at-Largely

Right-Wing Extremism: hoping our military overthrows Obama...

I was going to add this as an update to my earlier post, but thought it deserved its own post. Apparently, some glue-sniffing types are hoping that our own military will be inspired by the Honduras coup to overthrow our own president in order to save democracy. I kid you not. I have been reading the comments at several blogs and they are mind-blowing.

For one example of  how the patriotic and in-love with democracy the average glue-sniffer is, you can go here and read the comments. But below is just a taste, in a few snips:

"Our democracy was the first that fell under Obama, as exemplified by the shenanigans on Porkulus and other economy-destroying, utopia-fantasizing legislation, which would have made the Politburo blush. Or to quote Dear Leader, democracy is no longer necessary because "he won."

"Of course Obumma is "deeply concerned." He doesn't want our own armed forces to get the notion that they too may need to defend the constitutional order from the depredations of a lawless "president."'

"WE ARE NEXT. 3rd world countries get it. Why don't WE!!!! WAKE the F#ck up people"

"sic semper tyrannis. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Kennedy, and the rest out there destroying America . . . it could happen here (please God)"

This should scare everyone who values democracy, especially given the recent number of violent crimes committed by extremists of this nature.

Honduras coup just impeachment by military force? Nope, still a coup...

UPDATES AT BOTTOM

I suppose it could be called impeachment when a Congressional body ousts a sitting president via force. But it is not as simple as that.

A group of people in a Congressional body join forces and pressure the rest of Congress  because those few have the backing of the military, which they then use to remove a sitting president from office and transport him to another country. That is the definition of a bloodless coup.

As noted here (in Spanish), the Honduran Congress cited repeated violations of the Honduran Constitution by President Manuel Zelaya and voted for his removal. That said, as I noted earlier, he is both a bad guy and a good guy. This is a complex political environment in a very unstable part of the world.

The right sees this as a simple restoration of democracy. Yet the use of military personnel to detain, arrest, and transport a sitting president to another country against his will is not part of any democratic process that I am aware of. They do have courts in Honduras and a legal system. This is a coup, despite the passions of the right-wing. They also have law enforcement. Anytime the military becomes involved, it is not as simple as impeachment by Congressional edict through military force. Shorter=coup.

Think on this...

As much as I disliked George W. Bush and Dick Cheney both, I would have screamed bloody hell if Congress - led by the Democrats - ordered the military to swoop down and remove both from office, dropping them off in Mexico against their will and named Nancy Pelosi the POTUS in a 24 hour period.

I would have been absolutely pleased if Congress had impeached both Dick Cheney and George Bush and a trial had taken place. That would actually be proof of a strong and vibrant democracy. Yet regardless of how corrupt both Bush and Cheney were/are and regardless of their abuses of power and the Constitution, I would still be against the use of military force to remove them from office and out of the country. I can only imagine how the right-wing would have reacted if a Democratic-led Congress enacted this in the US. They would be outraged and I would be standing with them. Would the right-wing, however, be outraged if Obama was removed by military force on the orders of a Republican-led Congress? Somehow I don't think so.

Regardless of how corrupt Zelaya was or was perceived to be as the leader of Honduras, an arrest and trial would be the proper method for his removal. The public would see the crimes and hear the testimony and justice would be served. Dropping Zelaya off in Costa Rica and not hold him accountable is not justice for his alleged crimes. It is simply a coup. By the way, I go to Costa Rica often. Being dropped off in any part of the valley, IMHO, would not be punishment. It is a lovely country with the cleanest air and water supply I have ever encountered. The Ticos are also extraordinary people. Seems like Zelaya got a vacation, not a punishment of any sort.

UPDATE I

Not only are some of the more extreme elements of the far right claiming this coup to be a victory for the Honduran people, they are also now claiming that the Obama administration is trying to undermine democracy by condemning the coup. Wow. How does one even begin a conversation with a person who cannot grasp basic principles of democracy? Just because someone (in this case, the people who ousted Zelaya) claims that there actions are legal, does not make it so. In fact, in every bloodless coup (and even most of the bloody ones), the people enacting the coup claim to represent the will of the nation and proclaim their actions entirely legal.

