would see the U.S. action as a blow not against proliferation of weapons, but against a Muslim country with a regime that Washington doesn’t happen to like. So the dominant global consequence, in my judgment — especially in the broader Muslim world — would be an increase in anti-Americanism.

MCINTYRE: The experts predict the ranks of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard would swell, its support of terrorism would increase and any moderates would be undercut. Still, some experts argue the military option should not be taken off the table because without it, Iran simply has no incentive to compromise.

ILAN BERMAN, AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY COUNCIL: Iran is not likely to bend to sanctions if it thinks all it has to do is weather sanctions and then there’s nothing else is coming down the pike. One of the world’s most dangerous regimes should not be allowed to acquire the world’s most dangerous weapon.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

MCINTYRE: But even the lone voice in favor of maintaining the military option as a threat called it “deeply flawed and dangerous” and says it has to be weighed very carefully about the situation of living with Iran as a nuclear power — Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Source Link : CNN – Situation Room Transcript.

You can read my posts on Iran ME/Iran

Ron Paul will be Wolf Blitzer Guest in Situation Room Tomorrow.

Ron Paul will be Wolf Blitzer guest in Situation Room 6:00 PM ET hour. The credit goes to his supporters who helped him raise over 4.2 million dollars in 24 hours. This CNN media coverage will provide an opportunity to reach the broader voters, who will listen and watch the program. The next presidential polls will provide further evidence that Ron Paul if he move upwards, that his message is getting across.

Ron Paul gets CNN attention by raising Over 4.2 million in 24 hours.

Ron Paul get CNN attention after raising over 4.2 million dollars in 24 hours, he is the most honest Republican running for President, he like Dennis Kucinich did not get much media coverage, ignored in the debates but he is generating some waves in this Presidential Race campaign. Ron Pual is the candidate who is better then all the Republicans and Democrats front runners. Ron Paul said that he is ignored by the media because they believe someone like him had no chance of getting elected. CNN also reported that Ron Paul name was mentioned 4900 (not accurate number) as compared to John McCain name was mentioned 95,000 (again not accurate number) times on their coverage, This is interesting that Ron Paul finally start getting media attention which give us hope of some intelligent honest person getting the nomination. Wolf Blitzer promised to bring Ron Paul for live interview during this week.

Ron Paul will US President who can bring stability peace and sanity into politics. Love to see him win the Republican nomination because don’t have much hope for Dennis Kucinich. Democrats had the bad record of choosing the wrong candidate as their nominee. Republicans do vote more intelligently than Democrats.

Who is Ron Paul.

The Electability Factor. Presidential Race 2008.

The electability factor which is very much emphasized by the political analysts and political consultants is another method of voters distraction to keep the main stream corrupt politicians in power. The political consultants make their money from running politician candidates so what they say on television is not truth its always what is in the best interest of their business. It will be interesting for the people to know two Democrats Paul Begala and James Carville, who were the co-hosts of CNN Crossfire, started spreading misinformation and lies against Howard Dean who was the front runner with the chances of getting the nomination. The Paul Begala and James Carville lies am sure still could be found on CNN Crossfire archives. These two did bring the electability factor of Howard Dean against Bush and keep pushing their propaganda until he lost New Hampshire primary. The Democrats chose John Kerry with the wrong assumption that he has the military credentials to beat George Bush but the result was he defeated with few million votes. We are now two months and few days away from first primaries and where electability factor is in play with comparing Republicans and Democrats front runners without actually analyzing their foreign and domestic policies.

The Democrats believe that it is Hilary Clinton has the best chances of winning the White House race in 2008. Hilary Clinton who is leading in the polls with a chance to win Democratic party nomination, will be the most weak Presidential candidate against tough Republican nominee with the chances of losing general election. The religious right will come out to vote to make sure that she lose the election. The religious right voters hate Clintons and do not want to see another Clinton in office, the religious conservative voters are much more organized in brining their votes out during the election than Democrats and this will again give power to Republicans.

Barak Obama win the US Senate seat because he was straight talking politician standing up for what is right. He has become the typical politician, less than four years in Senate, that he is not very different than Hilary Clinton or Bush. Barak Obama don’t have any chances of getting the party nomination.

Rudy Giuliani running on 9/11 tough guy platform which actually is the biggest lie. Rudy Giuliani as the NY Mayor did after the 9/11 attack to visit the ground zero few dozen times, called off the search and recovery efforts after finding Scotia Bank gold, lack of respect, 12 Arrests as NY Firefighters Protest Curbs on Search for Bodies. Rudy Giuliani did not show any leadership by visiting 9/11 ground zero any other mayor would have done what he did after twin tower attack. Rudy Giuliani wanted to continue Bush “war on terror” with keeping US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq for long time, he wanted to attack Iran based on same lies used against Iraq, so he will be continuation of George W, Bush Presidency. Rudy Giuliani has the better chances of winning Presidential election against Hiliary Clinton. John McCain and Mitt Romney are not very different than Rudy Giuliani.

The real Democrat Presidential candidate who can change the course of Bush wrong policies of aggressions is Dennis Kucinich. The real Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul has the plan to change Bush foreign policies blunder. These both candidates can repair the US image destroyed by Bush regime in the world.  Bush policies,  the Republican Presidential candidates front runner policies, the Democrats Presidential candidates policies will lead to more deaths and destructions. These front runners will keep putting fuel on fire which will create more hatred towards US and that all they do for political material gains for big corporations.

Iran condemn new sanctions. ElBaradei interview with Wolf Blitzer.

“”The United State’s newly-unveiled illegal measures against Iranian nationals as well as military, financial and other institutions once again disclosed the U.S. unilateral approach which is doomed to failure due to its illegitimate and hegemonic nature,”” the statement released Saturday said, in reaction to a new set of sanctions against the Islamic Republic announced by the U.S. on Oct. 25, 2007.“”Without doubt, labeling independent countries and their national institutions as terrorist runs counter to the most basic principles of international law, international relations and the UN Charter,”” it added.“”It is clear that despite the massive misleading political and propaganda campaign organized by the U.S. and its proxies, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) is a crucial component of Iran’s military force. In fact, by sanctioning the popular IRGC, the U.S. is targeting the entire Iranian nation,”” the statement noted.“”As recurrently reaffirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency officials and reports, Iran’s nuclear program is completely peaceful and there is no evidence of the slightest diversion from a peaceful path. The U.S. has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate its ‘proliferation concerns’ over Iran’s nuclear activities.””

The dispute between the United States and Iran ratcheted up even higher this past week with the Bush administration’s tough new sanctions against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and three key Iranian banks. The goal, to try to deter Iran from building nuclear arms, something Iran denies it is even pursuing.

Joining us now from New York for a “Late Edition” exclusive is the man who’s been monitoring Iran’s moves on the nuclear front. Mohamed ElBaradei is the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Dr. ElBaradei, thanks very much for joining us. Welcome back to “Late Edition.”

MOHAMED ELBARADEI, IAEA DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Thank you very much, Wolf, for having me.

BLITZER: I want you to respond to this overall threat that the U.S. perceives comes from Iran, and listen to how President Bush the other day phrased it. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: If you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Is Iran, Dr. ElBaradei, building a nuclear bomb?

ELBARADEI: Well, Wolf, let me say three facts to put the Iranian nuclear issue in proper perspective. We are not talking about Iran today having a nuclear weapon as Secretary Rice said recently. Second, even if Iran were to be working on nuclear weapons, according to John Negroponte and Mike McConnell, they at least few years away from having such weapon.

Thirdly, what we are doing right now is, through the IAEA and the European Union, Javier Solana, is to try to make sure that we control the nascent enrichment capability in Iraq and create the conditions for Iran and the European, particularly the U.S., to go into negotiation.

