Showing posts with label Media Biased. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Biased. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Has the War with Iran Already Begun?

The evidence of an extensive Western covert program against Tehran, and Iranian retaliation, is now too obvious to ignore

By Michael Hirsh

Updated: December 4, 2011 | 5:18 p.m.
December 4, 2011 | 2:19 p.m.

UPI/Maryam Rahmanian - Iranian soldiers march during the annual military parade on September 22, 2011 in front of the mausoleum of the Iran's late leader Ayatollah Khomeini in Tehran,Iran. The parade marks the beginning of the 1980-1988 war between Iran and Iraq.

Two incidents that occurred on Sunday—Iran’s claim of a shoot-down of a U.S. drone, and an explosion outside the British embassy in Bahrain—may have been unrelated. But they appear to add to growing evidence that an escalating covert war by the West is under way against Iran, and that Tehran is retaliating with greater intensity than ever.

Asked whether the United States, in cooperation with Israel, was now engaged in a covert war against Iran’s nuclear program that may include the Stuxnet virus, the blowing-up of facilities and the assassination or kidnapping of scientists, one recently retired U.S. official privy to up-to-date intelligence would not deny it.

“It’s safe to say the Israelis are very active,” the official said, adding about U.S. efforts: “Everything that [GOP presidential candidate] Mitt Romney said we should be doing—tough sanctions, covert action and pressuring the international community -- are all of the things we are actually doing.” Though the activities are classified, a senior Obama administration official also would not deny that such a program was under way. He indicated that the U.S. was not involved in every action, referring to recent alleged explosions at Isfahan and elsewhere. But, he added: “I wouldn’t assume that everything we do is coordinated."

Former undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, who oversaw America’s Iran engagement during the Bush administration, asked Sunday about reports that the U.S. program began under George W. Bush, said he could not comment on intelligence matters.

In September, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, accused Great Britain, Israel and the U.S. of conducting attacks on him and other Iranian scientists."Six years ago the intelligence service of the UK began collecting information and data regarding my past, my family, the number of children," Abbasi-Davani told a news conference at the annual conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. Abbasi-Davani, who was said to have been wounded in 2010 car bomb explosion, said the attacks were carried out by Israel with the "support of the intelligence services of the United States and England."

Last week, Iranian protesters stormed the British embassy in Tehran. Dominick Chilcott, Britain's ambassador to Iran, later said the attack occurred "with the acquiescence and the support of the state." Then, on Sunday, Bahrain's interior ministry announced that an explosion occurred inside a minibus parked near the British Embassy. There were no immediate reports of serious damage or injuries.

U.S. officials alleged in October that agents acting for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which has increasingly exerted control over the Tehran regime, were involved in a plot to kill that Saudi ambassador to Washington in a restaurant. Iran denied the allegations. Then, on Sunday, in what have been another escalation, Iran’s news agency reported that Iranian armed forces shot down an unmanned U.S. spy plane that illegally crossed the country's eastern border.

Responding to the Iranian report, NATO command in Afghanistan released a terse statement Sunday: "The UAV to which the Iranians are referring may be a US unarmed reconnaissance aircraft that had been flying a mission over western Afghanistan late last week. The operators of the UAV lost control of the aircraft and had been working to determine its status."

The White House declined to comment but officials did not seem unduly alarmed, suggesting that the drone's capture would not provide Iran with significant information about U.S. surveillance technology and techniques.

Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council in Washington, said the tit-for-tat incidents “add up to a very worrisome picture,” in part because “the Iranians are absorbing all of these assassinations without seeing the pace of their nuclear program slow down to the extent it would be acceptable to the West.” But if Iranian retaliations grow serious enough, he said, they could provide “the pretext for a much larger war” in which the Israelis, and possibly the Americans, launch a full attack on Iran.

Mark Hibbs, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment in Germany, says the intensity of the covert war indicates that this is where the U.S. and Israel are putting their energy for now. “If the U.S. or Israel were determined to take Iran’s nuclear installations out they wouldn’t be wasting time pinpointing individual scientists like this,” he says. Still, he points out, that Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor was also preceded by assassination attempts on Iraqi scientists.

By accident or not, it’s entirely possible the covert war could escalate into a real one, experts say. “I am less enthusiastic about how effective all this going to be than some people in the administration,” says Matthew Bunn, a nuclear investigator at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Bunn says he has occasionally discussed the program with the Obama administration officials, and “some have broadly suggested they think this is major element of slowing down Iranian progress.”

