-
Illegal Immigration Watch: Senator Arlen Specter Supports “Borders First” Immigration Policy?
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) speaks to reporters in the offices of the Washington Times yesterday.Washington Times: Specter puts borders first
The security of the border should be the No. 1 priority for an immigration bill, Sen. Arlen Specter said yesterday, and he’s open to a compromise that sets goals for border and interior enforcement ahead of a guest-worker program and path to citizenship for illegal aliens.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said that in order for Congress to produce an immigration bill this year, President Bush must lobby personally on specific details in the bill — something he has not done.
“The president’s got to be there. He’s got to get involved, in my opinion, in the negotiations. Now, he has not yet been willing to do that,” the Pennsylvania Republican told editors and reporters at The Washington Times.
He said Mr. Bush has participated only at the level of “generalization” and is going to have to do far more to convince lawmakers “that the border’s going to be secure, that employer verification’s going to happen. That’s the crunch time.”
Mr. Specter would be chairman of the conference when the House and Senate meet to hammer out the differences between their bills.
Well, Specter should have thought of border security first before voting for the disastrous amnesty laden Senate bill that is now languishing within the House-Senate conference committee. Flap thinks he may be talking political expedience after seeing polls that demonstrate the Senate bill far out of what “Main Street” Americans desire for immigration policy and border security.
Flap invites Senator Specter to Los Angeles to see the Mexicanization of California’s largest urban area. Parts of Los Angeles resemble Mexico/Central America in appearance, character and substance.
And there isn’t an illegal immigration problem?
Senator, what are you thinking?
And we need a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens?
Flap thinks NOT.
Mr. Specter said that although the Senate would insist on a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for many illegal aliens in the final compromise bill, he is open to legislation that would make those proposals contingent on having a secure border and improved interior enforcement.
“It may be down the line that we will come to some terms on a timetable, with border security first and employment verification first,” he said.
Such an amendment was offered during the Senate floor debate, but failed by a vote of 55-40, with Mr. Specter joining most Democrats and some Republicans in defeating it. Yesterday, Mr. Specter said he understands the sentiment of those who want enforcement first.
“That’s got to be in place firmly. But I don’t think the Senate will pass a bill that’s limited to that,” he said, adding that those decisions about a timetable will “come in very hardfisted negotiations at the end of the rainbow.”
Who is Specter kidding? He doesn’t care about increasing border security. He wants to pander to Hispanic voters and legalize illegal aliens via an amnesty and establish a guest worker program for his big donor corporate PAC friends .
Specter is as pathetic as he always is.
Why the Senate Majority ever allowed him to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee is beyond Flap?
Flap continues to handicap NO immigration bill this year but some appropriations for increased border security.
Congressional GOP candidates will do well running against President Bush and Arlen Specter on illegal immigration.
Stay tuned…….
Captain Ed has Specter: Borders First
Specter’s conversion gives hope that the Senate may finally have gotten
the message from the American electorate about the primacy of border
security. If we have Specter on board, then it looks much easier to get
past a filibuster, and it may also prove beneficial in drafting some of
the other moderates to the staged approach. In the end, though, we will
need to see the thresholds they have in mind before we can really hope
to see actual progress on border security.Discuss this blog post and MORE…. at the FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blogs, My Dental Forum
A US Border Patrol officer patrols the fence at the US-Mexico border near Nogales, Arizona.
Previous:
Illegal Immigration Watch: GOP Congressional Leaders – Pathway to Citizenship Bill is DEAD
Illegal Immigration Watch: Pennsylvania City to “CRACKDOWN†on Illegal Immigration
Illegal Immigration Watch: Operation Return to Sender
Illegal Immigration Watch: Federal Immigration Agents Raid Dulles International Airport
Illegal Immigration Watch: Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert Wants “A LONG LOOK†at Senate Immigration Bill
Illegal Immigration Watch: Mexican Border Crossings Reduced Since National Guard Troops DeployedIllegal Immigration Watch: Arizona Court Upholds Immigration Smuggling Law
Illegal Immigration Watch: California Anti-illegal Immigration Billboards Go Up on Freeways
Illegal Immigration Watch: “Anchor†Babies Away
Illegal Immigration Watch: Dunkin’ Donuts Now Screening Employees For Work Status
Technorati Tags: illegalimmigration, illegalaliens, arlenspecter
-
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Says NO
Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, talks with Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade, unseen, under a picture of Iran’s late revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khomeini, during their official meeting in Tehran, Iran, Tuesday, June 27, 2006. Khamenei has rejected the prospect of talks with the United States on the nuclear program, saying nothing would be gained, state television reported Tuesday. ‘Negotiations with the United States would have no benefit for us, and we do not need them,’ the television quoted Khamenei as telling Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade.AP: Iranian Leader: Talks With U.S. Not Needed
Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran does “not need” talks with the United States over its nuclear program because nothing would be gained, state television reported Tuesday.