So we are not talking about Iran having today a nuclear weapon. We are trying to make sure that the future intention of Iran is peaceful, and that’s really what we are talking about. Risk assessment of possible future intention by Iran, if they have the technology to develop nuclear weapon.

I say that because at this stage we need to continue to work through creative diplomacy. We have the time. Because I don’t see any other solution, Wolf, except through diplomacy and inspection.

BLITZER: Well, what about the — whether it is a few years down the road before they actually have a nuclear bomb, do you believe there is a clandestine, secret nuclear weapons program right now under way in Iran?

ELBARADEI: We haven’t seen any concrete evidence to that effect, Wolf. We haven’t received any information there is a parallel ongoing active nuclear weapon program.

What we have seen in the past that certain procurements that have not been reported to us, certain experiments. And that’s where we are working now with Iran to clarify the past and the present, but I have not received any information that there is a complete active nuclear weapon program going on right now.

And I think what — if you hear carefully what is being said about Iran, that Iran might — we suspect that Iran might have the intention, but I don’t think I have seen anybody saying Iran today is working actively on a weapon program. And if there are such information, I would be very happy to receive it and go for it — after it.

BLITZER: So, what you’re saying is the United States government has not provided you hard intelligence evidence that Iran is secretly working on this kind of nuclear weapons program.

ELBARADEI: We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization. But we are looking into these alleged studies with Iran right now, and that’s why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks.

But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.

So there is a concern, but there is also time to clarify these concerns. And we should remember, Wolf, that this has — it’s a question of distrust that has been going on for over — almost half a decade. So, the earlier we go to the negotiation mode between the U.S. and Iran, the better we can resolve the issue.

Sanctions have been applied and sanctions probably will continue to be applied, but as I have said before, and I think everybody agrees that sanctions alone will not lead to a durable solution. Even the security council is saying a durable solution has to be through a comprehensive package deal with Iran, where we discuss not only the nuclear issue but regional security, trade, technology. So, the earlier we use creative diplomacy to move toward such initiation of negotiation, the best for everybody.

BLITZER: Well, let me be precise, because what U.S. officials increasingly are saying now — and you certainly hear this from the Israelis as well — is there is a difference between actually having a nuclear bomb or having the knowledge to build a nuclear bomb.

And they’re increasingly speaking about this threshold of once they have the capability of doing it, it is almost like actually doing it. Do you differentiate between those two points?

ELBARADEI: I do, Wolf. Because having the capability — there are at least 13, 14 countries who have the capability to enrich uranium. Because it is used also for peaceful purposes to develop fuel for power reactor.

That is, frankly, a lacunae, a loophole in the system right now, and I’ve been calling for a number of years, including also President Bush and others, that we need to make sure that no one country should be able to have the enrichment capability or having the capability to also produce plutonium, because you are not very far from having a nuclear weapon should you decide to do that.

However, you know, having the enrichment capability and having a weapon is the wrong way to go. Iran right now has a nascent technology. What we are trying to do right now is keep that technology capability under an inspection. It is under an inspection.

Which I urge Iran to suspend these activities to build confidence. I make sure that we have robust inspection. But until we go into the negotiating mode, until we discuss the global insecurity in a hotbed of stability which is the Middle East, I think we will continue to go into this gradually to a confrontation.

I very much concerned about confrontation, building confrontation, Wolf, because that would lead absolutely to a disaster. I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through negotiation and inspection.

BLITZER: Because the rhetoric coming from Washington, from top Bush administration officials, seems to be heating up. This is what the vice president, Dick Cheney, said last Sunday. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences. The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: Is that kind of rhetoric helpful or hurtful to what you’re trying to achieve? ELBARADEI: Wolf, it is clearly a question of distrust between Iran and most of the international community, at least the west, the U.S. in particular. And to build confidence, you will not be able to do that through just exchanging rhetoric. You need to go and create a condition to go to the negotiating table.

My fear that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. As I said, the Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire.

Nobody wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. Nobody wants any country to have nuclear weapons. I think when you see Kissinger and Shultz and Perry and Sam Nunn saying we need to go toward abolition of nuclear weapons, I think everybody now, it should be a wakeup call. We cannot continue to rely on nuclear weapons — anybody — because it has become decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous.

BLITZER: Because the U.S. position is — you know, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterates it. The U.S. will have negotiations with Iran, direct negotiations, but first the Iranians must stop enriching uranium. Is that a mistaken policy on the part of the U.S. government?

ELBARADEI: Well, this is the U.S. policy. I can’t really pass judgment on it. All I can say, Wolf, the earlier we go into negotiation, the earlier we follow the North Korean model, the better for everybody. Negotiation stopped with North Korea from five years. They ended up with nuclear weapons. They ended up with a nuclear test.

You resume negotiation, now we see a positive result. I always compare between the Korean model and the Iraq model. And I believe that these security or insecurity issues can best — can only be resolved through negotiation.

BLITZER: Here’s what you said back in May in an interview with the BBC on May 8th. You said “you do not want to give additional argument to some of the ‘new crazies’ who want to say let us go and bomb Iran.” Who were you referring to when you spoke about the, quote, “new crazies”?

ELBARADEI: Well, I’m referring, Wolf, to anybody who is saying, “Let us use force right now,” because I believe we still have ample time for diplomacy; and, B, I believe that force is in no way a solution to the problem.

This is an issue of security and trust. You can only resolve that through negotiation. Using force can usually, in most cases, exacerbate the situation rather than improve it. It could even accelerate a drive by Iran, even if they are not working on a nuclear weapon today, to go for a nuclear weapon.

So we can talk about use of force as and when we exhausted diplomacy, as and when we have no other alternative, as and when we think this is the best option. But we are far, far away from that stage.

And I would hope that we should continue to stop spinning and hyping the Iranian issue because that’s an issue that could have a major conflagration, and not only regionally but globally.

BLITZER: Ahmadinejad — Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly on September 25th, he said, “All our nuclear activities have been completely peaceful and transparent. I officially announce that in our opinion, the nuclear issue of Iran is now closed.”

Is that true, that all of their nuclear activities have been completely peaceful and transparent?

ELBARADEI: This is by no way the case — in no way the case, Wolf. The file is not closed. We are still very actively trying to reconstruct the history of Iran program to make sure that the past and present activities are exclusively peaceful.

I have a team today in Iran working hard with the Iranian authorities to clarify the past. I need to make sure that the past and the present is clean, and then we need to work with them, the international community, to build confidence about their future intention. And that’s why I’m saying we need diplomacy and — but also we need an inspection and they need to work in tandem.

BLITZER: As you know, the Israelis, in early September, bombed some sort of facility in Syria that was suspected of being a nuclear reactor, maybe a nuclear reactor built on a North Korean model.

I know you’ve seen these pictures. You’ve seen the before and the after. What’s your conclusion? Was this a nuclear reactor that the Syrians were building in their country based on a North Korean model?

ELBARADEI: Wolf, I’m very distressed, frankly, about this Syrian bombing because nobody — there had been chatter for the last few years. John Bolton three years ago went to testify before Congress and said there is concern about Syria.

And yet, until today, we have not received information about any nuclear-related activities, clandestine nuclear-related activities in Syria. The bombing, again, happened, and we never, until today, received any piece of information.

That to me is very distressful because we have a system. If countries have information that the country is working on a nuclear- related program, they should come to us. We have the authority to go out and investigate.

But to bomb first and then ask questions later, I think it undermines the system and it doesn’t lead to any solution to any suspicion, because we are the eyes and ears of the international community. It’s only the agencies and inspectors who can go and verify the information.

If Syria were working on a nuclear program, a clandestine program, then we’d obviously be able to draw the consequences. But today I don’t know where to go. I didn’t get any information. I contacted the Syrians. They said this is a military facility, has nothing to do with nuclear. And I would hope if anybody has information before they take the law into their own hands, to come and pass the information on.

