Iran: UN will be allowed to inspect newly revealed site

Nuclear chief says his country will open doors of newly revealed nuke facility to U.N. agency after Obama threatens consequences for non-cooperation

At G-20 Summit:  Obama joined the leaders of Britain and France in accusing the Islamic republic of clandestinely building an underground plant to make nuclear fuel that could be used to build an atomic bomb. Iranian officials acknowledged the facility but insisted it had been reported to nuclear authorities as required.

"Iran's action raised grave doubts" about its promise to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only, Obama told a news conference at the conclusion of a G-20 summit whose focus on world economic recovery was overshadowed by disclosure of the Iranian plant.

"Iran is on notice that when we meet with them on Oct. 1 they are going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice" between international isolation and giving up any aspirations to becoming a nuclear power, he said. If they refuse to give ground, they will stay on "a path that is going to lead to confrontation."

************************************************

Unbowed, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country had done nothing wrong and Obama would regret his accusations.

Why do I get a feeling that Ahmadinejad has just tricked the United States and others? 

I have this weird feeling that what Iran has done is purposely built this so called 'pilot' program to corner the U.S., knowing they would rally others into pushing Iran for inspections of it, of which Ahmadinejad would most certainly give access to.

When Ahmadinejad said that Obama would "regret his accusations" I felt then that he had just trapped President Obama.

Could it be that Iran built this 'pilot' program, sent a letter to the UN disclosing it, knowing that the U.S and others would demand access to 'it'?  Iran could then comply easily to the UN wishes -- proving that the 'pilot' program is indeed for peaceful purposes.

Iran would do this being fully aware that the U.S. and others would then demand to see the original nuclear facility that they've been accusing Iran of building.  Ahamdinejad, of course, would then say, "No.  I've proven to the world by giving the United Nation's access to one of facilities -- that I do not lie, I will not again bow to the U.S. or any other nation's pressures ever again."

WASHINGTON -- Nearly $10 billion in stimulus aid to repair the nation's tattered highways has largely bypassed dozens of metropolitan areas where roads are in the worst shape, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

Half of the nation?s worst roads are in counties that will only get about 20% of the stimulus money allocated by state and federal officials for street repairs. Although the worst roads are in just a handful of counties, they account for 11,000 miles of pavement so rough the government has branded them as unacceptable.

The problem is a byproduct of a stimulus package designed to spend as fast as possible to revive the economy. Many roads are in such bad shape that repairs would take too long and cost too much to qualify for funds, says John Barton, head of engineering for Texas' Department of Transportation...

•Dallas trails only Los Angeles in miles of bad roads, yet it has received less than 1% of the $530 million that Texas approved for road repairs. "It's a significant issue," Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert says.

Nearly 11,000 miles of road repairs and yet they still complain?  These are probably the same people that complained about President Obama and the Democratic Party passing the stimulus bill to begin with.  Don't ya just love'm?

As for Dallas Texas complaints, isn't this the state that wants to secede from the Nation?  Didn't they also, in the beginning, refuse to accept any stimulus funds?  Just imagine what would happened if they had turned away, they wouldn't have gotten even the road work they've already received (1071 miles of road repairs).

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- The United States, France and Britain have presented "detailed evidence" to the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog that "Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility," President Obama said Friday before the start of the G-20 economic summit.

President Obama told Iran to "take concrete steps" to show it will comply with nuclear regulations.

Iran's newly unveiled uranium enrichment facility "is inconsistent with a peaceful (nuclear) program," Obama said.

"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow," he said....

Iran's admission comes ahead of next week's rare meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, between Iran and the five permanent United Nations Security Council members, plus Germany.

Iran's revelation of a new nuclear site could actually "strengthen their hand" as it heads into next week's talks, according to Paul Ingram, an analyst who studies Iran and nuclear non-proliferation.

"It will be seen as an indication that they are willing to play by the rules," said Ingram, the executive director of the British American Security Information Council in London, England.

He said the timing of Iran's revelation -- in between the U.N. General Assembly sessions and the October 1 meeting -- is deliberate on Iran's part.

"This will make it more difficult to persuade them to abandon enrichment," Ingram said.

In my humble opinion Iran just admitted they fear or at the very least care about what the U.N. can do to them.  Why else would Iran bother to "strengthen their hand" by sending a letter of admission about their second uranium enrichment facility?