Again, use this example to better understand the absurdity of the "not coup" crowd:

Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership order the arrest and rendition of President Bush to Mexico using loyalists to the Dem leadership in the US military to accomplish this process. Pelosi and the Dems then quickly assemble enough of a majority to vote on a hastily written bill of sorts. The vote declares that Bush is no longer president and that Nancy Pelosi is now the POTUS.

A resignation letter alleged to have been written by Bush is provided to the compliant media. Yet Bush, who is by now in Mexico, denies ever having written a resignation letter or resigning. Pelosi, Justice Stevens, and SecDef Robert Gates all tell you this is legal.

What would you call this situation if you were a Republican sitting at home watching Fox News? Hell, I am an independent and I would call it a coup. How difficult is it to understand why this coup is exactly that, a coup? Why would anyone claim this was the workings of a functional democracy?

Coup in Honduras...Violent reacton might come from South America...

A remarkable turn of events in Honduras:

"Troops in Honduras have ousted the president and flown him out of the country after a power struggle over plans to change the constitution.

After arriving in Costa Rica, deposed President Manuel Zelaya said he had been kidnapped by soldiers in a "coup".

Mr Zelaya, elected for a non-renewable four-year term in January 2006, wanted a vote to extend his time in office.

His arrest came just before the start of a referendum ruled illegal by the Supreme Court and opposed by Congress.

There was also resistance within Mr Zelaya's own party to the plan to hold the vote."

This is a complex situation. Zelaya is not a traditional good/bad guy character. He pushed back against the exploitation of his country by foreign "investors," thereby making enemies of corporate interests in the US and the wealthy conservatives of Honduras. On the other side of the equation is Zelaya's attacks on the press and desire for dictatorial powers, which culminated in this coup. But the bigger concern is that other nations in the region will be dragged into this, perhaps into a violent conflict:

"Mr Zelaya's ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, blamed "the Yankee empire", and threatened military action in the event that the Venezuelan ambassador to Honduras was attacked"

Obviously, the "Yankee empire" being blamed by Chavez is us. Obama has denied US involvement, but will anyone believe anything the US has to say when we have a history of tampering with governments and free elections in both South and Central America? Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua will all likely believe we were involved, even if we were not.  Are we involved? I honestly don't know. Are certain corporate interests involved? I am guessing yes.

Obama to continue Bush's war on civil liberties and rule of law...

This is very disturbing news from WaPo:

"The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, is drafting an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

After months of internal debate over how to close the facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the facility by the president's January deadline."

I am starting to fully believe that this is no longer a matter of what to do with the detainees, but rather, how to best cover up our crimes against them.

National Press Club: DOJ Misconduct Presser - Footage

Following up on my earlier post, here is the C-Span footage of the conference. I urge you to watch the whole thing (maybe skip the first 5 min, as the speaker is not really saying much).

Also, the DVD being passed out is of this documentary (in three snips, but not in full):

Part I - Project Save Justice

Part II - Project Save Justice

Part III - Project Save Justice

Rush Limbaugh says Obama made Sanford do it... (oxy much anymore Rush?)

How much Oxy is Rush doing these days? Seriously, Rush is claiming that Obama made Sanford cheat on his wife (h/t Media Matters):

National Press Club: DOJ Misconduct Presser

UPDATES BELOW

I am not sure if C-Span will carry it, but this morning at the National Press Club in DC there will be a presser about domestic political prosecutions under the Bush administration. Scheduled to speak are Columbia prof Scott Horton, former Mississippi supreme court justice Oliver Diaz, journalist Andrew Kreig, and whistle-blower Dana Jill Simpson and others.

Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman was also scheduled to speak and was in DC already when he found out that he had an emergency legal filing back in Alabama.