He’s not so sure. “Take Stuxnet. It’s possible that a thousand centrifuges went down” because of sabotage by the mystery computer virus _ a super sophisticated program said to have caused substantial parts of Iran's uranium enrichment program to self-destruct several years ago. “But Iran has a thousand more than they would require to enrich to highly enriched uranium” needed for a bomb. Bunn also notes that Iran is increasingly keeping its key scientists such as Mohsen Fakrizadeh, said to be the “Oppenheimer” of the Iranian program, hidden away from sight and burying its facilities deeper underground.

Beyond that, says Hibbs, “Some of the concern in the expert community is that in going this route we’re unleashing forces we cannot control.”

Source:  The National Journal

(RELATED: Reports—Unmanned U.S. Aircraft Shot Down in Iran)

Monday, October 20, 2008

Colin Powell Admits that Obama's Race Is Major Factor in His Decision... Say It Isn't So, Colin... Say It Isn't So!

 Thought For The Day 10.20.08

If you're not confused, you're not paying attention. …Tom Peters

Powell Admits that Obama’s Race Is Major Factor in His Decision

(Powell Backed Black Democrat Before)

Sunday, October 19, 2008 4:08 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama on Sunday morning during his appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."

The media spin has been that Powell, a Republican and former John McCain supporter, has taken very the unusual step of crossing party lines to back a Democrat he thinks will serve the country best.

But a review of Powell’s own campaign contributions with the FEC shows that he has crossed party lines once before to help an African-American Democrat in a federal race.

In 1994, then-Virginia Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, the state’s first African-American governor, entered the Democratic primary in a bid for the U.S. Senate.

Records show that Powell donated $1,000 to Wilder’s campaign. Wilder later withdraw from the primary as polls showed him lagging three other candidates.

On “Meet the Press” Sunday (yesterday), Powell’s explanation for his backing of Obama made clear that he thought ‘Obama’s race’ was a major factor for his support, but not the only one.

Powell also described Obama as a “transformational” candidate, but in the end, it is about race.

Though Obama has no national security or executive experience Powell asserted that he had "met the standard" to be commander-in-chief. But, Powell again insinuated Obama’s race played a critical factor for him, noting his support "because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America".

Interestingly, Powell’s endorsement came despite the fact that in 2007 he dipped into his wallet and wrote a $2,300 check to McCain.

Powell’s contribution – the maximum allowed by law – came at a time when the press had written off McCain and said his campaign was about to collapse.

“[McCain campaign manager] Rick Davis called all the Republican heavy hitters in early August 2007, and said if they didn’t raise $50,000 by the end of the month, McCain was going to close up shop ,” a Republican insider who answered the same call from Davis told Newsmax.

Davis called it the “No Surrender” campaign. After the fundraising drive succeeded – with the help of Powell, among others - McCain liked the new brand name so well that he replaced the “Straight Talk Express” logo on his campaign bus with a huge sign that read, “No Surrender.”

“Of course, the phrase ‘No Surrender,’ could be applied to the McCain campaign as well,” The New York Times wrote in September 2007. “It was practically written off over the summer when it nearly ran out of money, forcing it to reduce its staff sharply and scale back its operations in all but three states, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.”

McCain weathered the money pinch with the help of Powell, who wrote his check on Aug. 7, 2007 – at precisely the moment McCain needed it the most.

Since then, Powell has not given to any other presidential candidate and is barred from giving more to McCain because McCain has agreed to limit his campaign expenditures and accept public funding, unlike Obama, who changed his mind after signing the paperwork to accept public funding thereby again going against his word.

In addition to his contribution to McCain’s presidential bid, Powell has written 44 checks to Republican candidates – including several liberal Republicans such as Arlen Specter, William Weld and Rudy Giuliani.

25% of Afro-Americans admit that they are voting for Obama ‘just’ because of his race. Only 8% of Whites say they are not voting for Obama because of race. People would certainly be yelling if these stats were reversed!! 

“4” former Secretaries of State support John McCain for President and so did Colin Powell until it came down to an issue of race. So this is not much or an endorsement. And it says a lot more about Colin Powell than it does about John McCain. Personally I find this to be very sad… and all I can say is, “Say it isn’t so, Colin, say it isn’t so!”

“Because democracy is not a spectator sport. …It is essential that we are all informed and do our homework on ‘every’ candidate and on all the issues. 57 newspapers support Obama 18 support McCain, just another example that the main stream media of the United States is liberal and biased. So you know you aren’t getting all the facts or the true facts from them. And you can’t make an educated choice without all the facts!”

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Where Is Joe Biden... And Why Haven't the Media Been Wondering?

Has anyone other than me asked themselves.... where is Michelle Obama and where is Joe Biden... since the Convention???  

As to question one...  you might want to check out... Michelle Obama As Our First Lady (posted here on 09.15.08)  & Thought for the Day -09.16.08.  (See Daily Thought Pad Postings for August& September 08).  Seems they might be hiding or re-packaging her again, like after her remarks earlier in the campaign about this being the first time in her life that she has been proud of America statement.