BLITZER: So what you’re suggesting, Dr. ElBaradei, is neither the Israelis nor the U.S. government — or for that matter, any other government — gave you any hard evidence to back up this claim that this was a North Korean modeled nuclear reactor.

ELBARADEI: Or any evidence at all. Not only hard evidence, Wolf.

BLITZER: I know you’ve seen some commercial satellite photos though of the before and after. Are there any conclusions you can draw based on what you’ve seen in those satellite photos?

ELBARADEI: These are commercial satellite photos that we procured ourselves, has not been providing to us. And we’re still investigating them. We’re still comparing the pre and after.

But in addition to us buying commercial photos, I would very much hope that countries will come forward if they have information so we’ll do — go through a due process.

BLITZER: We’re almost out of time, but based on the commercial photos that you’ve seen from these satellite reconnaissance, are there any conclusions that you and your team have been able to come up with?

ELBARADEI: Not at this stage, Wolf. Not at all.

BLITZER: All right, and so it would be premature to allege that North Korea was proliferating in cooperation with the Syrians? Is that what you’re saying as well?

ELBARADEI: That’s correct.

BLITZER: Because I want to play a little clip of what the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra, told me here on “Late Edition” last Sunday. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PETER HOEKSTRA, R-MICH.: If North Korea or if Iran or other countries were involved in Syria, it, again, will be an indicator of what kind of agreement they will make and whether they would be willing to adhere to the agreements that they make in public.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Because he certainly seemed to be concerned, and he’s among a handful of members of the U.S. Congress who have been briefed by the Bush administration on what the Israelis did in Syria. He seems to suggest that you can’t trust the North Koreans at all because they’ve been cheating on their promises. I take it you’re not willing to go that far by a long shot. ELBARADEI: I can’t because I don’t have any evidence to support that assumption, Wolf.

BLITZER: Would you like the Israelis to brief you on what they know?

ELBARADEI: Absolutely, or anybody who has information. But you can’t trust anybody. We don’t work on the base of trust. But we — as President Reagan said, “trust and verify.”

And what I want very much is to be able to verify whether Syria, in fact, were working on a nuclear power program in a clandestine way or not. And the only way to do that is get information and to go out and verify.

BLITZER: You have a lot of credibility in these areas, Dr. ElBaradei, because before the war starred with Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein, you were contradicting the Bush administration’s insisting there was absolutely no evidence that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Do you feel vindicated as a result of that, as you go into this next round of fears that Iran may be developing some sort of nuclear weapons program?

ELBARADEI: Well, Wolf, I don’t necessarily feel vindicated. I feel relieved that we discovered that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. I feel also that people now should listen to us, because we have no hidden agenda. All we want to do is bring the facts out.

We should not take decisions that has to do — that crucial to war around peace before we are able 100 percent to make sure that the information on the basis we are working are accurate and professional.

BLITZER: Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei is the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Dr. ElBaradei, thanks very much for joining us. Good luck to you and your entire team.

ELBARADEI: Thank you very much, Wolf. Keep well. Source Link : Wolf Blitzer – Late Edition.

Read it your self to get the facts how Bush Dick Rice are doing what they did with Iraq. Dick still insists that Saddam had the WMD.

Bush regime has learned lesson after Katrina.

This is what creepy Wolf Blitzer reported in Situation Room. Bush would have responded exactly the way they are doing it for White rich neighborhood in California in New Orleans if the people were not poor African Americans. New Orleans till today is the destroyed city with no Federal government efforts to rebuild this poor African American city. Bush regime really don’t care much about African American and particularly poor people of all color.

President Jimmy Carter Most Admired Respected American Around The Globe. Talk With Wolf Blitzer.

President Jimmy Carter talked with Wolf Blitzer on CNN giving his thoughts on Bush regime policies, Republican Presidential Candidates, Iraq, Iran. President Jimmy Carter reply to Wolf Blitzer were straight forward without diplomacy and political spin. President Jimmy Carter said regarding US interrogation torture techniques used by Bush regime is clear violation of Geneva Convention, he believe Bush is trying to defend these techniques with redefining them with his own rules.

President Jimmy Carter called all the Republican Presidential Candidates scary who want to continue the war in Iraq, they are trying to prove themselves though by claiming who would the first who will go to war with Iran. President Jimmy Carter called Giuliani “He is foolish”, he hope that he will not the next elected President.

Publish President Jimmy Carter interview transcript when available, people must read the full content of this interesting interview.