A man or nation that fears nothing is more dangerous than one that fears something.  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his administration fear the United Nations.  This backhanded way of admitting to another facility, in my view, proof of this fear.

Instead of saying this "strengthens their hand" I would offer instead the idea that they've now "shown their hand".

The United States and any other nation that are pushing for,

 Iran to "take concrete steps" to demonstrate it will comply with its international obligations to ensure its nuclear program is for civilian use and not a covert weapons program.

Should take the upper hand and give Ahmadinejad something to return home with. 

He should be given a word of warning from the U.N.'s that unless Iran complies with the U.N. demands within so many days -- they will lose whatever prestige they have gained over recent times with the U.N. and be given sanctions beyond any other.  I would also add that if after those sanctions take hold and Iran still does not comply with the U.N. demands, their so-called peaceful facilities  will suffer costly damage by members of the U.N. counsel.

 

WASHINGTON -- Half of all Americans, and six in 10 Democrats, oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows, underscoring the pressures on President Obama as he re-evaluates his approach to what he calls "a war of necessity."

That's a stark turnaround from February, when 65% of Americans supported Obama's decision to send 17,000 additional servicemembers, according to Gallup. In March, Obama announced what he called "a comprehensive new strategy" for Afghanistan premised on more troops, training the Afghan army and boosting reconstruction efforts.

The public's doubts about the war, shared by some senior congressional Democrats, come as Obama says he is reconsidering that strategy in light of concerns about fraud in last month's Afghan election. Success in counterinsurgency can depend on a government being viewed by the people as legitimate.

"The first question is: Are we pursuing the right strategy?" Obama said last week on CNN.

I think what the President should do, from what I know about the situation, is give the generals enough personnel to protect and defend whatever strong hold we currently enjoy while we increase the Afghanistan military, domestic and political side of the equation. 

Just today it is being reported we lost another 5 of our precious young soldiers.  They apparently don't have enough help to keep this sort of thing from happening.

Without more troops, there is a risk of "mission failure," the commanding general Obama installed in May, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, wrote in a confidential assessment made public this week.

I'm not worried about "mission failure", I'm worried about giving our troops the help they need to stay alive and control what areas we have control over while we finish the job of replacing some of what we destroyed.  Doing this while the Afghanistan troop buildup and political side of the issue is being debated and worked out is the best solution in my view.  Hold the Fort - sort of speak.

Going after new Taliban areas that are not Al Qaeda related is not what we went to Afghanistan for.  Getting rid of the Taliban is not what we sent troops there for.  We went there to root out Osama Bin Laden and remove the Al Qaeda bases.  From what I've read and heard, we've pushed out most if not all the Al Qaeda.  It is the local groups like the Taliban that is now shooting at our troops.  I don't consider this "mission failure", unless you consider our mission was to remove the Taliban as well as the Al Qaeda, which I do not.

While we may not like the Taliban and their way of governing the Afghan people, we cannot and should not be expected to root out all evil across the globe.  It is the job of the local people to remove the evil from within their nation.  If we can help by providing weapons, so be it, but it was not our intention in 2001 to root out the evil in Afghanistan or to control it.  We went there to remove those that attacked our nation.

 I sincerely pray that President Obama and his administration agree.

Once again the Fox News website's headlines lead today's stories with, "Outrage Over Obama Sing-Along".  Guess where the headline, "5 U.S. Troops Killed in South Afghan Attacks" is located?  In the fine print area below the big headlines.

And the story, "Report American Linked to Terrorist Bombing in Somalia", that too is in their fine print even further down on the website instead of being in the their headlines.

Which of these stories do you consider more important to read about first thing in the morning?

This reporting seems odd for a media outlet that was bent on reporting stories about War, Military, Death, Terrorism, Patriotism, etc... for the past 8 years.

It appears they now seem bent on going after the Obama administration, even if it means ignoring the more important stories in today's society and printing a story about a small group of children learning to sing a song about the President of United States.

The DCCC is on the air with a new TV ad in the NY-23 special election, a Republican-held swing seat that opened up when Rep. John McHugh was appointed Secretary of the Army by President Obama. The new ad goes after the GOP nominee, state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, for voting for higher taxes -- the sort of attack we typically see Republicans launching against the Dems....