If none of these names are familiar to you, read my series on DOJ misconduct:

• Part 1: Political Prisoner
• Part 2: Siegelman's Daughter Speaks Out
• Part 3: Running Elections from the White House
• Part 4: Mississippi Prosecutions
• Part 5: Interview with Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver E. Diaz, Jr.
• Part 6: Break-Ins Plague Targets of Political Prosecutions
  
• Part 7: Justice for Sale
• Judge who denied Paul Minor's release protoge of Karl Rove
• DOJ Investigating 2 US Attorneys in alleged political prosecutions
• 60 Minutes signal dropped in Alabama only during Siegelman portion
• Interview with Dana Jill Simpson on Karl Rove's alleged smears
• Karl Rove's next move: A Million Dollar House in Florida
• Abramoff said he had agreement with White House aid regarding communications
• Treasury Department investigating US Attorney for sharing private income tax returns of a case target

UPDATE
C-Span 3 is carrying it

UPDATE II
Scott Horton is up now speaking about the systematic use of prosecutorial powers for partisan (rather than legal) reasons during the Bush years. 

UPDATE III

House Judiciary Committee councel Elliot Mincberg is speaking now. Says the HJC has gotten Bush admin WH documents relating to the firing of US attorneys, but that those documents won't be released until after all the interviews are over - Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, et al.  He is also getting into various other DOJ scandals, including torture and such.

He was asked about inherent contempt charges against those who refuse to appear and testify before Congress. He is not really answering the question, but the bottom line is that it appears that Conyers is not willing to use the inherent contempt option.

UPDATE IV

Judge U.W. Clemen, Alabama's first African American judge with 30 years on the bench, is now speaking. He is speaking about US Attorney Alice Martin. See Part I link above for the summary. He is explaining how Alice Martin (with the help of the Birmingham News) shopped for the "right" judge to take the Siegelman case to. Astonishing stuff.

UPDATE V

Charles Walker Jr., the son of former Georgia state Senate majority leader who is in prison because of alleged political prosecutions is speaking now.  I have not covered this case, so I cannot say one way or another as I can with Don Siegelman's case or Paul Minor's case.

UPDATE VI

Reagan Assistant Attorney General, Bruce Fein, is now speaking.

UPDATE VII

Former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz is now up talking about his case and that of Paul Minor, et al. This is very moving. Paul Minor's daughter is there in the audience. Oh, I just got a shout out. Thank you.

CNN's Iran Timeline Omits US-Backed '53 Coup

Posted by Brad Jacobson

It might be more difficult for Republicans to bash President Obama for being "timid" in his comments about the Iranian government's violence against protesters if the U.S. media didn't consistently censor US-Iranian history.

Take CNN's recent Iran timeline, titled "A brief look at Iran's history."

According to the timeline, which begins in 1979, Iran has "been at odds with the West and some of its neighbors" since the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It refers to the Shah as having been "pro-Western." Yet in the mother of all omissions, CNN leaves out how the US government was directly involved in bringing the Shah to power in a 1953 coup that toppled the democratically elected Iranian government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.

As a June 4 Agence France-Presse article details:

The CIA, with British backing, masterminded the coup after Mossadegh nationalised the oil industry, run until then in by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

For many Iranians, the coup demonstrated duplicity by the United States, which presented itself as a defender of freedom but did not hesitate to use underhand methods to get rid of a democratically elected government to suit its own economic and strategic interests.

Sanfordgate 101...

Following up on my earlier post about the strange disappearance of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, more breaking news this evening of where he was and what he did. Think of this as Sanfordgate 101.

First, let's recap the story:

1. Sanford tells his staff he is going hiking on the Appalachian Trail last Thursday.
2. He goes MIA for nearly a week, to the point where authorities began to search for him
3. His staff continues to claim he is somewhere on the Appalachian Trail and unable to be reached
4. He returns today from Argentina and claims he went driving around the coast of Buenos Aires (which has no coastline)
5. I conclude that he is having an affair and/or went to rehab
6. Several hours later Sanford holds a news conference and confirms my suspicions about an affair.