The United States has said that if Iran accepts a package of incentives meant to get Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment, it would join its European partners in negotiations with the Islamic republic over a framework for its nuclear program. That package was offered earlier this month.
“Negotiations with the United States would have no benefit for us, and we do not need them,” state television quoted Khamenei as telling Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade.
Washington’s offer to join talks was seen as a major concession since the United States lists Iran as a sponsor of international terrorism and there have been no diplomatic relations between the two countries since 1979, when militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took Americans hostage for 444 days.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration does not consider Khamenei’s comments to be an official response. The United States and its European partners have said they are waiting for Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, to communicate with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Snow said.
Is this a definite NO regarding the Big 6 proposal or more bloviation for an additonal stall with regards to negotiations with the Europeans (without the United States)?
There have been ample time and opportunity to work a compromise to end this crisis. But, Iran covets nuclear weapons and does not wish to end uranium enrichment PERIOD.
When the offical NO is delivered, it is off to the United Nations Security Council.
“We do not negotiate with anybody on achieving and exploiting nuclear technology,” the TV quoted Khamenei as saying. “But if they recognize our nuclear rights, we are ready to negotiate about controls, supervisions and international guarantees.”
Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters, said the West would misuse the negotiating process to pressure his country.
Khamenei means when the Big 6 recognizes that Iran posseses nuclear weapons that Iran may negotiate.
Of course, this is a deal ending statement.
All of the Irnaian negotiations for years has yielded NOTHING. Is this a surprise?
NOPE
Discuss this blog post and MORE…. at the FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blogs, My Dental Forum.
Previous:
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Faces Gas Rationing
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Urges Patience
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Repeats Threat to Use Oil As a Weapon
Iran Nuclear Watch: Uranium Enrichment Halt Not a Precondition to Negotiations And Not EVER
Iran Nuclear Watch: Uranium Enrichment Halt Not a Precondition to Negotiations
Iran Nuclear Watch: President Bush Rejects August Iranian Response to Big 6 Proposal
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Accuses the United States of Pushing Europe Away from Compromise
Iran Nuclear Watch: President Ahmadinejad – Big 6 Proposal a “Step Forwardâ€
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Would “Use Nuclear Defense†If Threatened
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Sends Mixed Signals on Big 6 Proposal?
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei REJECTS Suspension of Uranium EnrichmentThe Natanz uranium enrichment complex in Natanz is pictured in this January 2, 2006 satellite image.
Technorati Tags: Iran, MahmoudAhmadinejad
-
Day By Day by Chris Muir June 27, 2006
Discuss this blog post and MORE…. at the FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blogs, My Dental Forum
-
Michael Ramirez on Senator John Kerry’s FAILED Anti-Iraq War Resolutions
Flap: Iraq War Watch: Senate Rejects Democrat Resolutions on Iraq Troop Pullout
Technorati Tags: MichaelRamirez, IraqWar, JohnKerry
-
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Faces Gas Rationing
Iranian women walk past an anti-aircraft machine gun inside the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, south of Tehran. The Group of Eight foreign ministers will urge Iran this week to accept a proposal for talks on its nuclear drive unless Tehran responds first, a Japanese official has said.
World Tribune: Oil-rich Iran faces gasoline rationing
Iran plans to ration gasoline.
Officials said Iran, hampered by a shortfall in funding, would halt the import of 200,000 barrels per day of gasoline on Sept. 23, 2006. They said no decision has been made on when to begin gasoline rationing.
Despite its status as the fourth largest oil producer in the world, Iran lacks refining capacity to meet the nation’s fuel needs.