But right now a powerful, very powerful charge from the former president of the United States, Jimmy Carter, directly, directly contradicting the current president of the United States.Carter says the Bush administration is torturing terror detainees despite repeated denials by the White House, including the president himself.Listen to this clip from my interview today with Jimmy Carter.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)BLITZER: President Bush said as recently as this week the United States does not torture detainees.JAMES CARTER, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: That’s not an accurate statement if you use the international norms of torture, as has always been honored. Certainly in the last 60 years, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. But you can make your own definition of human rights and say we don’t violate them and you can make your own definition of torture and say we don’t violate it. BLITZER: But from your definition, you believe the United States, under this administration, has used torture? CARTER: I don’t think it. I know it, certainly. BLITZER: So is the president lying? CARTER: The president is self-defining what we have done and authorized in the torture of prisoners, yes. (END VIDEOTAPE) BLITZER: The Bush White House is calling Jimmy Carter’s comments — and I’m quoting now — “sad”. Much more of this interview. It’s a powerful interview. That’s coming up this hour, including Jimmy Carter’s claim that the Bush administration and Republican presidential candidates in particular, he says, they are appealing to what he calls ultra-right-wing warmongers. BLITZER: A former president of the United States unleashed. Right now, Jimmy Carter has some stinging words for Republican presidential candidates on the war on Iraq, even some stinging words for some of his fellow Democrats. In a one-on-one interview, Jimmy Carter talks with me about Republicans courting what he calls the ultra right wing and says he knows “certainly” that the Bush administration is not being honest about one very controversial issue. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BLITZER: Joining us now, the former president of the United States, Jimmy Carter. His new book is entitled “Beyond the White House: Waging Peace, Fighting Disease, Building Hope”. Mr. President, welcome back. CARTER: Thank you, Wolf. Good to be with you. BLITZER: Let’s get to the book shortly — let’s talk about some of the issues on the agenda. Right now, Republican presidential candidates, including Giuliani, making the suggestion that if Democrats are elected to the White House, U.S. national security will suffer. Here’s what Giuliani says: “If one of them gets elected, it sounds to me like we’re going on the defense. We’re going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we’ll be back to our pre-September 11 mentality on being on defense.” What do you want to say to Rudy Giuliani? CARTER: Well, I thought on pre-September 11 that George W. Bush was in the White House and the Republicans were in charge. I think, during the Clinton years, we kept our country safe, we protected out interests around the world, we were admired by almost everyone on earth, and we were free. And we were also out of a war. So I think that history has shown that the Democrats are just as firm and staunch on security as are the Republicans. It ought to be a nonpartisan issue, and it’s a ridiculous thing for Giuliani to be making a claim of that kind. BLITZER: Do any of these candidates, presidential candidates, scare you? CARTER: Not on the Democratic side, no. BLITZER: What about the Republican side? CARTER: Well, they all seem to be outdoing each other in who wanted to go to war first with Iran, who wants to keep Guantanamo open longer and expand its capacity, things of that kind. They’re competing with each other to appeal to the ultra-right wing, warmongering element in our country, which I think is a minority of the total population. BLITZER: Who scares you the most? CARTER: I wouldn’t want to judge between them, because if I condemn one of them, it might escalate him to the top position in the Republican ranks. BLITZER: But basically, what I hear you saying is, from your perspective, on the issue of national security, there’s really not much of a difference between the Republican frontrunners. CARTER: That’s exactly right. I think the Democrats, basically, want to see the Lee Hamilton and the James Baker recommendation — one of the finest blue-ribbon commissions ever established in this country — unanimously recommended what we should do about Iraq. BLITZER: The Iraq Study Group. CARTER: Yes. And the Democrats are basically for that. The Republicans threw it in the wastebasket and said we don’t want that, we want it to be much more militant, stay in Iraq definitely, and maybe invade or attack Iran. And I think that’s a startling difference between the two. BLITZER: Let’s talk a little bit about Iraq, which still seems to be the number one issue facing the American voters right now. I want to play a clip of what two of the Democratic frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, said at their recent debate on — in terms of keeping U.S. forces in Iraq over these years if they were elected. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013. But I don’t want to make promises. SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It is my goal to have troops out by the end of my first term, but I agree with Barack, it is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting. (END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: All right. So what do you think? Because a lot of people were surprised that neither one could commit to getting all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term, if, in fact, they’re elected president. CARTER: Well, I agree with — I agree with the premise that you can’t predict what’s going to happen, but I disagree with that basic supposition that we’ll still be there. I think the American people and the blue-ribbon commission to which I just referred all prefer that we get out. But, if we should see an unforeseen development in the future where the Iraqi people, completely in control of their own affairs, request the American troops to stay in isolated areas for a period of time, I think that would possibly be acceptable. But that’s not my personal preference. BLITZER: So, on this issue, you disagree with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? CARTER: Absolutely. We ought to get out earlier than 2013. BLITZER: How quickly do you think the U.S., realistically, could withdraw all 168,000 troops from Iraq? CARTER: I think, over an 18-month period, we could be totally out, if that’s our desire, but I never have seen anybody in this current administration or the Republican candidates advocate that we ever get out of Iraq. I think they want to stay there permanently. BLITZER: On the scale of, you know, historic precedents and historic blunders, from your perspective, what kind of blunder was the invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein? CARTER: Among the preeminent blunders of American history. It was predicated on false claims. Deliberate or not, I don’t know. It was incorrectly consummated and perpetuated. The claims of what — how easy it would be were wrong. And I think everyone — just about everyone agrees that the whole war in Iraq has been carried out with a series of blunders. BLITZER: Some suggest it is the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. Are you among those? CARTER: I would put it almost on an equal basis with Vietnam, yes. Those two in my lifetime certainly would be the worst two blunders. BLITZER: In the book — the new book, “Beyond the White House,” you write this on page 252: “We had assumed in earlier years that our commitments and activities in support of human rights were in harmony with those of our government. And we were able to cooperate with officials in Washington. That is no longer a dependable premise.” CARTER: That’s true. BLITZER: That sounds like a swipe at — at President Bush. CARTER: Well, in a way — you know, I think the entire — of global human rights community, with its multiple facets, including those deep inside Pakistan and Israel, B’Tselem and Al-Haq, both would — all would agree with the fact that our country, for the first time in my lifetime, has abandoned the basic principles of human rights. We have said that the Geneva Convention does not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib Prison and Guantanamo. And we have said that we can torture prisoners, deprive them of an accusation of the crimes to which they accuse. (CROSSTALK) BLITZER: President Bush said as recently as this week the United States does not torture detainees. CARTER: That’s not an accurate statement, if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored, certainly in the last 60 years, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. But you can make your own definition of human rights and say, we don’t violate them. And we can — you can make your own definition of torture and say we don’t violate it. (CROSSTALK) BLITZER: But, by your definition, you believe the United States, under this administration, has used torture? CARTER: I don’t — I don’t think it. I know it, certainly. BLITZER: So, is the president lying? CARTER: The president is self-defining what we have done and authorized in the torture of prisoners, yes. BLITZER: But — but that raises a really important question. Those who are engaged in torture, who commit torture… CARTER: Yes. BLITZER: … potentially, that could be a violation of international or other laws. CARTER: Yes, I think so. BLITZER: Has there been a violation of the law from your perspective? CARTER: If you use the international treaties to which we are committed… BLITZER: Like the Geneva Conventions… CARTER: … like the Geneva Conventions, and also… (CROSSTALK) BLITZER: Because early in the — they said the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to these detainees who were not wearing uniforms. They were not part of any formal army. They were picked up on the battlefield and brought to Guantanamo Bay. CARTER: My impression is that the United States Supreme Court has said that is a false premise. And I presume that the administration complies with the rulings of the Supreme Court. And the international community obviously still adheres to and professes to commit themselves the honoring of the Geneva Convention, and also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States helped draft and promoted and has endorsed up until six-and-a- half years ago unanimously among all the… (CROSSTALK) BLITZER: So, should someone be held accountable? CARTER: Well, I think we — the best way to hold people accountable in this country is through the election process. BLITZER: That is the best way to get — in other words, from your perspective, to get rid of the incumbent administration and move on? CARTER: Yes. (CROSSTALK) BLITZER: But you don’t want to see any formal charges or a trial? CARTER: No, I don’t think so. I think that would be inappropriate. That has been done in some cases, as you know, but I don’t think it is appropriate at all. (END VIDEOTAPE) BLITZER: In response to our interview, a senior White House official who did not want to go on the record simply said this, saying: “Our position is clear. We don’t torture. It’s just sad to hear a former president speak like that.” Source ; Situation Room. BLITZER: Let’s talk about a sensitive subject on the agenda right now, Iran. And I want to play for you a question that was put to — put to — by one of our viewers to us in this CNN I-Report. Turn around and you’ll hear the question directly. CARTER: All right. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMES HASSINGER, GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA: Hello, Mr. President. I wanted to know what you think of the build-up to war that’s being obviously advocated by the vice president and the president, the current administration, and what you think our best actions would be in regards to Iran. Thank you very much. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARTER: Well, I basically agree with Condoleezza Rice, who has taken issue with the vice president — with Vice President Cheney, on whether we should promulgate the possibility of war against Iran. I have noticed that even some of the administration officials or spokesmen for them have even advocated using nuclear weapons against Iran. I think it would be a horrible mistake to attack Iran militarily. How would we invade Iran when we don’t even have enough troops to give them leave to go home to their families from Iraq? We are short on… BLITZER: Well, some of these so-called experts say you could do it with air power alone, cruise missiles, bombers, you go in their and destroy their so-called nuclear facilities. CARTER: I know some experts say that. I don’t agree with that. And what we should do about Iran — first of all, do not attack Iran. Secondly, what to do? I think two things to be very brief, we don’t have much time. One is to start talking to Iran, communicate with Iran. After the Shah was overthrown and the Ayatollah Khomeini took over, we continued our diplomatic relations with Iran. I had, as you know, about 75 people in Tehran, some of whom were taken prisoner. And the Iranians had about 75 of their representatives in Washington. So talk to them and communicate with them. Secondly, use strong diplomatic means to make sure they don’t go ahead with a nuclear program. And I think that — and to quit threatening to attack them, because that just increases their fervor in developing all kinds of protective devices… BLITZER: You will… (CROSSTALK) CARTER: … maybe a nuclear weapon. BLITZER: You will be surprised that Rudy Giuliani, the Republican presidential candidate, disagrees with you about this. And I’m going to play a little clip of what he says, listen to this. CARTER: I could almost write it for him, because I know the extreme cases that he has made. BLITZER: All right. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUDY GIULIANI (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Iran is a greater danger than Iraq. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. And we have to be willing to use a military option to stop Iran from becoming nuclear. (END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: All right. What do you say to Giuliani? CARTER: He is foolish. I hope that he doesn’t become president and tries to impose on the American people a conviction that we need to go to war with Iran when we are still at war with Iraq. BLITZER: But do you believe that Iran is working on a nuclear bomb? CARTER: I don’t know. I think if they are, some people surmise that they are, they are — several years in the future. And I think we can best deter that by diplomatic relations with them and consultations with them and stop threatening that we are going to attack them so they won’t think that they have to respond with all kinds of devices. BLITZER: You know, you have been criticized for your handling of Iran when the Shah was in power, you know, in the late… CARTER: I have heard about that. BLITZER: In the late ’70s. Looking back all of these years, knowing what has happened, what, if anything, would you have done differently? CARTER: I would have had one more helicopter in our rescue mission, which would have brought all of the hostages out safe and free. And so I had to wait from April, around until five minutes after I was no longer president when all of the hostages did come home safe and free. BLITZER: Because the argument is, as bad as the Shah was on human rights and other issues, he was an ally of the U.S. and probably better than the current regime and that the U.S. should have stuck with him. CARTER: Well, we couldn’t stick with him, he was not overthrown by anything the United States did, he was overthrown by his own people. And as I said earlier, after they did overthrow the Shah, we took care of the Shah as best we could and we also continued our conversations with — our diplomatic relations with the new regime. BLITZER: The Senate passed a resolution the other day sponsor — co-sponsored by Senator Lieberman and Senator Kyl saying this: “It is the sense of the Senate that the United States should designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.” Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, she voted for that resolution that passed 76 to 22. Was that a good vote on her part? CARTER: She has the complete freedom to vote the way she chooses. Had I been in the Senate, I would not have voted for it because an earlier version of that, which I read, said that this also involved direct military action against Iran. So in effect, that vote was giving the administration the imprimatur of Congress to go to war against Iran, the same thing that she voted for earlier… BLITZER: Because some of her critics said… (CROSSTALK) CARTER: … to go into Iraq. BLITZER: … that she would indirectly give authorization to the president if he wanted to go to war against Iran by this kind of vote. Her critics, some Democrats and Republicans. CARTER: But I’m not criticizing her. I’m just telling you the way I would have voted had I been there, because I think that a vote for that resolution about Iran opens up the possibility of the administration saying in the future we have got authority from the Congress — from the Senate to go to war. BLITZER: The Israelis bombed some sort of facility Syria, as you know, in September. And there are now suggestions, including in The New York Times, that there is a dispute between the vice president, Dick Cheney, the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, on what it entails and whether the U.S. should have authorized or gone along with this in The Times today. It says this: “It has long been known that North Korean scientists have aided Damascus in developing sophisticated ballistic missile technology. And there appears to be little debate that North Koreans frequently visited a site in the Syrian desert that Israeli jets attacked September 6th. Where officials disagree is whether the accumulated evidence points to a Syrian nuclear program that poses a significant threat to the Middle East.” What do you make of what — you are an expert on the Middle East, what do you make of this attack, the U.S. response, what should the U.S. response have been, and this dispute, apparently, that has developed between Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney? CARTER: Well, almost without knowing the subject, if somebody asked me, do you agree with Condoleezza Rice or the vice president? I would just say automatically, I agree with Condoleezza Rice not even knowing what the subject is. But in this case I don’t really know, I don’t any access to any sort of intelligence briefing or the facts. My guess is though that the site did not involve nuclear capabilities, but it might very well have involved long-term — long-range missiles, because the North Koreans, even though it is a destitute financial country, is superb in technology development with the limited capabilities they have. I’m thoroughly familiar with that. And so my guess is that they were helping Syria develop some kind of missile technology. BLITZER: And do you have a problem with the Israelis using F-16s or other U.S.-made hardware in this kind of a strike? CARTER: Well, that is a judgment for the Israelis to make. And I understand not only has the United States and Israel stayed mute, but also Syria has remained mute about it. So I don’t know enough about the subject to comment, Wolf. BLITZER: In the new afterward to your other bestseller, “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid,” you write this. You write: “America must not be seen in the pocket of either side. We cannot be peacemakers if American government leaders are seen as knee-jerk supporters of every action or policy of whatever Israeli government happens to be in power at the moment. That is the essential fact that must be faced.” CARTER: That is certainly true. BLITZER: You caused a big stir in the last book, as you well know. Any second thoughts? CARTER: No. Not at all. And I think that finally, after seven years of no effort to bring peace to the Middle East. The administration has now taken a very bold step, and I hope a very successful step next month by convening talks in the United States between Israel and the Palestinians for the first time with any substance involved. This will be a very good step in the right direction, which I pray will be successful. But we can’t just say we adopt all of the policies of the Israeli government, now the Palestinians can come in if they want to as a second-class citizen and hope to be successful. BLITZER: Let’s talk about another quote from your new book, “Beyond the White House,” page 74: “One of our nation’s ill-advised and counterproductive policies is the prohibition against Americans visiting Cuba and the punitive embargo against our 11 million neighbors who live under the communist regime of Fidel Castro.” Now you met with Fidel Castro. He is obviously very sick right now. What do you want, just a complete lifting of all of those restrictions? CARTER: Yes, certainly. That is what I did within six weeks after I became president. I lifted all restraints on travel to Cuba and started to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba. In fact, we established interest sections, as you know, one in Havana, one in Washington, that are still there after all of these administrations, they see the value of it. I think what we do with our embargo and punishment of the Cuban people is to turn them against us and it makes Castro into an unjustifiably claimed hero because he blames all of his problems, most of which he causes himself, on the United States over to the north, because we are punishing the Cuban people. So I think the best thing to do is to open up all travel and commerce and communications between the United States and Cuba. Let the Cuban people see what freedom and democracy is. BLITZER: Let’s wind up this interview with another question from a viewer that was sent in on our I-Report. Turn around and you will hear the question. CARTER: OK, fine. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) VICTOR MAI: Hello. My name is Victor Mai. And I’m a student here in Tempe, Arizona. This question is for former President Jimmy Carter. What advice would you give to the future 44th president of the United States involving the economy, the future of Iraq, and the rising cost of tuition for college students like me? (END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: Why don’t we focus in on the rising cost of tuition for a college student like him. We’ve already spoken about Iraq. The economy — if you want to talk about that, you can. CARTER: I’ve got 11 grandchildren, so I’m deeply involved in college tuition. I hope we can hold down college tuition and be quite constructive on student loans. But I think that the new president of the United States, that I pray will be a Democrat in 2009, will make a speech that I think in 20 minutes can totally transform the attitude of the rest of the world toward America, just by saying, When I’m president, we will never again resort to torture. When I’m president, we will honor all international agreements, which have been consummated by my predecessors, concerning the control of nuclear weapons. When I’m president, I’m going to join and be the leader of the rest of the world in protecting the quality of our environment. And now that I’m president — she’s already — if he or she has already taken office — to say, I want our country to raise high the banner of human rights. And we will once again be the leaders of these things. I think in those few moments, which might only take ten minutes of a(n) inaugural speech, we can completely transform the negative image that the United States now has around the world, into a positive image. BLITZER: The book is entitled, “Beyond the White House: Waging Peace, Fighting Disease, Building Hope.” The author is Jimmy Carter. Mr. President, thanks for coming in. CARTER: I’ve enjoyed it, Wolf. Thank you very much. Source : Situation Room