Now for the latest (and even bizarre):

TPM has uncovered a strange Christian cult-like group connecting the Sanford affair to the Ensign affair. You can read more about The Family here. This of course has me thinking that since this group, The Family, is counseling all of these cheating politicians, imagine the power they have should they ever want to blackmail anyone. Kind of like Scientology and their auditing method, during which high profile members reveal their inner most secrets.

The State, a South Carolina publication obtained emails between Sanford and his mistress, Maria. The emails are typical love letters, including references to sexual encounters and declarations of undying love. This does not interest me much. In fact, it is embarrassing to read really because I feel like I am intruding into someone's most private thoughts - and I am. We all are. The scandal in this part of the Sanford affair, for me anyway, is the fact that The State had the emails since December of 08. Why did they sit on this story?

(more after the flip)

Washington Times negligent and misleading story on Obama and Iran...

I saw the headline and thought, wow:

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. contacted Iran's ayatollah before election

Then the article:

Prior to this month's disputed presidential election in Iran, the Obama administration sent a letter to the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calling for an improvement in relations, according to interviews and the leader himself.

Ayatollah Khamenei confirmed the letter toward the end of a lengthy sermon last week, in which he accused the United States of fomenting protests in his country in the aftermath of the disputed June 12 presidential election.

When was the letter sent? In early May, well before the election.

But the implication by the conservative Washington Times is rather obvious to me. In their misleading report, President Obama is depicted as "siding" with the regime of Iran right before the election of June 12. The article paints the alleged letter, which is apparently nothing more than the US asking for better relations between the two countries, as somehow untoward. Yet Obama has said all along that he wanted better relations with Iran, regardless of who is in power. This is not new "news." In addition, the Washington Times apparently has not seen the letter, so it is unclear what this exclusive report is about really.

But, given the Iranian regime's violence against protesters several days ago, placing Obama in that context as somehow showing preference for that kind of brutality scores political points with Conservatives who want the US to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Consider the comments the publication got for its article. Like this one, for example:

"Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the Obama administration would do better to "avoid any talk of engagement" with Iran until the outcome of the current political ferment is clearer.

"The fact is, we will by necessity engage, but not at the moment," he said. "I don't think we want to suggest it will be business as usual, regardless of the outcome" of the political struggle in Iran."

The letter was sent BEFORE the election, not during the current crisis. It is misleading, is it not?

This is propaganda, pure and simple. But then again, it is the Washington Times. You might be curious how the glue sniffers are reading this. Here are some examples:

From the Weekly - bomb, bomb, bomb Iran - Standard:

"Less than 24 hours after Barack Obama's strongest statement on Iran, three new stories underscore his administration's fundamentally weak approach to the terrorist regime and offer hints as to why he has been so eager to engage the mullahs. First, a Washington Times article by former USA Today reporter Barbara Slavin reveals that the Obama administration sent a letter directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in early May. According to the report, the letter laid out the administration's desire for "cooperation and bilateral relations."'

Very odd. For some strange reason, the "terrorist" regimes of Saudi Arabia, ISI controlled Pakistan, and countless others are of no interest to anyone. Why?

Then there is professor William Jacobson, who adds his own claims to what the letter in question says and to what the Washington Times does not even report:

"The events of the past two weeks, including the revelation that Obama sent a letter in May to "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reveal that there is one precondition to negotiations which Obama willingly embraces: United States acceptance of Mullah rule in Iran in perpetuity."

I have re-read the article three times now and I see nothing about any preconditions in the letter nor any specifics about the letter - beyond asking for better relations - as reported in this article. 