The announcement to end gasoline imports — most of it from Western Europe — stemmed from a decision by parliament to reduce the budget for gasoline imports to $2.5 billion from $4 billion, Middle East Newsline reported.
A key parliamentarian has already dismissed the prospect of rationing in the near term.
“Next week will be time to decide when we start rationing,” Iranian Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh said on June 23.
“Because there is no budget for importing gasoline in the second half of the year, naturally imports will be stopped and gasoline will be supplied by rationing.”
Interesting. A shortage of gasoline will make it hard for the Iranian Army to resist a land invasion by the United States and Allies – should Iran refuse to cease uranium enrichment.
And what would economic sanctions do to Iran? Hardship – even more than what is anticipated.
Does it make sense to the world that the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad would continue to press against the Big 6 Proposal?
NOPE
But, Iran covets nuclear weapons.
Stay tuned……
Discuss this blog post and MORE…. at the FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blogs, My Dental Forum.
Previous:
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Urges Patience
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Repeats Threat to Use Oil As a Weapon
Iran Nuclear Watch: Uranium Enrichment Halt Not a Precondition to Negotiations And Not EVER
Iran Nuclear Watch: Uranium Enrichment Halt Not a Precondition to Negotiations
Iran Nuclear Watch: President Bush Rejects August Iranian Response to Big 6 Proposal
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Accuses the United States of Pushing Europe Away from Compromise
Iran Nuclear Watch: President Ahmadinejad – Big 6 Proposal a “Step Forwardâ€
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Would “Use Nuclear Defense†If Threatened
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Sends Mixed Signals on Big 6 Proposal?
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei REJECTS Suspension of Uranium EnrichmentThe Natanz uranium enrichment complex in Natanz is pictured in this January 2, 2006 satellite image.
Technorati Tags: Iran, MahmoudAhmadinejad
-
Global War on Terror Watch: United States Treasury Secretary Snow Responds to Bill Keller of the New York Times
President George W. Bush (2nd R) speaks to the press at the end of a Cabinet meeting, in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington June 1, 2006. With Bush are U.S. Secretary of HHS Mike Leavitt (L), U.S. Secretary of Interior nominee Dirk Kempthorne (2nd L), U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (3rd L) and U.S. Secretary of Treasury John Snow.
The Department of the Treasury: Letter to the Editors of The New York Times
by Treasury Secretary SnowMr. Bill Keller, Managing Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
Dear Mr. Keller:
The New York Times’ decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.
Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were “half-hearted” is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times – from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.
Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing “half-hearted” about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.
You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that “terror financiers know” our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.
Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the “public interest” in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of – even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.
What you’ve seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available – lawfully and responsibly – to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.
Sincerely,
[signed]
John W. Snow, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Flap agrees with Hugh Hewitt in that John Snow has called Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the New York Times OUT as a LIAR. Flap has just finished listening to Keller on CNN’ Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and will try to get the video to post up here tonight. Believe me the arrogrance and Keller’s misstated facts is beyond belief. Keller’s contact is near treasonous and Flap urges the Attorney General to go after the government leakers first and then Keller for violating our federal espoinage/national security laws.
Allah has the video/audio of the CNN Keller interview here.
As far as Flap is concerned Bill Keller can be frog marched out of the New York Times offices and thrown in a cell and let him reflect on how many Americans he endangered with this reckless act. Bill Keller, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau are not above the law and have put Americans in jeopardy. Mr. Keller, how many Americans have to die?
Hugh Hewitt on his radio show this afternoon has interviewed Doyle McManus Washington Bureau Chief of the Los Angeles Times. When the transcript comes up, Flap will have some comments about this stammering dumbshit’s interview. His conduct and arrogance are DISGRACEFUL.
Stay tuned……
Michelle Malkin has TREASURY TO KELLER: “IRRESPONSIBLE;”
MURTHA, KEAN, HAMILTON INTERVENEDMore just in: AJ Strata notes that in an interview with CNN, Bill Keller reveals that John Murtha–yes, that John Murtha–also joined Kean and Hamilton in pleading with the Times not to run the story…
Plus: Video of Tony Snow laying the smackdown over at Hot Air.
