"axis of evil"???

BBC reports, Attention is focused on North Korea amid reports the communist country could hand over a long-awaited declaration of its nuclear activities. The declaration, which is six months overdue, should contain full details of its nuclear program and facilities. I guess this is a good thing, hopefully we can get something positive out of it this time. North Korea has prevouisly committed to shut down their nuclear power in exchange for energy assistance, once in 2003 and 2005. Both time they back out of the deal.



During negotiations, the United States ultimately softened demands that North Korea admit to having a highly enriched uranium program and supplying Syria with nuclear technology, sticking points that had stalled the talks for months. U.S. officials said the final deal wasn't perfect but offered Washington its best chance to learn about North Korea's nuclear activities.

On Friday, North Korea is set to implode a cooling tower at its Yongbyon nuclear reactor. Nuclear experts have begun dismantling the plant's main reactor, but the destruction of the cooling tower is expected to be a powerful public symbol. And it is a step that would take North Korea more than a year to reverse, according to U.S. State Department officials. In a rare move, North Korea has invited international news organizations, including CNN, to witness the tower's destruction. I think it is interesting to see how the media covers this on friday and I also wonder if its coverage will be benefitial or damaging for North Korea. I think allowing reporters to witness the towers destruction is a good way for North Korea to use the media. We'll see.

Sen. John McCain, called North Korea's declaration "a modest step forward.""It is only a step covering one part of North Korea's nuclear activities. It is important to remember our goal has been the full, permanent and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. That must remain our goal," McCain said in a statement. "If we are unable to fully verify the declaration submitted today and if I am not satisfied with the verification mechanisms developed, I would not support the easing of sanctions on North Korea."


Sen. Barack Obama, also called the move "a step forward" and noted that "critical questions remain unanswered." He said sanctions should be lifted only if North Korea meets its obligations. "We should continue to pursue the kind of direct and aggressive diplomacy with North Korea that can yield results," he said in a statement. "The objective must be clear: the complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs."

Careful comments from both candidates, neither candidates want to make a mistake on this one.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-California, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, welcomed the president's action but said important steps remained ahead.

The biggest significance of today's announcement is that North Korea is actually letting multiple foreign journalists into the country to give national information. Previously, the foreig press was tantalized with little "fun-facts" adding to the "secrecy" image of North Korea.

This is a bit out of the subject but I thought it was interesting. Is about one of CNN editors that traveled to North Korea in 2005. One of the things I found interesting in this article was that the former leader of North Korea Kim Il Sung, who died in 1994, had his body embalmed and lie in glass-covered coffin. This is on display in a museum in the North Korean Capital. According to the article the Russians whom have a similar situation in a museum in Moscow with former leader Vladimir Lenin, reportedly helped the North Koreans with the cosmetic aspects of their former leader.

This is the article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/19/nkorea.dougherty.notebook/index.html

NOW, in 2008, North Korea is giving the international press information about it's nuclear capabilities. Big step... but is just a tease?

Bush to capture Bin Laden before leaving office

CNN’s Jack Cafferty reported President George Bush has enlisted British special forces in a final attempt to capture Osama Bin Laden before he leaves the White House. Defense and Intelligence sources in Washington and London confirmed that a renewed hunt was on for the leader of the September 11 attacks. One source says: “If President Bush can say he killed Saddam Hussein and captured bin Laden, he can claim to have left the world a safer place.”




Is this a way to put a positive end to a failed policy or is this a Republican move to help McCain?
Pres. Bush will get some recognition if he catches Bin Laden and this will boost for McCain's campaign for sure. Just imagine how convenient it will be to capture Bin Laden now. After all these years running after him with no success, Pres. Bush gets serious and captures Bin Laden. He can say that all this time in Afghanistan paid off and now the world is a safer place. After catching Osama the Saudis finally agree to Pres. Bush demands to produce more oil and the economy start runnig up hill again.

There hasn't been much coverage on this and I know it has been a long time since 9/11 but this man is the architec of the biggest mass murder commited in this country, one that was intensivaly cover by the media. The Times Online reported Bush has enlisted British Special Forces in a final attempt to capture Osama Bin Laden before he leaves the White House. This article was a bit more informative but the report was very similar then others. They reported That Special Forces have been taking part in the US-led operations to capture Bin Laden in the wild frontier region of northern Pakistan. It is the first time they have operated across the Afghan border on a regular basis. However, the hunt was “completely sanctioned” by the Pakistani government, according to a UK special forces source. The article also reports the involvement of Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles fitted with Hellfire missiles that can be used to take out specific terrorist targets. One US intelligence source compared the “growing number of clandestine reconnaissance missions” inside Pakistan with those conducted in Laos and Cambodia at the height of the Vietnam War. This is something the government does not want; any similarities with Vietnam usually create negative public opinion.

