Qur'an – Bible.

* Religion * Politics * News Networks * Mainstream Media Biased Reporting * Independent Analysis

Archive for the ‘Wolf Blitzer’ Category

US Politicians and American Policies.

Posted by QB on November 16, 2007

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.


Posted in Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad, Al Qaeda, Al Qaida, Asia, Bush, CNN, Dennis Kucinich, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Mullah Omar, Musharraf, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, Politics, Presidential Race 2008, Taliban, US Politics, Wolf Blitzer | 6 Comments »

Consequences of Attack on Iran for US.

Posted by QB on November 15, 2007

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.


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.


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

Posted in Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad, Al Qaeda, Al Qaida, Asia, Bush, CNN, Iran, Iraq, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, Taliban, US Politics, Wolf Blitzer | 8 Comments »

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

Posted by QB on November 7, 2007

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.

Posted in CNN, Politics, Presidential Race 2008, US Politics, Wolf Blitzer | 2 Comments »

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

Posted by QB on November 7, 2007

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.

Posted in CNN, Dennis Kucinich, Politics, Presidential Race 2008, Ron Paul, US Politics, Wolf Blitzer | Leave a Comment »

Iran condemn new sanctions. ElBaradei interview with Wolf Blitzer.

Posted by QB on October 29, 2007

“”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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Bush, CNN, George W. Bush, IAEA, Iran, Iran Nuclear Program, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics, Wolf Blitzer | 5 Comments »

Bush regime has learned lesson after Katrina.

Posted by QB on October 24, 2007

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.

Posted in Bush, CNN, George W. Bush, Politics, US Politics, Wolf Blitzer | Leave a Comment »

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

Posted by QB on October 10, 2007

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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…


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…


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…


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?



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.


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.



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.


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…


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.


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.


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…


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.


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?


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

Posted in Bush, CNN, George W. Bush, Guantanamo Bay, Iran, JImmy Carter, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics, War on Terror, Wolf Blitzer | 3 Comments »

CNN Bring Saddam Hussein in news.

Posted by QB on September 28, 2007

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.


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.

Posted in Bush, CNN, George W. Bush, Iraq, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, Saddam Hussein, US Politics, War on Terror, Wolf Blitzer | 2 Comments »

Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by QB on September 26, 2007

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.

Posted in CNN, Politics, US Politics, Wolf Blitzer | Leave a Comment »

CNN – Breaking News Bullshit.

Posted by QB on September 6, 2007

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.


Posted in Al Qaeda, Al Qaida, CNN, Wolf Blitzer | 1 Comment »

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

Posted by QB on August 1, 2007

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.

Posted in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Al Qaida, Asia, Barak Obama, Bush, CNN, Dennis Kucinich, George W. Bush, Hilary Clinton, Musharraf, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, Politics, Presidential Race 2008, War on Terror, Wolf Blitzer | 2 Comments »

Shimon Peres Stupid Statement Against Ahmedinejad.

Posted by QB on July 31, 2007

Shimon Peres said Iran’s president worships the bomb more than he does God.

“Ahmadinejad is an unbelievable joke,” Peres told NPR. “He claims he’s religious. My impression is that, in his eyes, the nuclear bomb is higher than Allah. He’s worshipping the bomb more than he’s worshipping the God in heaven.” Peres, widely considered to be the father of Israel’s nuclear program.

God help us all. These idiots do ever know what they are saying is hypocrisy and rhetoric not fact. Peres rhetoric will be further propagated on CNN getting praises from Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs and Paula Zahn.

Dear Sir Peres what you are saying about Ahmedinejad is very true and perfect fit for you as well and your country. Do you worship Nuclear Bombs more than God? I am sure your answer will be “NO”, than why Israel has Nuclear Weapons, your answer will be to “defend” your country. These answers you will get if you ask these questions to Ahmedinejad. Enough with all BS, just open your minds and hearts and give Palestinian independent state with finding better interpretation of Torah “God has given land of Israel to Jews”. Tired of radical understanding of Jews Christians and Muslims scriptures.

Posted in CNN, Iran, Israel, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Politics, Wolf Blitzer | Leave a Comment »

CNN – Democrats Presidential Debate.

Posted by QB on July 24, 2007

The second Democrats Presidential debate was more interesting than the first debate hosted by Wolf Blitzer who misused his moderator discretion with giving time to his favorite candidates. Anderson Cooper did excellent job as moderator with only one complaint coming from Mike Gravel. Anderson Cooper give more opportunity to Mike Gravel after his complaint. Mike Gravel did not take advantage of the opportunity with his very brief and angry replies. The questions asked by the ordinary voters were more interesting than asked by the journalists in previous debates.