Graphic courtesy of Michelle Malkin
Patterico has a more satirical view of Bill Keller’s response with Blogosphere Excels in Reaction to Keller Letter
The blogosphere did a bang-up job today reacting to Bill Keller’s silly missive in defense of publishing classified details of an effective counterterrorism program. Rarely have I been prouder to be associated with such a group of clever folks — all giving world-class opinions for free!
I can’t give you every good link out there, but here are a few that caught my attention:
For those short on time, Wizbang admirably summarizes Keller’s letter:
Dear Reader:
1) We have no reason to believe the program was illegal in any way.
2) We have every reason to believe it was effective at catching terrorists.
3) We ran the story anyway, screw you.
Bill Keller
But for my money, as is so often the case, some of the best expressed and most on-target sentiments came from one of my very favorite bloggers (if not my very favorite), Allahpundit, in this post.
It’s more direct, more entertaining, and more dead on target than anything you’ll read in the newspaper about this sad affair.
These are terrible days for Old Media, as exemplified by Keller’s pathetic letter. But these are also great days for New Media, as exemplified by the thoughtful and funny posts quoted above.
Previous:
Los Angeles Times Watch: Patterico and Danziger Dump the Los Angeles Dog Trainer
Global War on Terror Watch: Dear Mr. Keller – Why?
Technorati Tags: BillKeller, HughHewitt, NewYorkTimes, GlobalWaronTerror, Swift, JohnSnow, DoyleMcManus
-
Global War on Terror Watch: President Bush Condemns Disclosure and Publishing Details of SWIFT Anti-Terrorism Finance Program
Graphic courtesy of Michelle Malkin
AP: Bush slams leak of terror finance story
President Bush on Monday sharply condemned the disclosure of a program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. “The disclosure of this program is disgraceful,” he said.
“For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America,” Bush said, jabbing his finger for emphasis. He said the disclosure of the program “makes it harder to win this war on terror.”
And the uproar over the disclosure/leak of the program is almost as great as the revulsion towards the attitude of the New York and Los Angeles Times for printing the story.
Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the New York Times, offers his explanation: Letter From Bill Keller on The Times’s Banking Records Report.
The following is a letter Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, has sent to readers who have written to him about The Times’s publication of information about the government’s examination of international banking records:
I don’t always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands, but our story about the government’s surveillance of international banking records has generated some questions and concerns that I take very seriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publish that story, I’d like to offer a personal response.
Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government’s anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that’s the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror.
The arrogance of Keller is obvious from the introductory paragraphs. Has the Fourth Estate abdicated their responsibility to America’s National Security?
Apparently…….
Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger (left) presents Bill Keller of The New York Times, with the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.Read the rest of the piece here.
Hugh Hewitt dissects Keller’s response: Mr. Keller Believes You Are Easily Confused
I don’t believe him, and there is no reason to believe him. The paper has been waging a war on the war and on the Adminsitration for years, so it has no credibility when it comes to arguing its good intentions.
What matters though is the statement that “other conscientious people” could have reached a different decision.
In fact, they did. The Congresses and the presidents of the past have passsed laws about what is classified and who can release it. They didn’t include the editor of the New York Times in the group that can make national security decisions. Mr. Keller decided he would risk the national security of the United States and the lives of its citizens. He has done so before and will no doubt do so again.
This incredibly weak response tells us that Bill Keller will not be responding to interview requests, at least not from any critic of the paper’s decision. He doesn’t have an argument. He doesn’t have any defense other than his position as editor of a once great newspaper.
Read it ALL.
Maybe you consider the safeguards thin because you don’t understand them, Mr. McManus. In your reporters’ story, they describe administrative subpoenas as “a little-known power,†and claim: “The subpoenas are secret and not reviewed by judges or grand juries, as are most criminal subpoenas.†As I have shown in this post, these subpoenas are not “little-known†to law enforcement, but are actually quite common — and your assumption that “most criminal subpoenas†are “reviewed by judges or grand juries†is quite wrong. Trust me on this. Criminal subpoenas are almost never reviewed by judges or grand juries. When I read this sentence of the article to working prosecutors, they laugh out loud. That’s how wrong it is.
And I speak for a lot of Americans when I say that we don’t want to “learn over time†whether this story has impeded our counterterrorism efforts. We wish you’d simply left the story alone, so that we didn’t have to undergo that “test†of your judgment.
