Poll: 2004 Election Was Stolen ('Cept Fox Viewers)

Who are these Fox viewers. OpEdNews gives you the details.

In the first poll of its kind, OpEdNews.com, in the second OpEdNews/Zogby People's poll has learned that except for viewers of right wing news show, Fox News, poll respondents believe that the 2004 presidential election was stolen.

Overall, the poll found that 39% said that the 2004 election was stolen. 54% said it was legitimate. Shortly after the election, the NY Times suggested that a few fringe extremists and bloggers were concerned about the theft of the election.

But let's look at the demographics on this question. Of the people who watch Fox news as their primary sourc of TV news, one half of one percent believe it was stolen and 99% believe it was legitimate. Among people who watched ANY other news source but FOX, more felt the election was stolen than legitimate. The numbers varied dramatically:

Here are the stats by network listed as first choice by respondent and whether the respondent thought the election was stolen or legitimate.Network Stolen LegitimateABC 56% 32%CBS 64% 31%CNN 70% 24%FOX .5% 99%MSNBC 65% 24%NBC 49% 43%Other 56% 28%

The poll asked people which was their favorite source of TV newst. Among the 689 people in the poll who answered this question, 37% watched Fox news, more than any other single network. CNN came in second with 21% with MSNBC third, with 13%. It makes sense for these three 24/7 news networks to be the top in this category, since the others air news for limited parts of the day.

A lot more information on Fox News viewers :

After Fox news, the second choice for news network among Fox viewers is ABC 38% and MSNBC 37%, followed by CNN with 27%, NBC with 19% and CBS with 6%.
74% of it's viewers are married. 15% are single and 10% are divorced, widowed or separated. Whether they are fair and balanced, is up for debate. But they appear to be THE family channel, at least for Republicans. 64% have children. 85% of them come from non-union families. Among churchgoers, half go to church, temple or mosque rarely, never or just holidays. But for Fox News Viewers half go frequently. Among NBC viewers, 67% go most frequently. NBC has the most religious viewers. More born-agains watch NBC; 54% to 46%, and Born Agains are least likely to watch ABC: 95%/5%, MSNBC 78%/22%, CBS 76% to 24% and CNN 65%/35%. More Catholics, Protestants and Born-agains watch Fox news than any other news network.

82% of people who identify themselves as conservative and 80 of those who consider themselves very conservative watch Fox News. Zero liberal or progressives watch Fox News as their first choice, and 42% of moderates chose FOx news as their first choice. The first choice of progressives (very liberal) is Other, assumingly C-Span and the like. The first choice of Liberals is CNN.

Fox news is the favorite of suburban, small city and rural dwellers. CNN is the first choice of large city dwellers.

Among immigrants Fox news is the top favorite.

46% of men and 30% of women watch Fox news.

Less than 2% of Democrats favor Fox news, while it's the favorite for 75% of Republicans and 34% of independents. For Republicans and independents, Fox is the network that is first choice. CNN is viewed as first choice by Democrats, with 38% choosing it.

The OpEdNews.com/Zogby People's Poll, with 42 questions, also found that the PA US Senate Race, with Rick Santorum, is not at all like other polls have reported. While Casey Has a 47-37% lead. He has spent millions of dollars to get it. His opponents Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals are both within similar range, with 45% and 43% with Pennacchio having spent under $100,000 and Sandals having spent under $500,000. Both the current and a previous OpEdNews/Zogby people's poll found, that after respondents were given position information on the candidates, that Casey's lead disappears and he pulls a smaller percentage than either Pennacchio or Sandals.

We are waiting on further crosstab analysis of the data. We believe that we will find that if you pull out Fox viewers, the rest of America has a far different view of America and the Bush Administration

This poll was run May 9th through 10th, in Pennsylvania, by the Zogby organization.

Methodology statement from Zogby: Zogby International conducted interviews of 707 likely voters online. Panelists who have agreed to participate in Zogby polls online were invited to participate in the survey. The online poll ran from 5/9/06 through 5/10/06. The margin of error is +/- 3.8 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. Slight weights were added to party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the population.