All the candidates try to stick to their game plan of to be diplomatic instead of giving straight forward replies except Dennis Kucinich who is only Democratic candidate with open straight forward approach. The New Hampshire group of voters belive Barak Obama win the debate, Nevada voters believe that Bill Richardson win the debate and Iowa believes Hilary Clinton was winner.

Barak Obama some replies were good but he look like person who is scared to speak what his on his mind instead trying to make it attractive for the voters with crumbling to find the right words when replying the questions trembling and crumbling. Barak Obama replies lack convincing confidence which will not help him to win the Democratic Nomination. Barak Obama must use his natural style of speaking which is God gift no other candidates staying relaxed with confidence. This is the only way he can break Hillary Clinton lead.

Hilary Clinton replying to question of getting involved in active diplomacy with North Korea, Hugo Chavez, Iran, Syria was kind of stupid which was praised by CNN Jeffery Tubin describing her as looking more Presidential than Barak Obama.

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

This reply don’t make any sense how meeting with leaders of these countries will use her for propaganda purposes. Diplomacy I believe is dead with Bush Presidency in US.

Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Joe Biden all voted in favor of Iraq war and now they are trying to blame this on Bush. Their replies to US troops withdrawal were political lies instead of giving the straight forward reply. Dennis Kucinich very correctly blame Iraq mess on Democrats with majority of them voting in favor of invasion and keep funding the war which is costing US 12 billion every month.

The most funny video submitted by Chris Dodd campaign.

Posted in Anderson Cooper, Bush, CNN, George W. Bush, Politics, Presidential Race 2008, US Politics, Wolf Blitzer | 1 Comment »

Pakistan rejected US NIE Al Qaida Re-grouping in North Western Province.

Posted by QB on July 18, 2007

This is the new developments on Bush “war on terror” with Pakistan government strongly rejected the US NIE that Al Qaida has find a safe haven in North Western Frontier Province. Pakistan government wants the proof of these claims so they can take action. Pakistan government also sending strong message that no foreign forces will be allowed on its soil to fight militants. Pakistan wants the specific intelligence concrete actionable information so that they can take action.

Partial report source : Forbes

But foreign office spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said the report contained ‘some unsubstantiated assertions’ and asked for evidence to back up Washington’s claims.

‘We would firmly act to eliminate any Al-Qaeda hideout on the basis of specific intelligence or information,’ Aslam said in a statement.

‘It does not help simply to make assertions about the presence or regeneration of Al-Qaeda in bordering areas of Pakistan. What is needed is concrete and actionable information and intelligence sharing,’ she added.

Aslam said Pakistan had done more than any other country to combat extremism and ‘is determined not to allow Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist entity to establish a safe haven on its territory.’

She rejected criticism over a peace deal the government signed with tribal militants in Waziristan region last year which pro-Taliban militants unilaterally renounced on Sunday, triggering a spate of attacks.

She also ruled out the involvement of foreign troops — for example NATO- and US-led soldiers fighting Taliban insurgents in neighbouring Afghanistan — in the fight against terrorism.

‘Our position is very clear that any counter-terrorism action inside our territory will be taken by our own security forces. This is the basis of our cooperation,’ Aslam said.

Senior US intelligence officials said Al-Qaeda’s ‘operational space’ in the tribal areas has grown since President Pervez Musharraf struck a non-aggression pact with tribal leaders in September.

US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian affairs, Richard Boucher, said yesterday that ‘some military action is necessary, and will probably have to be taken.’

US Assistant Secretary of State statement is ambiguous whether he is suggesting US to take some military action or wants Pakistan to take military action. The way I understand Richard Boucher statement he is suggesting US military action. The US military if take any action in NWFP region than Pervez Musharraf will respond immediate military action and US troops and if did hesitate or delay immediate action than he will immediately will be removed from power sent to jail for not protecting the sovereignty of the country and might face treason charges. The US DIA know that Pakistan military capabilities and strengths. The Tribal Militants who are fighting Pakistan security forces will immediately extend their co-operation to fight the foreign forces. The US military have to fight Tribal Militants and Pakistan Military also there will be tens of thousands of volunteer joining the jihad.