Mr. McManus, you don’t really know how criminal prosecutors do their business. You didn’t really know how successful this program was when you ran the story. And your stated concerns about the program — its legality and safeguards — appear to have been answered, to a large degree, in favor of the program.
Here’s my bottom line, Mr. McManus:
Maybe you should be a little more careful about taking it upon yourself to weigh your mistaken impressions of these various factors against the safety of myself and my family.
Michelle Malkin has WHY THEY BLABBED: IT’S THE ARROGANCE
Arrogance may not be a crime, but Rep. Peter King thinks the MSM blabbermouths ought to be prosecuted for publishing secrets in wartime. Gabriel Schoenfeld made the definitive case in the March issue of Commentary and testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the national security threat of the NYTimes’ December disclosure of terrorist surveillance earlier this month:…
Blogosphere:
It is time for another First Amendment Freedom of Speech case before the United States Supreme Court. The Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, should posecute the government employees who “LEAKED” this story and the New York/Los Angeles Times for printing them. National Security is no small “right” that should be protected in time of war – and the Global War on Terror IS a WAR.
The American Press has self-regulated itself in not printing what they deem harmful to the United States. However, in this case and the case of the NSA Surveillance Progam they have crossed the line. It is time for the United States Supreme Court to exert the control that obvioulsy the Press has been unable to accomplish themselves.
Previous:
Los Angeles Times Watch: Patterico and Danziger Dump the Los Angeles Dog TrainerGlobal War on Terror Watch: Dear Mr. Keller – Why?
Technorati Tags: BillKeller, HughHewitt, NewYorkTimes, GlobalWaronTerror, Swift
-
North Korea Watch: President Bush – North Korea Should Tell World of Their INTENT
A U.S Army soldier uses a radio near a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile system at a Korean military air base in Suwon, south of Seoul, Thursday, Sept. 18, 2003. Tokyo and Washington will deploy advanced Patriot interceptor missiles in Japan for the first time, officials said Monday, June 26, 2006 amid concerns North Korea may be preparing to test-fire a long-range ballistic missile.
Reuters: Bush: U.S. doesn’t know N. Korea missile intent
President George W. Bush said on Monday that North Korea should tell the world what it has atop a missile the United States believes it is preparing to launch.
“The North Koreans should notify the world of their intentions, what they have on top of that vehicle,” Bush said. “So we don’t know, we don’t know, that’s part of the problem, it’s a non-transparent society that ought to be sharing its intentions with the rest of the world.”
U.S. officials have said North Korea was preparing to test a long-range ballistic missile that some experts say could reach parts of the United States.
Washington and Tokyo have warned Pyongyang of a harsh response if it went ahead with the launch.
In the meantime, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon has arrived in Beijing to meet with Chinese officials about the North Korean Missile crisis.
South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon (2nd L) smiles to journalists upon arrival at Beijing Capital Airport June 26, 2006. Ban arrived in China on Monday for talks with Chinese officials on the missile crisis of North Korea.
Remember Flap outlined three options for President Bush:
1. Preemptive destruction of the missile prior to launch with B-2 delivered Smart Bombs.
2. Missile interception by Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) or Aegis Ship-Based BMD or both.
or…..
3. Do nothing and await diplomatic resolution through the United Nations Security Council.
It ia apparent that the United States is pursuing a diplomatic track to resolve this crisis and any preemptive strike option has been considered but rejected.
The Missile Defense Agency has assured the President of an extremely high probability of interception, if the missile is launched.
President Bush is RIGHT to publically ask North Korea of their intentions. Now, the private diplomacy can begin to discover what North Korea REALLY desires.
Stay tuned……
A commercial satellite photo of North Korea’s Nodong missile launch site taken on by a Digital Globe satellite and annotated and released by analysts at GlobalSecurity.org on May 24, 2006. The United States and Japan warned North Korea on Monday against a missile launch that experts say could reach as far as Alaska and threatened harsh action if the test flight goes ahead.
Discuss this blog post and MORE…. at the FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blogs, My Dental Forum.
Previous:North Korea Watch: Former Vice President Mondale Supports Preemptive Strike Against North Korea
Michael Ramirez on Missile Defense
North Korea Watch: SM-3 Block IA Interceptor Missile SUCCESSFULLY Fired in Thursday’s Test
North Korea Watch: United States Says “NO†to Direct Talks
North Korea Watch: Direct Talks with the United States?