A ratings downer for Fox News

A ratings downer for Fox News
By Scott Collins , Times Staff Writer

May 8, 2006

Some recent ratings news no doubt gladdened the hearts of Fox News Channel haters.
First, Nielsen Media Research reported that Fox News' overall prime-time lineup dropped 17% last month compared with a year ago (MSNBC grew 16% during the same period, while CNN plummeted by 38%).

Late last week, a reliable television industry website, TVNewser.com, reported that in April, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly had his worst month in nearly five years among viewers age 25 to 54, the most coveted audience in TV news.

Although the network still churns out ratings light-years ahead of competitors' and O'Reilly remains cable news' No. 1 host, Fox News' explosive growth appears to be, like the president's 90% approval rating in the days following Sept. 11, a relic from the first Bush term.

That's the elephant in the room, of course — the broadly assumed, and occasionally documented, affinity between Fox News and the current administration (Vice President Dick Cheney's office prepared a hotel checklist, recently posted on TheSmokingGun.com, that ordered "all televisions tuned to Fox News" during Cheney visits). Could it be mere coincidence that O'Reilly, populist scourge of both Clintons and countless left-wing causes, is seeing his still-formidable nightly audience of 2.1 million or so start to shrink in tandem with the Bush/GOP's rapidly fading grip on the electorate?

O'Reilly's thoroughly delighted rivals think not.

"When the stock market was through the roof in the '90s, people used to sit around and watch CNBC and slap high fives and say, 'I made another hundred bucks today!' " said MSNBC host and O'Reilly foe Keith Olbermann, adding that CNBC's ratings quickly went south when the tech bubble burst.

"I think the same psychology applies to Fox. They'll always have their hard-core audience that wants to hear, 'Everything's great! [Bush is] doing a great job.' " But less-partisan viewers are drifting away, Olbermann argued.

Jonathan Klein, president of CNN/US, agrees. "Maybe this is part of the deal with the devil you make when a supposed news network allies itself so closely with one point of view," he said.
To be fair and balanced here: Olbermann's "Countdown" competes head to head with "The O'Reilly Factor" and the two hosts have been engaged in a months-long feud. Although Olbermann's ratings climbed 35% last month, his total audience remains less than one-fourth the size of O'Reilly's.

As for CNN, its lineup showed far greater erosion last month than Fox's. "We're down because we had such a phenomenal year last year," Klein said. The one major growth story at CNN? Lou Dobbs, whose program seems to add viewers in direct proportion to its host's fiercely expressed views against illegal immigration.

Fox News says CNN is merely trying to deflect attention from its own woes. "It's always amusing to watch Jon whistle past his graveyard of failures like Anderson Cooper and 'American Morning' as Fox trounces CNN in breaking news and ratings," Fox spokeswoman Irena Briganti wrote in an e-mail. "We suspect Dick Parsons isn't nearly as entertained." Parsons is the chief of Time Warner, CNN's parent.

Fox News says it's hardly surprising its ratings are down this year, arguing that recent weeks have been fairly tame news-wise compared with April 2005, when Pope John Paul II died and his successor was chosen. What's more, O'Reilly took seven nights off last month, the network says, leading to lower ratings overall for his program. But Fox has clearly reached some sort of turning point in audience dynamics. Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the network soared as if wearing flubber shoes, with gravity-defying, double-digit growth during news cycles slow and fast. Now it's subject to the same laws of physics that encumber every mature network.
It's possible, of course, that Fox's loud, primary-color style of news packaging has gotten stale. It's also true that there are limits on how big any TV programming can get, especially in a world of endless media fragmentation.

Maybe the real point, though, is not that Bush's sinking poll numbers are hurting Fox News. Perhaps it's that the network isn't thoroughly engaging the issues that are giving the administration so many troubles.