The National Review goes even farther, into la-la-land and over a cliff into a glue-sniffing haze of crazy:

"As the Iranian government’s murderous repression of the Iranian people continues, critics right and left agitate over the deafening silence of an American president who, as a candidate, derided the Bush administration’s ambitious democracy promotion as too timid. They speculate as to why Barack Obama won’t speak out: Why won’t he condemn the mullahs? Is he daft enough to believe he can charm the regime into abandoning its nuclear ambitions? Does the self-described realist so prize stability that he thinks it’s worth abandoning the cause of freedom — and the best chance in 30 years of dislodging an implacable American enemy?

In truth, it’s worse than that. Even as the mullahs are terrorizing the Iranian people, the Obama administration is negotiating with an Iranian-backed terrorist organization and abandoning the American proscription against exchanging terrorist prisoners for hostages kidnapped by terrorists. Worse still, Obama has already released a terrorist responsible for the brutal murders of five American soldiers in exchange for the remains of two deceased British hostages."

In other words, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran and plant stories to pressure the President into yet another war.

Did Gov. Sanford go on vacation with a mistress?

UPDATES BELOW

No doubt you have all by now heard the strange tale of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford:

"Sanford's whereabouts had been unknown since Thursday, and the mystery surrounding his absence fueled speculation about where he had been and who's in charge in his absence. His emergence Wednesday ended the mystery."

Both the Governor's office and state security services were unable to reach Sanford for days and days. Then his staff claimed to be in communication (and then not in communication) with him and that he was hiking:

"South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's staff has been swearing up and down, ever since Monday night, that their boss' disappearance was no big deal, that he was just off hiking the Appalachian Trail. Their assurances always lacked for credibility, though, considering the wildly conflicting stories about why the governor had been missing since last Thursday that have been flying around ever since the news of it first broke."

So everyone is worried, news stories are spreading that something may have happened to Sanford, his staff claims to be in some contact with him, and so forth, yet no one can find him. Nearly a week later, Sanford finally appears, claiming he was in Argentina:

"S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford arrived in the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport this morning, having wrapped up a seven-day visit to Buenos Aires, Argentina, he said. Sanford said he had not been hiking along the Appalachian Trail, as his staff said in a Tuesday statement to the media."

Given the conflicting accounts by his staff and their inability to come up with any sort of credible reason for what had happened to Sanford, one can only assume that his trip to Argentina was sudden and not planned. Or that he told everyone that he was going hiking, but had actually been planning on going to Argentina and without his security detail. I favor the latter.

Now, if I remember correctly, Argentina has phones and televisions. Why could his staff or anyone else not reach him for nearly a week? Moreover, his security detail was not with him. So unless the guy actually was in rehab all this time, the only other logical explanation is that he went on an unplanned trip or lied about a planned trip and wanted to keep it secret, to the point of causing national hysteria regarding his disappearance. The only reason to be that secretive is if you are taking a trip with a special friend.

I should note that I am speculating and have absolutely no proof that Sanford was vacationing with a lover. Yet as an investigative reporter I can tell you that his story is not credible.

Let us assume that Sanford did in fact change his mind at the last minute about where he was going on vacation, which is what he claims. There are phones all along the journey he took, including on the plane and the at both airports (assuming he took a direct flight).

I think one of the local reporters should be sniffing in this direction. There is no reason for Sanford to have been unreachable for nearly a week and have his staff say that he was in one location while he really was at another. Sorry, total BS and I don't buy it. He either lied to his staff thinking no one would miss him or he went last minute, thinking no one would miss him. Either way, I would wager serious money he was not alone.

Yes, I know Sanford claims he was alone on the trip and spent his time driving along the coastline. I love driving along coastlines too and have done so in several countries. But you don't sit in your car for seven days without ever getting out. You have to use the bathroom, sleep, eat, etc. That means you have access to a phone. He is a public official, head of a state, and he has to account for his whereabouts. Thus far, his story is laughable.

UPDATE ONE

I told you so!

Newsweek reporter arrested in Iran...