Bush regime and the stupid analysts must understand Pervez Musharraf limitations. He is already in deep trouble for fighting Bush “war on terror”. Wolf Blitzer wants US military to take action in Pakistan territory is complete brain dead idiot proposing this from long time without knowing the consequences.

Posted in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Al Qaida, Asia, Bush, CNN, George W. Bush, Musharraf, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, Politics, Taleban, Taliban, US Politics, War on Terror, Wolf Blitzer | Leave a Comment »

Al Qaida Safe Haven in Pakistan. New Propaganda Used To Brainwash Americans by Media and Bush.

Posted by QB on July 17, 2007

This is the new media and Bush regime favorite sound bite from quite sometime on CNN which is kind of very scary to me as this looks like building up the case for US military to go into North West Frontier Province to deal with growing threat of Al Qaida. Bush regime was helped by the media spreading lies brain washing American to justify invasion of Iraq with their 24/7 coverage of propaganda against Saddam Hussein and WMD. This is happening again with Wolf Blitzer is so much wants the US troops to go in after Al Qaida save haven in Pakistan. Bush regime if decided to cross Pakistan border that will be another blunder by mentally unstable President which will strengthen Al Qaida and there will be tens of thousands Pakistani jihadist who will volunteer, there is no shortage of people in Pakistan with 160 million population. The Pervez Musharraf government will be toppled down by some strong General taking over the charge and US will have to fight directly with Pakistan Military.

Bush really don’t know the history culture and way of Tribal life in Pakistan and Afghanistan. NWFP never was under the control of any Federal government since the creation of Pakistan. They live by their own tribal rules with their assembly called Jirga. Bush pushed Pervez Musharraf too hard to do more for his “war on terror” and the dumb bastard responded by bombing civilian compounds with sending the security forces into NWFP with analyzing the consequences. The NWFP tribes see Pakistan security forces as incursion for their independent way of life. They are fiercely resisting Pakistan security forces on daily basis.

Pervez Musharraf government strongly deny US claim Al Qaida presence in Pakistan. The the top Pervez Musharraf Ministers and Ambassador called this the most ridiculous. Pakistan government believe Al Qaida is in Afghanistan with its top leaders Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zahawari and Mulla Omar.

Bush may not cross Pakistan border or he may be hesitating to do so and that is because he has very admirable quality i.e. Loyalty for Friends. The chances are Democrats might use this propaganda and the sound bite “Al Qaida Safe Haven in Pakistan” for NWFP invasion. Disaster that what it will be for US troops, whether done by Bush or new elected Democrat President.

Stupidity rules. US Threatening military operation in Pakistan.

Bush security adviser: ‘No options off the table’ when it comes to military force in Pakistan.

Posted in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Al Qaida, Asia, Bush, George W. Bush, Mullah Omar, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, Politics, Taleban, Taliban, US Politics, War on Terror, Wolf Blitzer | Leave a Comment »

Bush get the face saving withdrawal opportunity!!!

Posted by QB on July 14, 2007

The news which is published on Yahoo news is actually reported couple of days back by Michael Ware from Baghdad on Wolf Blitzer situation room. Michael Ware reported Maliki government want US troops to get out of their way so they can deal with the security situation and when you translate this it simply means they want to go after Sunnis aggressively using their US trained Iraqi Police and Military to crush them. Michael Ware also reported that Maliki puppet government is not happy US military making deals with Iraqi Resistance in Al Anbar and Diyala provinces to fight Al Qaida. Michael Ware observations are excellent and he called Maliki government is really not interested in making US political suggested measures which is against their own Shiite domination of Iraq. The Maliki government is not happy with the US strategy of making deals with Sunni Iraqi Resistance which is again repeated clearly in today’s news.

Maliki wants US troops out of Iraq whenever they want and he is confident that Iraqi Security Forces are fully capable of handling the situation. Maliki has provided Bush regime an excellent opportunity to withdraw US troops out of Iraq without humiliating defeated withdrawal. Bush can claim victory and tell the Americans they are withdrawing because the Iraqi government asked them to leave and they respect the sovereign government (BS, there is no democracy and Maliki really does not represent Iraqis).

The following is the news.

Iraq Puppet PM Nouri Al Maliki : Country can manage without U.S.

Posted in Al Qaeda, Al Qaida, Bush, CNN, George W. Bush, Iraq, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Pakistan, Politics, US Politics, Wolf Blitzer | 1 Comment »

CNN Is Not News Network, It is Propaganda Machinery For Bush & Big Corporations.