North Korea Watch: Korea Says it “Is NOT Bound†by Missile Test Ban
North Korea Watch: United States Activates Missile Defense Shield – Part 2
North Korea Watch: United States Activates Missile Defense Shield
North Korea Watch: North Korea Threatens to “Mercilessly Wipe Out†US Forces In Case of War
North Korea Watch: Preparing to Launch A Long Range Ballistic Missile?
North Korea Watch: North Koreans Can and Have Made a Few Nuclear Devices
North Korea Harvesting More Plutonium for Nuclear Weapons
Technorati Tags: NorthKorea, KimJongIl, MissileDefenseAgency
-
Day By Day by Chris Muir June 26, 2006
Discuss this blog post and MORE…. at the FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blogs, My Dental Forum
-
Los Angeles Times Watch: Conservative Members of Chandler Family “HIT” by Los Angeles Times Editors
Los Angeles Times: The Family Feud Behind a Media Fight
The move to break up Times owner Tribune Co. has roots in discord in the Chandler clan.
In 1995, Jeffrey Chandler decided to break with tradition and expose a family schism. A member of the large, extended and very private family that owned the Los Angeles Times, he had come to believe that the newspaper had become far too liberal under the control of his cousin, Otis Chandler.
It was time for The Times to return to its conservative roots, Chandler and his sister, Corinne Werdel, told Forbes magazine. “We have the inmates running the asylum,” Werdel said. “They’re so far out in left field.”
The siblings were especially upset with the paper’s coverage of gay rights and AIDS. “This is a mainstream paper, and the homosexual population is 1% to 1.5%,” Jeffrey Chandler said. “When you start featuring these kinds of stories the way The Times does … my God, you’ve got a campaign going on here.”
Not much came of the complaints, or of a study the two reportedly commissioned around the same time. Never made public, the study, by a consulting firm, is said to have argued that the paper should adopt a more conservative stance, modeling itself after publications such as the National Review, the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal. Werdel and her brother had limited power then to influence the paper or its parent company, Times Mirror Co.
Today, Jeffrey Chandler, 64, is at the center of power within the Chandler family, which sold Times Mirror six years ago to Tribune Co. of Chicago. As one of three family representatives on the Tribune board, he is a key player in the Chandlers’ fight to force the sale or breakup of the giant media company and could ultimately help determine the future of the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Baltimore Sun, Newsday, KTLA-TV and other Tribune properties.
The piece goes onto to portray the Chandler family as greedy, uncooperative, Christian Right Wing, manipulative financiers who do not give a damn about the Los Angeles Times, journalism or anything slse but their own financial wealth.
First, the Los Angeles Times editors go after Tribune Chairman and CEO Dennis FitzSimons.
Next, they “HIT” the Chandler family and their Trusts – the long time owners of the Los Angeles Times that are in a business war over the financial transactions through which the Los Angeles Times was sold to the Tribune Company.
Even more interesting is that Michael Hiltzik, Lefty and disgraced former sock puppet blogger contributed to this piece. Hiltzik wouldn’t have an axe to grind now would he? Or be amenable to write whatever his editors desire due to his tenuous employment situation at the Times and the likelyhood that other newspapers or journalistic enterprises would ever hire him.
This is an interesting piece indeed from the editors of the Los Angeles Times.
If the Tribune Company does not clean house (FIRE the Los Angeles Times Senior Editors and Publisher) then Flap is sure the Chandler family will.
Dean Baquet (Editor) – say good night Gracie and don’t let the door hit you in the ASS as you leave.
Los Angeles Times Editor John S. Carroll, left, announces his retirement to news staff. Managing Editor Dean P. Baquet, center, will succeed him on Aug. 15. Publisher Jeffrey M. Johnson, right, praised Carroll’s leadership, saying, “We are indebted to him for his extraordinary legacy of journalistic excellence and wish him every happiness in the future.â€
Previous:
Los Angeles Times Watch: Tribune Company CEO “HIT†by the Los Angeles Times Editors
Technorati Tags: LosAngelesTimes, MichaelHiltzik, TribuneCompany, ChandlerFamily, OtisChandler, JeffreyChandler, DeanBaquet, JeffreyMJohnson