More journalists arrested in Iran, including Maziar Bahari, a Newsweek reporter:

"Among the dozens of people arrested overnight in Tehran was NEWSWEEK reporter Maziar Bahari, who has covered Iran for the magazine for over a decade. Bahari was home asleep at 7 a.m. when several security officers showed up at his Tehran apartment. According to his mother, who lives with the 41-year-old reporter and documentary filmmaker, the men did not identify themselves. They seized Bahari's laptop and several videotapes. Assuring her that he would be their guest, they then left with Bahari. He has not been heard from since.

In a statement, NEWSWEEK magazine has strongly condemned the detention of Bahari and called for him to be released immediately. Bahari is a dual Canadian-Iranian citizen. According to the statement, "His coverage of Iran, for NEWSWEEK and other outlets, has always been fair and nuanced, and has given full weight to all sides of the issues. He has always worked well with different administrations in Tehran, including the current one."

"Iran becomes world’s biggest prison for journalists"

The widely respected and influential organization, Reporters Without Borders, has issued a statement on mass arresting of journalists in Iran in recent days:

"The Islamic Republic of Iran now ranks alongside China as the world’s biggest prison for journalists. The crackdown has been intensified yet again following Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s endorsement of the result of the 12 June presidential election and the opposition’s decision to call another demonstration on 20 June.

Iran now has a total of 33 journalists and cyber-dissidents in its jails, while journalists who could not be located at their homes have been summoned by telephone by Tehran prosecutor general Said Mortazavi.

“The force of the demonstrations in Tehran is increasing fears that more Iranian journalists could be arrested and more foreign journalists could be expelled,” Reporters Without Borders said. “The regime has been visibly shaken by its own population and does not want to let this perception endure. That is why the media have become a priority target.”

The press freedom organisation added: “The international community cannot continue to ignore the situation. It must have a clear and unanimous reaction that is proportionate to the gravity of these events. And there will never be any question of recognising the results of the 12 June election.”

<snip>

At least 20 journalists had already been arrested since 12 June (see list below). Reporters Without Borders has not been able to trace many others. Some may have found refuge but others may now be with those of their colleagues who had already been in jail for some time. Even before the election, Iran was ranked as the Middle East’s biggest prison for journalists and cyber-dissidents."

Should the NYT have sat on Rohde's kidnapping story? Yes and No

The courageous escape yesterday of NYT reporter David Rohde from his Taliban captors may have ended differently and his fate would have been a direct result of a massive media silence.  Many news organizations refrained from giving the kidnapping publicity at the behest of NYT, Howard Kurtz reports today in WaPo.  The safety of Rohde, obviously, was more important than the story. I agree. This is a case where the public's right to know is not part of the equation and where the safety of an individual is the most important factor. Here is what Kurtz writes:

"There were times during the kidnapping ordeal of New York Times reporter David Rohde when his boss wavered in his determination to suppress the story.

"We agonized over it at the outset and, periodically, over the last seven months," Executive Editor Bill Keller said yesterday. "Of all the subjects we discussed with the family, that was the one we discussed more intensively than any other: Should we change strategy and go public?"

Keller decided against it, and he was aided by silence from at least 40 major news organizations -- including, after a personal appeal, al-Jazeera -- that continued until yesterday, when the Times confirmed that Rohde and an assistant had escaped their Taliban captors in Pakistan. Keller consulted not only government experts but also other news organizations that had been through similar experiences, and there was "a pretty firm consensus," he said, "that you really amp up the danger when you go public. . . . It makes us cringe to sit on a news story," but in a life-or-death situation, "the freedom to publish includes the freedom not to publish."

But what if Rohde had not escaped? Seven months is a long time to sit on a story and if Rohde had been killed, I think the public reaction would have been one of incredible outrage. I think the strategy was brilliant, perhaps only because Rohde escaped. I also agree with sitting on the story in order to avoid giving martyr status to the kidnappers. However, I don't think that waiting 7 months for Rohde to be let go was wise. If Rohde had not escaped, how long would the NYT and other news outlets have waited this out? Was there a line drawn in the sand as to when they would go public? This could have gone very badly and if it had, I think the public reaction would have been a sense of betrayal by 40+ news organizations.