Posted by QB on July 13, 2007

CNN has become the propaganda propaganda mouthpiece for Bush regime and big corporations. CNN does not broadcast news instead try to brainwash people with forcing their opinions on general public. CNN promoted the Iraq invasion so aggressively reporting one sided news stories supporting Bush war. CNN worked on very simple logic to report the biased news which favor their own interests and Bush regime knowing that there will be millions who will accept it as credible without verifying the truth and many more will start believing it if they keep repeating it over and over again, simple brain washing tactics.

The most biased news anchors on CNN are Lou Dobbs, Wolf Blitzer and Paula Zahn. These news anchors already reached to their old retirement age and age is the main reason for their rigid views and the other reason is their loyal support for Israel which they try to justify without any shame.

Wolf Blitzer should be replaced by Anderson Cooper. Lou Dobbs must be replaced with John King. Paula Zahn must be replaced by Soleded O’Brian. All three must be fired immediately and Wolf Blitzer should take Jack Cafferty with him who is an idiot who believe that US troops are fighting for Iraq’s democracy. Fired all three of them immediately.
CNN really does not report the world news instead they are more happy to broadcast some dog story (I switched to BBC so don’t know what it was) instead of reporting Lal Masjid standoff. CNN never did cover Lal Masjid story where there could be hundreds of people feared to have lost their lives. CNN absolutely has no coverage of Lebanon and Palestinian refugee camp fighting, instead they are broadcasting unimportant stories.

I don’t watch Fox because they are too radically promote Conservative agendas and BBC news is 30 minutes duration with 15 minutes are for business news but still they have better coverage of the world news than CNN. The only place is to get the news for independent perspective is Internet.

Sanjay Gupta the medical correspondent has lost all his credibility with attacking Michael Moore Sicko trying to defend his figures to be correct. Sanjay Gupta also make false claims regarding Canadian Health Care system. He looks like trying to protect the interests of big insurance corporations with huge paybacks.

Michael Ware is the only correspondent who is intelligent unbiased reporting the facts without spin. I would have suggested Michael Ware to replace Wolf Blitzer but really don’t want to lose an excellent reporter. I regard Michael Ware as the most trusted reporter on CNN actually he is the only reporter which justify CNN Logo “CNN Most Trusted Name In News”. My prayers are always for Michael Ware to be safe in Iraq and keep reporting the real news. Best regards for Michael Ware.

This is all time I have for CNN.

Posted in CNN, Lou Dobbs, Media, Paula Zahn, Wolf Blitzer | 2 Comments »

Michael Moore blasted Wolf Blitzer. Sanjay Gupta VS Michael Moore on Larry King.

Posted by QB on July 9, 2007

Michael Moore tear off Wolf Blitzer in pieces. I am so glad he said what am trying to tell CNN Wolf Blitzer and his side kick Jack Cafferty Lou Dobbs from last five years. I believe they never read any of my email. I will publish what Michael Moore said when Situation Room transcript available on CNN website.

Following is Michael Moore interview with Wolf Blitzer. Source : CNN Situation Room Transcripts. Copyright CNN.

Millions of Americans are filling theaters across the country to see Michael Moore’s controversial look at the U.S. healthcare system. “Sicko” was number nine on the top 10 box office draws this weekend. But the movie is being criticized by some who accuse Moore of playing loose with the facts.

Michael Moore will join us here in THE SITUATION ROOM in just a moment. But first a “Reality Check” from our chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

Sunjay Gupta reality check upset Michael Moore very much and he promised to post the response on his website. The following was the video report by Sanjay Gupta.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN SR. MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): “Sicko” throws hard punches at the United States healthcare system, and it seems just about everyone has something to say.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Moore was spot on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The facts, I think, support what I believe.

GUPTA: And Moore presents a lot of facts throughout the movie. But do they all check out? Keeping them honest, we did some digging and we started with the biggie. The United States slipped to number 37 in the world’s healthcare systems.

It’s true, 37 is the ranking, according to the World Health Organization’s latest data on 191 countries. It’s based on general health level, patient satisfaction, access and how it’s paid for. France tops the list. Italy and Spain make it into the top 10. The United Kingdom is 18.


GUPTA: Moore brings a group of patients, including 9/11 workers to Cuba, and marvels at their free treatment and quality of care. But hold on. That WHO list puts Cuba’s healthcare system even lower than the United States, coming in at number 39. Moore asserts that the American healthcare system spends $7,000 per person on health, whereas Cuba spends $25 per person.