Hugo Chevez one more evil step. Raise teachers salaries.

Hugo Chavez announced 40 percent salary increase for teachers. This will be reported on CNN and BBC another evil action. The US political analyst will spin this in negative way to prove that he is destroying Latin America.

Caracas, Oct 6 (Prensa Latina) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced a 40-percent salary increase of teachers, a measure that will be implemented as of November.In the framework of the presentation Friday for professional training advances of Bolivarian teachers, the statesman expressed the will to be financially responsible with this sector.“You are quite sure that we will do everything possible to continue rising standard of living, not only with the basic salary but also with social security and housing plans,” stated the country’s president.In an exchange with education representatives, Chavez exhorted debate at schools on the constitutional reform project, aimed to strengthening the construction of the socialism in the country.This action has several specific aims, among them the analysis of the philosophical, political and conceptual foundations, programs and projects of the Bolivarian Education System and its relationship to teaching. Source : Venezuela Teachers salaries soar

Posted this in reply to one Patriotic American comments.

LOL. Thats what I was talking about, Hugo Chavez is the most hatred person because he is Fidel Castro friend, he has introduced reforms which has decrease the poverty rate, the literacy rate is up, providing free medical care for poor. Hugo Chavez is evil because he criticizes US government wrong policies. Hugo Chavez social reforms are according to Bible, still evil because majority of Americans stopped thinking intelligently, they listen to all BS propaganda spread by mainstream media and by their politicians supporting them with their new developed mental disease “Patriotism”. Why Socialism is evil?

Christian Amanpour interview with Ahmdinejad was very brief.

Christian Amanpour interview with Ahmadinejad was restricted to two questions due to his busy schedule supposed to be aired on Anderson Cooper 360.

Up next, she’s interviewed countless world leaders, but what happened when Christiane Amanpour sat down today with the president of Iran was not exactly what any of us expected. Be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sparked more controversy yesterday with his remarks at the United Nations. His visit to New York has been full of surprises, and now today we got another one. We’d planned on bringing you an exclusive interview with him tonight. We promoted it last night. We promoted it all day. CNN’s Christiane Amanpour was told that she could sit down with Ahmadinejad for a full interview this morning. We thought maybe half an hour at least. That’s what we wanted to bring you.

Didn’t work out that way. Christiane and I talked about it earlier.

COOPER: We were anticipating, obviously, a lengthy sit-down interview with President Ahmadinejad. What happened?

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We’re not entirely sure. We thought we would have a long interview, at least 30 minutes. We were promised that. We were told early this morning that, in fact, he had a lot of business to take care of and that he was very tired, because as you know, he’s had a very full public schedule here in New York.

COOPER: So as of this morning, they canceled?

AMANPOUR: They did. He had that dramatic confrontation at Columbia University on Monday. Then they said that, OK, maybe he would in a few hours do about 15 minutes with us.

But when it turned out — when he did arrive, he said he had only time for one question. We managed to ask two questions, one of them about the nature of Iran’s activities inside Iraq. This is what he said.

PRES. MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, IRAN (through translator): The countries in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region are able to protect themselves to run their own affairs and to establish security themselves, and do not need external forces and their involvement to interfere in their affairs.

American politicians say a lot of things. The same things they said at Columbia. They didn’t want Columbia University to turn into a forum for debate. But we all accept that universities are venues for the exchange of diverse opinions. They are free, those politicians, to say what they want to say, but the reality and the truth of the matter is moving in another direction. So we don’t really delve into the details of what American politicians here say or think.

What matters to us is move on the right path towards peace, towards the exchange of ideas, and to pave the way to establish friendship and brotherly relations and mutual understanding between nations.
COOPER: And what does that mean? I mean, the U.S. says clearly Iran is, you know, funding not only militias, but also, you know, having explosives shipped in that are killing U.S. troops.

AMANPOUR: As always, they do deny that. They say that in their interest, stable and peaceful Iraq is — is important because of that shared border. Some analysts are saying that, yes, that is their strategic long-term goal, stability in Iraq, but perhaps it’s in conflict with short-term tactical desire to cause trouble for the United States at a time when U.S. is perceived by Iran as being belligerent and sort of beating the drums towards war.

COOPER: When you sat down across from him, I mean, how do you find him? Just — do you get a sense of him as a person?

AMANPOUR: Yes. And I’ve sat across from him several times, once before in an interview and several times in a group press conference, at this dinner that we had the other night.

I think that, you know, he is determined to put Iran’s case in the public. And I think that’s what he tried to do these few days here. And he even said that before he left Iran: We’re going to go and put Iran’s case to the American people.

I’m not sure it turned out exactly as he would have wished it turned out. Obviously, we would have wished we had had that interview that was — that was agreed with the Iranians and with the president. I think that he has — I think that his people also would agree that perhaps they’ve — they’ve done too many events, it’s very tiring, and there are just too many events. Source Anderson Cooper 360

This was it. Christian Amanpour instead of giving her stupid opinions can schedule Ahmadinejad interview in Iran. Ahmadinejad delivered his messages very clearly at Columbia University and UN General Assembly. Christians Amanpour is no different than other CNN reporters biased dishonest and stupid . The Michael Ware is the only honest intelligent reporter on CNN. The other reporters, corespondents, anchors on CNN are all trash.

Hugo Chavez achievements ignorned by US mainstream media.

The common American must read the following report as the majority of them are duped by CNN and all mainstream print and electronic media that Hugo Chavez is the devil dictator even get is very democratically elected by the Venezuelans in three previous elections. Bush infact is a dictator who was selected President by the Supreme court in 2000 elections. Bush dictator has ruined the US economy with huge deficits trying to win already lost wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, on the other hand Hugo Chavez policies are changing the lives of tens of millions of people in Venezuela as well as the neighboring countries. Venezuela budget has the huge surplus since Hugo Chavez sworn in as the President in 1999. The US latest deficit remember listening on CNN is 9 trillion dollars.

Venezuela: Revolution brings massive social gains

Wolf Blitzer interview Benazir Bhutto on CNN.

Benazir Bhutto two time former Prime Minster of Pakistan and her governments were ended with corruption charges without completing its full terms. Benazir Bhutto is in US trying to convince Bush regime that she is the better choice to fight their favorite “war on terror” than Pervez Musharraf. The following is the transcript of her interview.

Protests in Pakistan right now, about 1,000 people rallying in Lahore, calling for President Pervez Musharraf to be removed from office. He seized power back in a 1999 coup and has been a key but controversial U.S. ally in the war on terror. Today the president Pervez Musharraf formalized his candidacy for another term as president of Pakistan.

There are dozens of candidates seeking President Musharraf’s job, but among some of the more formidable challengers is the country’s former prime minister, the first female leader of Pakistan, she’s about to return to her country from exile.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And joining us now, the former prime minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto. Prime minister, thanks very much for coming in.

BENAZIR BHUTTO, FORMER PAKISTAN PRIME MINISTER: Thank you.

BLITZER: You’re going back to Pakistan, even though you know you’re wanted there on corruption charges, among other things. When, first of all, will you go back to Pakistan?

BHUTTO: I’m leaving on the 17th of October and arriving on the 18th of October. It’s 21 days to my departure and I can’t wait to get back home.

BLITZER: What makes you think you’ll be received any differently than another former prime minister who went back and was quickly kicked out, Nawaz Sharif?

BHUTTO: I’m in a different boat than Mr. Nawaz Sharif. He was sentenced for treason and tax evasion. I haven’t been sentenced for any crime. And, secondly, Mr. Nawaz Sharif got the Saudis to stand guarantee for his release and said he wouldn’t return for 10 years. I was offered the same deal, but I refused. And my husband stayed behind bars without a conviction for eight years. So, we are in two different boats. There are no guarantees.

BLITZER: Do you have assurances from President Musharraf that you will be allowed to stay in Pakistan?

BHUTTO: Well, General Musharraf has not given this assurance, but I know I can’t be handed over to any third country. So the choice is either to let me be free or the choice is to try and lock me up.

BLITZER: And so when you get back to Pakistan, what’s your game plan? You want to run for office?

BHUTTO: Yes, I want to go back and bring change. People want democracy, and there’s a critical path in Pakistan’s future, one fork between dictatorship and democracy, another between moderation, the issues of moderation and extremism. People want change. They want democracy. I think that we can undermine extremism through Democratic means.

BLITZER: You’re a relatively young woman. How scared are you, though, because as you know, Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, they’ve attacked you in the past, and they clearly would like to go after you now.

BHUTTO: Yes, of course, they would like to go against me. There’s a lot of threats because under military dictatorship and an anarchy situation has developed which the terrorists and Osama have exploited. They don’t want democracy. They don’t want me back.