It's possible that the media don't want to revive the fears of 9/11 or maybe there is something to it and they are cooperating with the government and they are just keeping it low for now.
The truth is that we have other issues to solve, capturing Bin Laden is not going to make this country safer. We didn't capture Bin Laden before when we had less problems in this country and we are not going to get him now. I personally think this is just an effort by the Republicans to keep voters afraid and confused. Rep. Nancy Pelosi recently pointed out, capturing Bin Laden will not necessarily make America safer because it would come five years too late. Yet, capturing or killing the man responsible for 9/11 should remain a high priority. Fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan where Osama is suppose to be hiding has been very difficult, not only for the troublesome terrain but because the Pakistani Govt has it's own problems and they are very limited in the help they can provide to us. Bin Laden will die in a cave before we get to him, if he didn't die already.

In recent speeches McCain vowed to capture Bin Laden and Obama has promised a stronger military force along the border of Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Honestly, is this going to make a difference? McCain will still support a war that most Americans want out and Obama will still be consider weak in national security.

With the demands to the Saudis for more oil, a promise for a peace treaty between Israelis and Palestinians and now a last push to capture Bin Laden before he leaves office, Pres. Bush seems like he’s last minute Christmas shopping. 215 days left.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/16/pres-bush-wants-bin-laden-captured-before-leaving-office/

Media bias... against Hillary?

At the beginning of the race Sen. Clinton was viewed as the front runner and Barack Obama was considered the underdog. As a result the media scrutinized the Clinton campaign with more intensity than Barrack Obama. As time went on Barack Obama became the front runner and Hillary became underdog. Hillary drew attention to the fact that she was getting the same amount of scrutiny as before, while Barack Obama, the front runner, was not receiving the same kind of scrutiny that she did as the front runner. The problem with this is that she commented on that too late and by the time Barack Obama received more appropriate scrutiny for his election status, the damage to Hillary’s campaign had already been done.

http://www.bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4086

At the beginning her opinion was more enticing to report since she was NY senator and former first lady, not to mention viewed as polarizing, which equals headlines. The problem with her campaign, according to Howard Kurtz from The Washington Post, was that “her campaign faced lingering resentment among many reporters over the lack of access to [Hillary Clinton] and the aggressive style of some of her people, who rejected stories they dislike.” This created animosity among reporters and if they don’t like you they are not going to say anything nice about you.

An example of the scrutiny double standard is the media portrayal of Bill Clinton as a liability and Barack Obama as a rockstar. Hillary’s comments were usually held at a higher standard while Obama’s created moderate attention. For instance, Obama’s use of the term “D-Punjab” referring to the Clintons investments in India and Hillary’s fund-raising among Indian-Americans created moderate attention, Obama apologized and then declared the matter closed. The media agreed and continued their usual Hilary rampage.

Another example of media bias towards Sen. Clinton is when the media criticized her for having an icy demeanor. Her comments at a rally in Davenport, Iowa were over analyzed and met with suspicion when she was just trying to be funny. What was intended as a joke in a attempt to warm her so- called icy demeanor was over analyzed and turned into a negative.

It makes you wonder what type of reaction reporters would have had if this was Obama joking in a similar way.

Hillary supporters also complained of bias against her because of sexism. Some of the comments from the media were really out of hand. Take for example Chris Matthews comments on Senator Clinton: "I think the Hillary appeal has always been about the mix of toughness and sympathy. Let's not forget, and I'll be brutal, the reason she's a US Senator, the reason she's a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around...That's how she got to be a Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, 'My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,' right? That's what happened. That's how it happened. Many other comments from different journalist where shown in TV and many of them seem to be about women's roles, they negativaly linked Hillary with women stereo types. Check out this the mad as hell video:

I do believe the media was bias towards Sen. Clinton and the media simply linking Senator Obama and sexism comments affected her nomination. I also blame the poor job of her campaign: they ignored caucus states, and let Sen. Obama run up the score so much that it became virtually impossible for her to stop him. Also, her campaign never did any serious opposition research on Sen. Obama. For example, the comments made by Reverend Wright were delivered on Sept. 16, 2001, had they been made public at the start of the race, I have a feeling there would have been a different ending to these primaries.

Her campaign relied too heavily on Bill Clinton’s presence, when it might not have hurt to send Bill on vacation to Rio.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01112008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/hounding_hill_355132.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2830588&page=1

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1813663,00.html?cnn=yes