Not true, but not too far off. The United States spends $6,096 a year per person versus $229 a year in Cuba. And astronomically more money doesn’t mean far better outcomes. In fact, Americans live just a little bit longer than Cubans on average. So Americans do pay more, but the United States also ranks highest in patient satisfaction.

And Americans have shorter wait times than everyone but Germans when seeking non-emergency elective procedures like hip replacement, cataract surgery or knee repair. That’s not something you’ll see in “Sicko” as Americans tell their tales of lack of coverage and suffocating red tape.

It’s true that the United States is the only country in the Western world without free universal access to health care. But you won’t find medical utopia elsewhere. The film is filled with content Canadians and Brits sitting in waiting rooms, confident care will come.

In Canada, you can be waiting for a long time. A survey of six industrialized nations found that only Canada was worse than the United States when it came to waiting for a doctor’s appointment for a medical problem.

PAUL KECKLEY, DELOITTE HEALTH CARE ANALYST: That’s the reality of those systems. There are quotas. There are planned wait times. The concept that care is free in France and Canada and Cuba, and it’s not. Those citizens pay for health services out of taxes. And as a proportion of their household income, it’s a significant number.

GUPTA: It’s true that the French pay higher taxes and so does nearly every country ahead of the United States on that list. But even higher taxes don’t give all the coverage everyone wants.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fifteen-to-20 percent of the population will purchase services outside the system of care run by the government.

GUPTA: So, there’s no perfect system anywhere. But no matter how much Moore fudged the facts — and he did fudge some facts — there’s one everyone agrees on. The system here should be far better. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN, reporting.

BLITZER: Michael Moore is joining us now live from Detroit. Michael, thanks very much for coming in. You want to respond to anything …

MOORE: First of all, Wolf, yeah, well — yeah, I’d like about 10 minutes to respond to what was said.

BLITZER: Give us a couple of headlines, what you’d like to say.

MOORE: I don’t talk in sound bites. So — that report was so biased. I can’t imagine what pharmaceutical company ad’s coming up right after our break here.

But why don’t you tell the truth to the American people? I mean, I wish that CNN and the other mainstream media would just for once tell the truth about what’s going on in this country, whether it’s with healthcare — I don’t care what it is. I mean, you guys have such a poor track record.

And for me to come on here and have to listen to that kind of crap. I mean, seriously, I haven’t been on your show now for three years. The last time I was on, you ran a similar piece about “Fahrenheit 9/11” saying this can’t be true what he’s saying about the war, how it’s going to be a quagmire, the weapons of mass destruction.

You know, and — why don’t you start off actually with my first appearance back here on your show in three years and maybe apologize to me for saying that three years ago, because it turned out everything I said in “Fahrenheit” was true. Everything has come to happen.

Everything I said. I mean, I was — I took you in that film to Walter Reed Hospital and it took three years before you or any of the rest of the mainstream media would go to Walter Reed Hospital and see what was happening to our troops. So for me to have to sit here and listen again to more crap about socialized medicine or how the Canadians have it worse than us and all this, all the statistics show that we have far worse healthcare than these other industrialized countries.

We’re the only ones that don’t have it free and universal. And, you know, there’s a — there’s a — you said that Germany was the only one that was better than us in terms of wait times. The Commonwealth Fund last year showed of the top six countries, we were second to last, next to Canada. It showed that Britain, for instance, 71 percent of the British public, when they call to see a doctor, get to see the doctor that day or the next day. It’s 69 percent in Germany. It’s 66% in Australia. And you’re the ones who are fudging the facts. You fudged the facts to the American people now for I don’t know how long about this issue, about the war.

And I’m just curious when are you going to just stand there and apologize to the American people for not bringing the truth to them that isn’t sponsored by some major corporation? I mean, I’ll sit here for as long as it takes, if you can do that for me.

BLITZER: Just in fairness, we had a lot of commercials for “Sicko” that we’ve been running on CNN as well. So we have commercials. This is a business, obviously. But let’s talk a little bit about …

MOORE: You have a nightly medical report. You have something called “The Daily Dose.” I watch CNN. You have it every day. “The Daily Dose” sponsored by — fill in the blank. And you are funded by these people day in and day out. Don’t even compare that to my movie being out for a couple of weeks and a couple of rinky-dink ads for 15 seconds. Come on. Come on, Wolf!

BLITZER: No, no — I don’t know if you’re familiar with Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s record, but I would stack up his record on medical issues with virtually anyone in the business.