BLITZER: They don’t want a woman to be the prime minister of Pakistan either.

BHUTTO: And they don’t believe in women governing nations. So, they will try to plot against me, but these are risks that must be taken, I’m prepared to take them.

BLITZER: Yeah, your family has a history unfortunately, a tragic history, of assassinations.

BHUTTO: I know the past has been tragic, but I’m an optimist by nature. I put my faith in the people of Pakistan. I put my faith in God. I see that what I am doing is for a good cause, for a right cause, to save Pakistan from extremists and militants and to build regional security. I know the dangers out there, but I’m prepared to take those risks.

BLITZER: Your father was killed at a political assassination.

BHUTTO: My father was killed. It was a very terrible moment in my life. But I also learned from him that one has to stand up for the principles they believe in. And I’m standing up for the principle of democracy. I’m standing up for moderation. And I’m standing up for hope for all the people in Pakistan who today are poor and miserable and really quite desperate.

BLITZER: Can you forge an alliance, an alliance of convenience, with President Musharraf that will allow the two of you to work together for the benefit of Pakistan?

BHUTTO: I have been trying to reach an understanding with General Musharraf to bring about a transition to democracy, and I was quite hopeful a few weeks ago, but now I’m getting a little worried, because time is running out. And unless General Musharraf can take concrete steps to show that we are moving forward, moving away from dictatorship towards democracy, it might be very difficult for us to reach an understanding.

BLITZER: What can you say about all the reports, widespread reports, that the two of you met secretly?

BHUTTO: Well, there were these widespread reports that we met secretly. And whenever we’ve had an opportunity to meet, we’ve had a good rapport, a good exchange of ideas, but there are people around him who don’t want this understanding, who don’t want him to make the political concessions that are necessary to facilitate the path towards democracy. I had asked him to take some steps for fair elections. Those remain unimplemented. There were certain other commitments. So, now I worry. I worry that time is running out and there’s pressure on my party to join the other political parties and resign from parliament unless an accommodation is reached with General Musharraf.

BLITZER: So I just want to be precise. Are you now confirming that you did have these meetings in recent weeks and months with President Musharraf?

BHUTTO: Well, we were supposed to keep it secret, but it’s kind of an open secret now.

BLITZER: So you can confirm that for us.

BHUTTO: You’re not letting me off the hook. But sort of.

BLITZER: I will take that as a confirmation. Michael Scheuer is a former CIA analyst, he ran the bin Laden unit at the CIA. We spoke with him earlier today. He said you’ve been targeted in the past, including by Ramzi Yousef, who was the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and you will be targeted again. I just want to get back to this point. You got be very worried. What kind of security will you have when you go back there?

BHUTTO: Well, I have raised the issue of my security with General Musharraf, and I’ve asked him to provide me the security that I’m entitled to as a former prime minister. I hope that he will provide me the security, because I have been a target of terrorists in the past. And I know I could be a target in the future.

BLITZER: Who are you more afraid of, the al Qaeda, Taliban elements who hate you, or elements in the Pakistani military?

BHUTTO: I’m not afraid of either the al Qaeda or the Taliban elements or the Pakistani military. But I think at the end of the day, the people who try and plot will use al Qaeda, will use Taliban, because Taliban and al Qaeda are the groups that will suffer the most major reverses if my party and I are returned to power. We fought them in the past because we want a stable Pakistan, a prosperous Pakistan and we can’t get any stability with militancy and extremists.

BLITZER: President and you’ve had a strained relationship to put it mildly with President Musharraf. In his book he says that when you ran your party, you were chairperson for life in the tradition of the old African dictators. Strong words coming from him. And all the charges of corruption that your party was rife with corruption, your husband, what do you say to those allegations, which some, including Michael Scheuer, the former CIA analyst, said had a strong element of truth?

BHUTTO: Well, I would say that a person is innocent unless proved otherwise. There’s no sentence against me. These are politically motivated charges. When the chief justice of Pakistan proved to be a problem, he was slapped with corruption charges. These are deliberate allegations made to detract attention from the institutionalized corruption of the military, transparency, international, a reputed international group has said that corruption under the military regime is far greater than it was under previous civilian predecessors.

BLITZER: You have called President Musharraf a dictator, and he runs a dictatorship. But as you know, the Bush administration, the U.S. government, has a strong relationship with — with President Musharraf’s government, and relies on the Musharraf government to cooperate in the war on terror, to provide some sense of stability, security, in that part of the world. What’s your basic complaint with what the U.S. is doing right now? In other words, is the U.S. supporting a dictatorship?

BHUTTO: I certainly think that the United States is supported a dictatorship for its own short-term strategic reasons arising out of the war against terrorism. When Musharraf has been seen as a reliable ally. But last year President Bush went to Pakistan and made a pledge, to support democracy and free elections. And Condoleezza Rice yesterday gave a statement expressing her disappointment about the arrests of political activists. So, I think that the United States is gently trying to prod General Musharraf on to the path of greater democratization which I welcome.

BLITZER: But do you have any doubt that President Musharraf is committed to destroying al Qaeda which has gone after him on several occasions as well?

BHUTTO: Well, he says he’s committed to destroying them.

BLITZER: What do you think?

BHUTTO: I don’t think he’s been very effective. I think the longer — many people think the military is the solution. I don’t. I think the situation has become anarchic and will continue to be anarchy because as long as there is a military dominated regime in Pakistan.

BLITZER: Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan, you’re a courageous woman, good luck when you go back.

BHUTTO: Thank you.

Source : CNN Situation Room Transcript

She in her interview said what Americans wanted to hear. According to analysis the corruption charges were true but it is sad that Pervez Musharraf has become so unpopular fighting Bush “war on terror” that he was forced to cut deal with Benazir Bhutto which she is not honoring because she believe that her party candidate can defeat Pervez Musharraf in Presidential election. This is one more example that she is corrupt politician with typical flip flop tactics to gain power. Wolf Blitzer did not know that Benazir Bhutto very proudly called herself the mother of “Taliban” and now she is promising to be tough on her own children to grab power.

Benazir Bhutto is living in self exile after Pervez Musharraf took power and now she planned to return to Pakistan next month where she might still face corruption trails. Benazir Bhutto still a tough road ahead to face and win election which will not be that easy because she will run on US policies to be tough of “war on terror’. The chances are that she might become the strong opposition party in next election and Pervez Musharraf again form the government, if he win Presidential election, with coalition with Islamic Parties.

Benazir Bhutto looks like succeed in getting US support by making them believe she is the best alternative just like Ahmed Chalabi.

CNN Bring Saddam Hussein in news.

The following was reported by Wolf Blitzer on Situation Room last night.

New details are emerging of a failed last minute deal that could have averted the war in Iraq — negotiations to have Saddam Hussein go into exile.

Let’s go to CNN’s Brian Todd.

He’s watching this story for us.

What are you learning about this deal and why it fell through — Brian?

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it’s not exactly how the deal fell through, Wolf. But according to accounts we’re getting there was knowledge of these discussions at the very highest levels.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

TODD (voice-over): A dramatic ultimatum on the eve of war.

GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict.

TODD: But just weeks earlier, President Bush may have known Saddam Hussein was looking for a way out.

February 22nd, 2003 — meeting with then Spanish prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, according to the Spanish newspaper “El Pais,” Mr. Bush says: “The Egyptians are talking to Saddam Hussein. He seems to have indicated that he would be willing to go into exile if they would let him take $1 billion and all the information he would want regarding weapons of mass destruction.”

Contacted by CNN, a senior Spanish official with knowledge of the meeting says there’s a very high probability this account is accurate. No comment from the Egyptians.
TODD: Now, at the time, State Department officials said they did know about the deal with the UAE that fell flew and at the time they thought it was a good idea. But on any talks between Saddam Hussein and the Egyptians on exile in exchange for $1 billion and his WMD knowledge, we could not get comment from the State Department — Wolf.