Actually this just might be a good idea for the rest of the Democrats running for office in 2010.

Guess who voted NO on the Stimulus package?  ALL REPUBLICANS but three.  Guess what that package included?  The highest amount of tax cuts in history.  A payroll tax cut $212 billion for 97% of all Americans.  The CBO estimate said between 1 and 3 million jobs would be created.

It also consisted of a patch to protect middle- and upper-middle-income families from having to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax; and expansions of the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit for low-income families.  The economic recovery plan contained a host of tax cuts for small business as well.

The bill authorizes the Small Business Administration to temporarily eliminate or reduce fees for participation in its flagship loan-guarantee programs, which insure banks against default by small business borrowers. The stimulus bill also increases to 90% the percentage of qualifying loans that the SBA can guarantee.

Can't you just see the commercials showing THESE PARTS OF THE (legislation) Recovery and Reinvestment Act bill only, in an Ad across the airwaves --along with the names of the Republicans that voted NO to those tax cuts?

That ad might also include the fact that the Republican being discussed by voting NO to the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also voted NO to an $8000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers, a tax deduction for sales tax if you bought a new car, rebates for buying a new appliance and for buying a new furnace or air conditioner. It also include...

$120 billion for infrastructure -- new projects repairing bridges, roads, government buildings and the like -- more than $100 billion for education and $30 billion on energy-related projects.

$2,500 tuition tax credit for students

People who receive Social Security will get a one-time payment of $250.

The overall package was estimated to be 35 percent tax cuts.

Lastly, after it is calculated in 2010 by the CBO, the Democrats can claim that by voting NO to the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, those same Republicans would have allowed the loss of ??? Jobs.

I love it!  Bring it ON!!!

A video posted on YouTube appears to show a New Jersey elementary school class being taught to sing praises of the "great accomplishments" of President Obama.

The video shows nearly 20 young children taught a song overflowing with campaign slogans and praise for "Barack Hussein Obama," repeatedly chanting the president's name and celebrating his accomplishments, including his "great plans" to "make this country's economy No. 1 again.

The video identifies the kids as students at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, N.J., with taping taking place last June (posted Sept 6th just before Obama's Education speech - doesn't that raise questions for you Fox?)

The author of the full lyrics is unknown, but a woman -- possibly a teacher -- can be heard in the beginning of the video correcting and helping a student who has forgotten the words.

Excuse me?  Americans are suppose to believe everything that is done on YouTube is done by the President's request, better yet, we're suppose to believe that because it's on YouTube that it is true and possibly a trend across America?  

With this kind of reporting, Americans will finally see how you are bias against the President of United States.

This is your Fair and Balanced view of what a HEADLINE is suppose to be about Fox News?

Give us a break Fox News.  Go do some actual reporting instead of relying on the Internet, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for your news and having your producers cheering on the angry folks at a rally against the government.

Back on August 25, 2009, Attorney General Holder named John H. Durham to investigate alleged CIA interrogation abuses, including episodes that resulted in prisoner deaths.

Durham was selected in part because of his role as prosecutor in an ongoing investigation of the destruction of CIA videotapes in late 2005, expanding his mandate to cover additional agency conduct. Durham has appeared in Alexandria's federal courthouse about once a month to present evidence to a grand jury that is probing the incident. The tapes allegedly depicted brutal scenes of waterboarding involving high-value al-Qaeda suspects. That investigation was in its 19th month then.  Even at that point it some cast doubt on whether criminal charges would be filed.

He is now about to begin his 21st month in that investigation.  One has to wonder why it's taking so long to handle just one investigation.  Why is it taking nearly 2 years to resolve that case? 

Has anybody heard any news on this case?  I haven't.

Can you just imagine how soon we'll hear the results of the CIA interrogation abuses?  I'm sure most Americans will have forgotten those cases by that time - sadly.  At this rate, I'm pretty sure I won't be around when the results finally get released. 

Someday, this abuse will be used once again (if it's not already) I'm afraid, because American's turned the other cheek and ignored the Bush administration war crimes (and by doing so-- made them our own).

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department is poised to announce a new policy on using claims of state secrecy to block the release of information about controversial counterterrorism strategies such as rendition and warrantless wiretapping...

Under the new approach, an agency trying to hide such information would have to convince Attorney General Eric Holder and a panel of Justice Department lawyers that its release would compromise national security.