MOORE: All right. So when I — when I now put on my Web site, as I will do tonight, how his facts were wrong about the $7,000 that we spend, it’s actually — I’ve read one report now, it’s even more than $7,000 that we spend per person each year in this country. I’m going to put the real facts up there on my Web site so people can see what he said was wrong.

BLITZER: Well, if we get that confirmed, obviously, we’ll correct the record. Sanjay – but I’m just saying … MOORE: Oh, you will? You’ll be getting it.

BLITZER: Sanjay Gupta is not only a doctor and neurosurgeon, but he’s also an excellent, excellent journalist. Look, I saw the film, and it’s a powerful, powerful …

MOORE: I saw Dr. Sanjay Gupta over there embedded with the troops at the beginning of the war. He and the others of you in the mainstream media refused to ask our leaders the hard questions and demand the honest answers. And that’s why we’re in this war — we’re in the fifth year of this war because you and CNN, Dr. Gupta, you didn’t do your jobs back then and now here we are in this mess.

What if you’d actually done the job on that? That’s why anybody who hears anything he anything of what you say now about universal healthcare should question what you’re saying, what you’re putting out there. You didn’t do the job for us with the war. You’re not doing it with this issue. And I just — I just wonder when the American people are going to turn off their TV sets and quit listening to this stuff.

BLITZER: Sanjay Gupta did an excellent job covering that war. He was with the Navy’s medical doctors and he went in and risked his life and actually performed neurosurgery on the scene.

MOORE: You have the questions. Why are we here? That’s the question. Why are we here in this war? Where’s the weapons of mass destruction? Why didn’t you — why did it take you so long, Wolf, to finally take on Vice President Cheney? It took you to 2007 before you made the man mad at you.

BLITZER: Those are fair questions.

MOORE: Four years!

BLITZER: Let’s talk a little …

MOORE: Where were you?

BLITZER: Let’s talk about “Sicko.” That’s the film that you’re here to talk about.

MOORE: Yeah, let’s forget that. Yeah, OK.

BLITZER: There’s plenty to talk about the war. There’s plenty to talk about with “Sicko.”

MOORE: I just haven’t seen you in three years, so I was wondering how you felt for three years of not seeing me after you trashed “Fahrenheit” and said that I was wrong about, oh, yeah, this war was — come on, I’m just waiting for an apology.

BLITZER: Michael, we’ve invited you on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, you’ve declined our invitations the past three years but there are plenty of times we asked you to come on the show and plenty of times you’ve declined.

MOORE: Really? And you wanted to apologize? Why did you want to talk to me?

BLITZER: No, we wanted to interview you. That’s what we do on television. Let’s …

MOORE: You don’t have to apologize to me. Maybe just apologize to the American people and the families of the troops for not doing your job four years ago. We wouldn’t be in this war. If you had done your job. Come on. Just admit it. Just apologize to the American people.

BLITZER: Which of the presidential candidates who are out there right now do you think would do the best job fixing the nation’s healthcare system?

MOORE: Well, the Democrats have to be asked some very specific questions. Too many of them are saying, well, they’re for health care for all people. Very few of them are being as specific as Mr. Kucinich is in saying, well, I support the Conyers bill in Congress HR-676. That’s what we need to hear.

And I would like to hear what these other Democratic candidates are going to say and do in specifics in removing the private insurance companies from the equation. We shouldn’t have profit involved when we talk about taking care of people’s health.

BLITZER: Is there a candidate, though, you think — is Dennis Kucinich your candidate? Who do you think — I know in the film you go after Hillary Clinton. And you’re very, very bipartisan in your criticism in the film, Democrats and Republicans.

MOORE: Yeah. When you say I go after, let’s be clear. I actually think she did a very brave thing to try and address this issue 14 years ago. And they stopped her cold. They went after her with the same kind of, you know, trash pieces I just had to watch. And so that stopped her. And now we’ve had to suffer through 14 more years of having no universal healthcare in this country. Our own government admits that because the 47 million who aren’t insured, we now have about 18,000 people a year that die in this country simply because they don’t have health insurance. That’s six 9/11’s every single year.

If you times that by 14 since Mrs. Clinton was unceremoniously removed from the agenda here, she hasn’t been able to talk about this. She hasn’t really put forth her specific plan. I’m hoping that the people have gone to my movie, the people that are concerned about this issue, will write to Mrs. Clinton and say, please, universal healthcare that’s free for everyone who lives in this country. It will cost us less than what we’re spending now ling the pockets of these private health insurance companies, of these pharmaceutical companies. So there’s still some chance to have an effect on people like her.