BLITZER: And there are some other interesting details emerging from this Spanish newspaper — Brian.

TODD: That’s right. Now, this a transcript of the meeting that Spanish officials tell us was leaked to that newspaper. President Bush quoted by the paper saying Saddam is “a thief, a terrorist and a war criminal.” That compared to Saddam, the late Serbian dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, would “be a Mother Teresa.” And at one point, he says the Americans expect to be in Baghdad by the end of March, 2003. And, of course, as we said, the White House not commenting on the detail of this report. Source : CNN Situation Room Transcript.

This report is clearly looks like new propaganda to tarnish Saddam Hussein reputation by making him look like greedy person who has no sympathy for the people of Iraq. The report is stupid that Saddam Hussein was demanding 1 billion dollars to go into exile because I believe he has accumulated more than that during his 35 years rule. Saddam Hussein had the money and infact there was report before the invasion that he is ready to leave Iraq if US promise not to invade Iraq but Bush the arrogant ignorant stupid moron President said that US is determined to go into Iraq even if Saddam Hussein leave. Wolf Blitzer is suffering from amnesia who believe that Iraq war could have been averted. Wolf Blitzer and all CNN news anchors are so biased dishonest in their reporting that nobody can trust CNN news.

Saddam Hussein could have gone into hiding living in luxury at some undisclosed location but he chose to stay in Iraq. The other argument which is logical that Saddam Hussein might have left Iraq and living at undisclosed location. He had created many Saddam Hussein look a like and one of the fake Saddam Hussein was captured and murdered. The fake Saddam Hussein chooses this option for the huge amount of money for this family. This is probability because US had not captured or have any information about these fake Saddam Hussein who disappeared without any trace and Saddam Hussein could have easily disappeared. The hole where Saddam Hussein was located was described by some of his previous government officials that location was not very safe because it was not a secret.

Saddam Hussein has become immortal and he will always be remembered as the “Greatest Arab Leader” in history and that is what he wanted.

Nancy Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi speak with Wolf Blitzer yesterday and today and I watched her after long long time since she become House Speaker. Nancy Pelosi sure has gained more confidence which comes with the position which she is holding from last eight months. She answered Wolf questions with comfort and confidence explaining him that Democrats have gained enormous support since they take control of Senate and House. She also had a tough fight ahead to pass Children health care bill which Bush is threatening to veto. It will be interesting to see what House and the Senate do with Bush $200 billion dollar war spending bills.

CNN responsible for losing interests in news.

I lost all interest in watching news with CNN stupid coverage of breaking news stories with repeating it over and over again without any real news. There were plenty of breaking news which idiot Wolf Blitzer wasted most of his time instead of real important news stories. The recent breaking news which was reported was O J Simpson arrest and Larry King interviewed his former wife sister. This is really sick that O J Simpson was never convicted of murder charges and still majority (80%) of White American believe that he murdered his wife. The Michael Jackson is other African American victim of CNN and other news network negative propaganda.  This  to me is racial hatred against African American.

The good news is that Paula Zahn is off the air and Kitty Pilgrim is filling in for Lou Dobbs still hoping that CNN will fire him for promoting hatred. Lou Dobbs hates everything which is not American. He is kind of very illogical person who believe US has the right to keep developing WMD and no other countries are allowed to build their military for defense purposes. Lou Dobbs hates China, South America, Mecians and ofcourse all the Muslims. Fire this hatred filled Lou Dobbs immediately.

There is no chance of Wolf Blitzer getting fired because he is Jew and he will immediately play the antisemitic card and CNN management is so scared not to offend Jews and Israel no matter to what extent he goes in reporting biased news.

CNN – Breaking News Bullshit.

This was no surprise that Wolf Blitzer waisted about 20 minutes on breaking news story that Osama Bin Laden is releasing new video tape message on the anniversary of 9/11. CNN and Wolf Blitzer are so stupid so pay so much attention to Osama Bin Laden giving him so much attention which is really not necessary. The mainstream media is responsible for making Osama Bin Laden a household name giving him credibility as the most powerful person on earth. F*king morons are getting used by Osama Bin Laden like puppets.

 

Who the f*k cares about what Osama Bin Laden has to say?

The good thing is that we have very exciting quarter finals tennis match at 7:00 PM ET so I don’t have to watch CNN bullshit breaking news story again and again with idiots analyzing the message and the consequences of his message.

US Open saved me prime time with Carlos Moya and Novak Djokovic match. Calros Moya defeated Novak Djokovic in Cincinnati Master Series and I hope he can do it again to give advantage to Roger Federer.

 

First Responders.

The First Responders i.e. Fire Fighters, Paramedics, Police are getting praised by politicians and by main stream media for their heroic response to latest Minneapolis bridge collapse. These first responders are brave honest do their duties to save lives at the risk of their own lives. Their heroic efforts are always forgotten after very short time, when they get arrested, denied access to medical care cause in line of duty, even their demands for raise are denied.

First Responders I have great respect for you all, performing your duties to save lives knowingly that your heroic work will not be remembered after the disaster is over. Politicians media are so F*ed up, you all are true heroes.

Democrats Presidential Cadidates Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama will be continutation of Bush disastrous policies.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tougher tone after a chief rival accused him of naivety in foreign policy.Obama’s stance comes amid a debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States.“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said.

Obama, a senator from Illinois, said in remarks prepared for a late-morning speech in Washington that if elected in November 2008, he would make hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional.“I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan,” Obama said. Obama’s position on the Pakistani threat put him in line with Bush, whose homeland security director, Fran Townsend, said last month that “if we had actionable targets anywhere in the world, putting aside whether it was Pakistan or anyplace else, we would pursue those targets.”

Obama talks tough on Pakistan.

Barak Obama the intelligent bright excellent speaker Senator become the typical corrupt politician who want to win Democratic Presidential nomination so badly  that he is promising to do what will be disaster for US troops in Afghanistan. He is intelligent and he know that any air strike or crossing Pakistan North Frontier Province will open the new front line which will be more bloody and dangerous than Iraq. Pervez Musharraf will have no other choice other than having direct military confrontation and don’t forget the Islamic Militants who are anxiously waiting for US troops to cross borders. These Islamic Militants will be very happy if Barak Obama do this stupid mistake.

Hilary Clinton has exactly the same opinion as Barak Obama and Bush on attacking Pakistan for their America favorite “war on terror”.

There are plenty of Democrats and Republicans hopeful for 2008 Presidential race but unfortunately they all are typical corrupt bunch of politicians. Hilary Clinton will not talk to Cuban leaders because she did not like the form of government, Hilary Clinton will not talk to Hugo Chavez because he speaks against the wrong policies of US government, Hilary Clinton will not talk to Syria because she don’t want to offend Israel (in US you can criticize God, make fun of Jesus but are not allowed to speak a bad word about Israel aggressive policies. Hilary Clinton might be feeling left behind on US security with Barak Obama stance on Pakistan so she might come up with similar policy.

John McCain is very phony character who doesn’t look real, always have the feeling that whatever he is saying is for the camera and the voters. Giuliani is not a honest person another corrupt politician favor wars. Romney is trying to be in favor of both sides of all issues.

The only Presidential candidate who is honest speaking truth a real person is Dennis Kucinich. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who will pursue diplomacy instead of aggressive invasion and this is the only policy which will decrease “terrorism”. Barak Obama policy will result in increase terrorism, give more popularity to Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden. He actually is Naive not ready for the job of President of USA.

Just watched Wolf Blitzer Situation Room and he is very much excited and enthusiastic on US Military action against Pakistan like he was for Iraq invasion.

My endorsement really means nothing but a joke but still I strongly “endorse” Dennis Kucinich for next President of USA.