Such claims of state secrecy previously have required a lower standard of proof that the information was dangerous, as well as the approval of fewer officials...

Although I don't agree with who gets to decide whether the release of information would compromise national security, I do think this is a step in the right direction.  Requiring more 'proof 'has been needed for the past 8 years.

There should be a special commission however, perhaps previous Senators and Representatives or perhaps previous Attorney Generals, appointed for a specified amount of time, that are not currently in office, nor running for one, thereby not subject to political campaign pressures would be a better group to look at this information and decide whether it should be kept secret or not.

Last night I heard Chris Matthews discussing with a guest whether or not President Obama was overly exposing himself by attending all those talk shows Sunday about his agenda.  Now we read about this new poll.

A new NBC/WSJ poll asks whether President Obama is overly exposed lately.

In the poll, 34% say they see and hear Obama too much, 9% say they see/hear him too little, and 54% say it's the right amount. 

Among McCain voters, however, 63% say they're seeing too much of the president. That's compared with only 8% of Obama voters who say that.

Among independents, 52% say Obama's exposure is the right amount, versus 40% who say it's too much.

The president appeared on 5 talk shows last Sunday and on the David Letterman show last night.  The political pundits are questioning whether it's too much.

Just about 2-3 weeks ago they were pushing the opposite story.  Where is Obama on health care?

Ireport:

Bob Dole:

Andrew Sullivan:

Maureen Dowd:

I sure wish they'd make up their minds.

 

 

PEORIA -- Ameren Illinois expects its natural gas customers to pay 26 percent less for the fuel this winter.

The utility says the cost of natural gas should be lower because the global recession has reduced demand...

"The good news for our customers is that we expect natural gas prices will be well below the prices paid last winter," said Ameren Vice President of Gas Supply and System Control Scott A. Glaeser. "Furthermore, we have the majority our natural gas supplies hedged or 'price protected' for the upcoming winter to insulate our customers from market volatility."..

Last October, Ameren customers paid an average price of $1.32 per therm for natural gas, while the October 2009 price average will be 56 cents, or 58 percent lower than a year ago.

Would somebody explain to me why the demand for natural gas would go down because of the recession we're in and because of that we have less demand?  Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture?

I can understand the theory behind gasoline (oil) prices lowering because of less demand (people can't afford to travel so there is less demand); but less demand for heating and cooking which uses natural gas?  I don't get it.

We all still need to cook and we all still need to stay warm during the winter.  Are they saying that because of the recession we will eat less and allow ourselves to stay colder?

The prices they quote between last year and this year is a difference of 58%.  Does that mean our demand also dropped 58%?  That's impossible - isn't it?

Will somebody with more knowledge please explain this to me?

A letter to the editor by Deloris Cliburn:

"It's frightening to think that this government is in a control-mode.  Its concerning to me that there seems to be a take-over mentality. A takeover of banks, health care, the auto industries, insurance companies and the collapse of small businesses. And if there would be an "Energy" take over, like some have suggested, this would be dangerous for our independence and our freedom.  It appears that our Freedoms could be at stake."

I happened to think it's more frightening to see Wall Street, our banks, automobile and insurance companies taking control of the way we live our lives than most anything the government can do to us during a two or four year term.

At least with respects to the government, those leaders can be and will be voted out of office if they screw up; whereas CEO's, bank presidents and owners of insurance companies can dictate what is successful and what is not, who gets a loan and who does not, who gets health care and who does not for decades if they so choose.

It's about time somebody reigned in these out of control entities in, even if only temporarily.

"A monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."

Just as we see our water, electric and gas companies regulated because every human being's life is affected by the way those companies are run, we should also regulate any other industry or company that affects the majority of Americans.

It's kind of like a parent that is supporting a child's college education.  You give them the freedom to handle their financial affairs with the money they are given; but if they prove to be unable to do so, the parents must step in before losing more money.

Banks were making risky investments losing my and your money.  The health industry is currently controlling what kind of health care we receive.  A company like GM that controls a quarter million jobs mishandled their products risking the loss of those jobs.

You prefer that kind of 'freedom' to one that has a few safe guards to it?

Just remember folks, you can stop a politician by voting them out if good results from their actions are not seen; it's much harder to stop those 'out of control' businesses, banks and insurance companies that work under the pretense of competition.