And of course, there’s one candidate who isn’t even in the race yet. I don’t know if he will be. But he was right about the war before it began, unlike CNN — did I mention that?

BLITZER: You did.

MOORE: And — and he’s right about global warming and he’s right on this issue, too.

BLITZER: Al Gore. The Democrats, by and large, most of them support some major health reform, including universal healthcare, which is what you support. I want you to listen to what Rudy Giuliani, the Republican front-runner said at the Republican debate that I hosted up in Manchester, New Hampshire. Listen to this.

Michael Moore : You are the ones who are fudging the facts. You fudged the facts to the American people now for I don’t know how long about this issue, about the war. And I’m just curious, when are you going to just stand there and apologize to the American people for not bringing the truth to them that isn’t sponsored by some major corporation?

BLITZER: And that’s just the beginning of what he has to say. Michael Moore, he’s fired up. He’s here in THE SITUATION ROOM. This is an interview you’re going to want to see.

Michael Moore : Why are we here? That’s the question. Why are we here in this war? Where’s the weapons of mass destruction? Why didn’t you — why did it take you so long, Wolf, to finally take on Vice President Cheney?

Michael Moore has published his reply on his website as promised with the video clip of his interview. Following are the links.

CNN Gets Blitzed by Michael Moore

CNN VS Facts

Demand an apology from CNN for Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s biased report on ‘SiCKO’ and for helping the Bush administration lie us into a pointless war.
Demand an aplogy from CNN for Sanjay Gupta’s biased report on Sicko.

The following was posted as comments on Doug’s Darkworld. Michael Moore and my approach towards solving American Health care system is very similar.

The problem with US health care system is that rich politicians love to talk about the broken system without really ever try to fix it. I really don’t understand why US can’t build their free health system for all its citizens like Canadian Free health System. The US government can spend 500 billions on Iraq and Afghanistan war and I believe introducing free health care system can’t be that expensive.

The only problem with free health care system is that it will hurt the Insurance companies and no politician ready to hurt their “Masters” financially.

The people who are searching for Sanjay Gupta apology for not accurately reporting the true facts and figures in his report. Sanjay Gupta did only apologize for one mistake of misquoting the Cuba per capita medical expenses and he is still sticking to his numbers and figures. Sanjay Gupta and Michael Moore were on Larry King last night for 30 minutes. Sanjay Gupta asked Michael Moore to concede on the figures. According to Michael Moore figures quoted by Sanjay Gupta are from 2004 data and his own figures are from 2007 data. Michael Moore again promised to post more facts on his website.

Sanjay Gupta look like is getting paid by big corporations to attack countries with free health care system for all its citizens including Canada. Sanjay Gupta said that waiting period to see a doctor is 6 days minimum but he did not mention that there are thousands of walk in clinics where patient can get medical care immediately. The patients go to emergency if they fear that they are having heart attack but Sunjay Gupta said that people who fear they are having heart attack have to wait six days minimum is total crap coming out of his mouth.

There is waiting time for bypass surgery and other operations which are not life threatening. Sanjay Gupta is not a honest person and I personally can’t trust him for any medical care. It look like the mainstream news media reporters get paid to promote big corporations and protect their interests. Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, Paula Zahn, Anderson Cooper all must be getting paid for not reporting the truth.

Michael Moore I can trust. This man is trying to protect the interests of common poor Americans.

Posted in Bush, CNN, George W. Bush, Iraq, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics, Wolf Blitzer | 6 Comments »

GOP Presidential Debate.

Posted by QB on June 6, 2007

CNN aired two hours of GOP Presidential debate last night with Wolf Blitzer moderating and last night he was little better than the Democrats Presidential Debate not completely ignoring some candidates. The GOP Presidential candidates last night theme was to scare US voters to win the next election except Rep. Ron Paul. It was surprise for me that all Democrats and GOP Senators who are running for President voted in favor of Iraq invasion without reading the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and all of them try to coverup with lame excuses that they got the briefings which means they were briefed by someone has has read the NIE and they accepted the understanding of that person. Former Senator Bill Graham of Florida voted against giving Bush authorization to invade Iraq after reading NIE which clearly means that should all the Senators and Representatives have read the NIE they might not have voted in favor of Iraq invasion. Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden all voted in favor of Iraq invasion without reading NIE. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are the only Presidential candidates who voted against the Iraq invasion. The candidate who were not in the Congress Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore all supported Bush military action on Iraq and still are the strongest supporters of Iraq occupation.