Iran, a summary of today from around the blogs

No one has done a better job staying on top of the latest breaking news out of Iran than Andrew Sullivan. I think this post is frankly the best, as it represents a reader's views:

"A reader writes:

So here's what we have:They're afraid of murdering too many protesters all at once.  Eventually the protesters will come to understand how to work around this.

They can't open their telecomm pipes, because the minute they do 3 million people will know how and where to gather, and the world will get to see thousands of videos showing horrific instances of state violence against its subjects.They have to open their telecomm pipes, because their economy cannot function without telecomm.They can't repress too much, because the cleric support base will tip against them.

Rafsanjani is waiting to find out who'll keep his financial empire running.  He's going to come to conclude the current leadership's promises cannot be trusted; the country is now being run by a Fascist Islamic Mafia."

Of course the glue-sniffers are trying to figure out the best way to tie the violence in Iran to President Obama taking his children out for ice cream. I bet they will really nail him when he goes to fundraisers, stays on vacation, and gets presents like a guitar while an entire US city drowns or terrorism warnings are coming in. You betcha! 

Foreign policy expert Steve Clemons writes an interesting piece examaning President Obama's and Vice President Biden's views on Iran.

The typical neo-con propaganda for bomb, bomb, Iran is showcased over at the Weekly Standard. You see, because despite how we might all feel for the Iranian people stuck in this horror, we should get involved in yet another war, without any money and with a seriously strained military. Moreover, we should do it for crimes we refuse to see in ourselves. Considering their track record, is it not about time that the neo-cons exited stage left?

Wonkette does a typically satirical piece (which is why we love them) inserting Rep. Peter Hoekstra into the mix. Perhaps when Hoekstra next meets with an Iranian arms dealer, he might ask about additional security detail? Just asking.

And this concludes my attempt at a blog round-up:)

President Obama issues a statement on Iran...

The full text below:

"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness."

Breaking: David Rohde (NYT reporter) escapes Taliban!!!

Some good news for a change:

"NEW YORK, June 20 -- A New York Times reporter who was kidnapped by the Taliban and held for the past seven months in the mountainous region near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border escaped, along with a Afghan reporter, by climbing over a wall and finding a nearby Pakistani army base, the newspaper said in a report posted on its Web site.

The reporter, David Rohde, 41, was taken captive Nov. 10 with local reporter Tahir Ludin and their driver, while he was in the early stages of researching a book on Afghanistan. News organizations, including The Washington Post, did not report on the abduction at the request of the Times, which feared that publication of the news could endanger the lives of the men.

Rohde traveled to Kabul, the Afghan capital, in early November, and was kidnapped after he, Ludin and their driver, Assadullah Mangal, set out in a car for a prearranged interview with a Taliban commander. He told colleagues at the Times' bureau in Kabul that he believed he would be fine, but he left instructions on whom to call in case he did not return.

Rohde, a two time Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, was not on assignment for the Times when he was abducted but was working on a book about the history of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan."

Iran protest update...(Live Updating)

Following up on this post, apparently a suicide bomber (guess which side he supported) blew himself up near a shrine to Aytollah Khomeini:

"TEHRAN (Reuters) - A suicide bomber blew himself up near the shrine of Iran's revolutionary founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in Tehran on Saturday, Iran's semi-official Mehr news agency reported.

"A few minutes ago a suicide bomber blew himself up at the shrine," Mehr quoted a police official, Hossein Sajedinia, as saying.

Two other people were wounded in the incident in the northern wing of the shrine, another news agency, Fars, said.

Elsewhere in Tehran Iranian riot police used teargas to disperse demonstrators protesting against a disputed presidential election, a witness said."