Earlier today I heard that Joe Biden was going to be doing his 'first' TV interview as Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate.  Hmmm... I haven't heard the media comment on his general low profile nor the fact that he hasn't had any TV interviews until now...  yet they rip Sarah Palin for every comment and anything she hasn't done?!?  Media Bias??  Again see... Larry Elder:  Major Media Biased: They Decided Vote Obama.

By Ask Marion

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Larry Elder: Major Media Biased: They Decide - Vote Obama





Media Biased...


Washington Post ombudsperson Deborah Howell wrote a column in her own newspaper comparing the paper's front-page coverage of Democratic nominee Barack Obama with that of Republican nominee John McCain.

Her findings? Examining stories from June 4, when Obama became the presumptive nominee, until Aug. 15, the Post ran 142 political stories about Obama, compared with 96 about McCain. As to front-page stories, Obama was 35 to McCain's 13.

What about photographs? The Post ran, during this time, 143 pics of Obama versus 100 of McCain.

The paper's assistant managing editor for politics explained the discrepancy this way: "We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy. We are not garment workers measuring our product every day to fulfill somebody's quota." In other words, Obama makes good copy, and this is, after all, a business. Fair enough. (But what's he got against garment workers?)

But why, then -- when the Post's Howell pointed out the discrepancy in photographs -- did the disparity disappear over the next two weeks? Howell writes that since she first pointed out the lopsided nature of the photo coverage: "Editors have run almost the same number of photos -- 21 of Obama and 22 of McCain -- since they realized the disparity. McCain is almost even with Obama in Page 1 photos -- 10 to 9."

Wait a sec. If the Post assumed that photographs of Obama drive sales, then what happened? The likely explanation is that the Post considers itself a "news" organization, and was embarrassed when one of its own columnists revealed its blatant partisanship.

As for Obama's popularity -- the basis for printing more stories about Obama -- take a look at the recent polls. A Reuters/Zogby poll, for example, gives McCain a 5-point lead among likely voters, with most of the major pollsters considering the race a dead heat. Does this not make McCain and Obama at least equally good copy?

But many of these same people who defend the Post's right to make a profit also demand the reimposition of the so-called Fairness Doctrine -- to force radio station programmers to "balance" popular conservative hosts with liberal ones. But "fairness" proponents show no concern when avowed Bush-haters, such as NBC/MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, put on their "journalist" hats and "cover" primaries, debates and political conventions.

How bad is it?

Take the recent studies by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, a nonpartisan, non-ideological and nonpolitical research organization. PEJ finds that from June 9 through Aug. 17, Obama received significantly more coverage than McCain -- even during Obama's Hawaii vacation. During the not-particularly-memorable week of June 23 to June 29, Obama received more than twice the coverage of McCain -- 82 percent to 40 percent.

And it's not just Obama. Last year, Harvard and PEJ studied presidential campaign stories from January through May in print, TV, radio and Internet outlets. Surprise, surprise, it turns out Democrats got more stories (49 percent) than Republicans (31 percent). Also, the tone of the coverage was more positive for Democrats (35 percent) than for Republicans (26 percent).

"Not only did the Republicans receive less coverage overall," the Harvard study authors say, "the attention they did get tended to be more negative than that of Democrats. And in some specific media genres, the difference is particularly striking." For example, 59 percent of front-page stories about Democrats in 11 newspapers had a "clear, positive message vs. 11 percent that carried a negative tone."

Obama's coverage was 70 percent positive and 9 percent negative. Hillary Clinton's was 61 percent positive and 13 percent negative. Yet only 26 percent of the stories on Republican candidates were positive, and 40 percent were negative.

On TV, evening network newscasts gave Democrats 49 percent of their campaign coverage and Republicans 28 percent. As for tone, 39.5 percent of the Democratic coverage was positive and 17.1 percent negative, while 18.6 percent of the Republican coverage was positive versus 37.2 percent negative.

This brings us to one of McCain's follies: McCain-Feingold. The act prohibits so-called soft money donations to national party committees, places restrictions on political ads that specifically name federal candidates 60 days prior to general elections, and prohibits any ads paid for by corporations or nonprofit "issue organizations," such as Right to Life.

Opponents of McCain-Feingold know something that apparently John McCain did not. The Democratic message -- hostility toward "the rich," the supposed "right" to health care, the general disdain toward the Bush administration -- gets an airing in our mainstream media … for free.

There's a line between journalism and advocacy. "Journalists" crossed it a long time ago.

Polls showing McCain/Palin ahead between 4 and 10 points.

Larry Elder :: Townhall.com Columnist
by Larry Elder, Posted on  by nobamablog