The most interesting outcome of these debates is that now I know how ill-informed and ignorant shallow all Presidential candidates are who get applause from more misinformed and ignorant voters. Mitt Romney answering the question about Iraq invasion reply was stupid based on his complete ignorance of the real situation and he still get applause from the voters. Mitt Romney said had Saddam Hussein opened his country for UN inspectors and let them finish their work US would have not invaded Iraq.

“You can say if we knew then what we know now, by virtue of inspectors being let in and giving us that information, by virtue of Saddam Hussein following the resolutions, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.” Mitt Romney.

This is for your information you ignorant moron Mitt Romney that Saddam Hussein did allow the UN inspectors and give access to all their country to check for Nuclear and Chemical weapons. The UN inspectors were asking for more time to complete their work so they can reach to a definite conclusion. Bush and Dick were in so much hurry that they rejected UN inspectors requested asking them to leave Iraq within 12 hours so they can start their military adventure.

Mitt Romney was not alone defending Iraq invasion. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter all supported Bush illegal criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

GOP Presidential candidates also trying to win the next election with creating fear among common ignorant voters with their “war on terror” bumper sticker connecting it with Iraq and Iran. All the GOP Presidential candidates will use Nuclear weapons on Iran Nuclear facilities except Ron Paul. Mitt Romney again proved his that he is ignorant idiot when he said that Iran wanted to attack US. Iran don’t want the war with US but if attacked will respond fiercely with showering their missiles in Iraq Afghanistan and all the other US military bases in Middle East. GOP Presidential candidates want to win the next election using Bush tactics of fear mongering try to relate every incident to Iran and Iraq.

GOP Presidential candidates also use the Bush favorite justification for staying in Iraq that “they will follow us here if we leave Iraq”. The truth is that Iraqis never invaded US in the past and they really don’t have capability to invade US in the future also Iraqis were not involved in 9/11 attacks and there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda before they invaded Iraq.

The most absurd solution I heard was to divide Iraq into three separate states to solve the Iraq problem. The people who believe this will solve the Iraq problem are ignorant of the fact that this will not be acceptable to Iran, Turkey and Syria and this will provide Turkey to move into Kurds region for their country unity and stability.

The debate was an excellent show of ignorance on part of all GOP and Democrats Presidential candidates who were reaching out to more ignorant voters. Democracy has become the problem in US where ignorant get elected by ignorants and this is the real danger for peace on earth with morons get hold of power with so much nuclear chemical and biological weapons.

Posted in Afghanistan, Bush, CNN, George W. Bush, Iran, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, Presidential Race 2008, Saddam Hussein, US Politics, USA, War on Terror, Wolf Blitzer | 8 Comments »

Democratic Presidential Candidates On Faith Politics.

Posted by QB on June 5, 2007

Three tier 1 Democratic Presidential candidates talk about their faith and politics with Soledad O’Brian. Soledad O’Brian earn my respect for asking interesting questions to all three candidates John Edwards, Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama. She also very strictly impose the time limit on all these three without without favoring one over another. Soledad O’Brian is intelligent fair and she should be the moderator of next Presidential debate instead of dishonest and biased Wolf Blitzer.

After watching the program again John Edwards was the most impressive who speak freely about his faith related to his personal life tragedies losing his son in accident and his wife Elizbeth Edwards cancer. John Edwards was very candid answering poverty question and his reply was very impressive.

Barak Obama is turned into “career politician” according to Jesse Ventura term which he use for all the politician. Barak Obama give very confusing answers to questions trying to bring irrelevant issues which were unnecessary. Barak Obama only answer one question asked by the religious panel and that too was so confusing that nobody in the audience or watching the program understand what he is saying. I liked Barak Obama but after watching him on debate and last night he has joined the category of rest of the politicians who will try to win election by saying what majority of voters want to hear instead of speaking the truth. Barak Obama is another shallow politician and he certainly is not Presidential material.

Hilary Clinton is very intelligent person and she sure was better than Barak Obama.

The clear choice between these politicians is the lesser evil which in this case is John Edwards. Love to see Dennis Kucinich win the nomination but this is not going to happen.

Posted in CNN, Politics, Presidential Race 2008, US Politics, USA, Wolf Blitzer | 1 Comment »