My biggest concern for the protesters is a possible army of such suicide bombers blowing themselves up in the thick of the crowd. Thus far, beatings have been the most violent method employed by police. Suicide bombings, however, can be denied as sanctioned by the state government while at the same time being used as a weapon against the protesters.

UPDATE TWO - 1:42 PM EST

Okay, the Iran protest is getting more bloody by the moment. Below is some footage (h/t Trita Parsi). I warn you, it is graphic.

UPDATE THREE- 2: 34 PM EST

More blood and police brutality. I am very worried that the longer this goes, the more aggressive the black-boot wearing bastards will be. More footage, this from Shiraz:

UPDATE FOUR - 2:38 PM EST

Police use deadly force, opening fire on protesters. My prayers are with them:( God, this is what I feared and what I thought had been avoided given the early accounts.

UPDATE FIVE - 2:54 PM EST

Another person shot dead by Iranian police. I don't know the full count yet, trying to find the most accurate figures. Again, footage is very disturbing.

Did Fox News out a source to protect a Republican Senator? (from my RS blog)...

I wrote this yesterday, but forgot to post it here as well. Here are some snips from Fox' latest scandal:

It is looking like someone at Fox News may have exposed a source who came forward with serious allegations about a Republican senator.

The source in question is Doug Hampton, who along with his wife previously worked for Senator John Ensign. Hampton allegedly sent a letter to Fox’s Megyn Kelly about an affair that Sen. Ensign had with Hampton's wife. The letter was allegedly sent some five days before Sen. Ensign publicly confessed his infidelity, leading to speculation that someone at Fox notified Ensign.  This morning Fox denied receiving the letter or any communications from Hampton until about a day before Ensign's confession.

Ultimately, when they did follow up with Hampton, Fox News producer Tom Lowell told Huffington Post, they found his claims were not "credible."

"We always evaluate people when they call into the newsroom in terms of: does this sound like its solid? Does it sound like its actionable?" Lowell said. "There were some questions here, so we decided that we would make some inquiries but that it wasn't something we needed to move on immediately. And before we could nail everything down and confirm this story the Senator had already announced his press conference."

Lowell denies that anyone at Fox News would have contacted the senator to give him a head's up on Hampton's allegations.

But it may not be so simple.

Read the whole thing here. Digg it here.

Initial reports - Iran's protest not as bloody as feared (see updates)

Updates here

##

Looks like paramilitary police and Iranian citizens are clashing during the demonstration today. The good news is that deadly force is not being used - which is what I was worried about. Nevertheless, anytime a state power attacks peaceful protesters - even with non-deadly force - it shows the world just how precious freedom is and how governments across the globe are willing to attack their own people in order to silence them. Here is the latest from Tehran:

TEHRAN — Riot police and paramilitary militia forces fired tear gas and wielded wooden batons to disperse thousands of opposition demonstrators gathering in central Tehran on Saturday, but some of the protesters struck back, sometimes violently, hurling stones at the militia forces and setting some of their motorcycles alight.

--snip--

Some of the protesters turned and ran, but others stood their ground, grabbing anything they could find — sticks and rocks and bricks — to throw at the militia. Three motorcycles were set on fire, filling the area with flames and smoke. Each time the protesters managed to gain ground against the militia, known as the Basij, a roar of support went up from the demonstrators.The number of protesters was much smaller than in recent days, but there were women as well as men among them. Some reports indicated that security forces in other areas had fired their guns into the air, and there were no confirmed reports that any protesters had been directly fired at.

Before the John Bolton's of the world start demanding that we bomb Iran, let me remind all of you of how common such a show of government force is in the United States. Unless we want to bomb ourselves, we have little room to talk. Perhaps the best approach - and one I fully support - is to show the world what real freedom looks like and how democracy functions. But with torture, Gitmo, political prosecutions, and so forth, I have little hope that we will set ourselves apart as an example any time soon.

Here are two examples of how our own police have treated our own protesters.