Consider O'Reilly, whose program has been the bellwether of Fox's overall rise. Yes, he's devoted plenty of time lately to such topics as immigration and the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.
Yet on Friday, with Washington abuzz about the abrupt resignation of CIA Chief Porter Goss and Cheney's combative speech on Thursday assailing Russia over human rights and other matters, "The O'Reilly Factor" temporized with segments about a sex offender registration law, the evidence behind date-rape claims and a controversy over Condoleezza Rice's getting an honorary degree. (Larry King, who hosts CNN's top-rated program, was only slightly more topical, by the way; after chatting with Christopher Kennedy Lawford about whether there might be a family curse given Rep. Patrick Kennedy's recent drug-related traffic accident, King turned to attorney Robert Shapiro, who discussed his son's death from a drug overdose.)
Each of these subjects has its own merits, but few would claim they dominate Americans' thinking these days, during times of a growing energy debate, ongoing controversy over Bush's handling of the Iraq war, worries over Iran's nuclear aims and pending midterm elections. Talk about changing the subject.

Fox News didn't get to be No. 1 by avoiding tough issues. Why start now?

President of the Islamic Republic of Iran to "W"

Mr George Bush,
President of the United States of America

For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, specially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have
prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, Feel obliged to respect human rights,Present liberalism as a civilization model, Announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, Make “War and Terror” his slogan,
And finally, Work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, But at the same time, Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the … of a … criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire village, city or convey set ablaze.

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens
broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away
from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide ant those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and
their bodies handed of their families.

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with.

Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the … war on Iran Saddam was supported by the West.

Mr President,
You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows
whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times. Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel. I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?

Mr President,
I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:
- Many thousands were killed in the process.
- Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
- Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now.

A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is
unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported?

Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values?

Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why
is there so much opposition to a referendum?

The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observes have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognise the Israeli regime,
abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying “why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?”

Mr President,

As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them -- many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They dot not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.

It is not my intention to pose to many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well. Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations.

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology
altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed. Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

Mr President,

Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from
happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters
supporting, the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country’s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Mr President,

September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens.

Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems – and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or
their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbours of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the
survivors and the American people – who had been immensely traumatised by the attacks – some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic? American citizen lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

Some believe that the hype paved the way – and was the justification – for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media.

In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of
WMDs. This was repeated incessantly – for the public to, finally, believe – and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrive and deceptive climate?

Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values?

Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

Mr President,

In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.

The question here is “what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?”

As your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist – to a larger or lesser extent – in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign – paid from the public treasury – be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?

What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention – which I am hoping you will agree to some of it – is:

Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures. The people will scrutinize our presidencies.

Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment?

Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful – thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs’?

Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?

Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them?

Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats?

Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it?

Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?

Did our administration set out to promote rational behaviour, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns.

Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people’s rights?

And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office – to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets – or not?

Mr President,

How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?

Where will this trend lead the world to?

How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers?

How much longer will the specter of insecurity – raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction – hunt the people of the world?

How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people’s houses destroyed over their heads?

Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?

Do you think present policies can continue?

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to
the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts were would the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud?

Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have been stronger?

And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the
American governments?

Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.

If prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behaviour? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us?

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Moslems and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect on
word and that is “monotheism” or belief in a single God and no other in the world. The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on an followers of divine religions and says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran).

Mr President,

According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine prophets.

“To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases.” “The Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds.”

“The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court” “planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins”. “He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors”. “He is the Compassionate, the Merciful”. “He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness”. “He is witness to the actions of His servants”,

“He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast”. “Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds.” “A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants”. And “A good and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.”

We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvations. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH), and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.

We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well; [19,36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serves Him; this is the right path, Marium.

Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers. The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans.

We again read in the Holy Book: “The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious.”

All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.

Divine prophets have promised:

The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly effected by our actions.

All prophets, speak of peace and tranquillity for man – based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.

Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world – that are the result of disobedience to the
Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance?

Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?

Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?

Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His
prophets?

Mr President,

History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted The fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These
tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

Can one deny the signs of change in the world today?

Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.

The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept
dubious policies.

The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries.

The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.

The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion.

The people of the world have no faith in international organisations, because their rights are not advocated by these organisations.

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic
systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point –that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to join them?”

Mr President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Best moment of Presidency quotes: Carter, Clinton, and Bush

How did President Carter answer the question?

"I think the best time was probably dealing with the Middle East issue at Camp David," he said, "and even better I think was the peace treaty that came along six months later. I made a very difficult decision over the almost unanimous opposition of my cabinet and my staff to take the initiative and to go to Egypt and to go to Israel to try to get Begin and Sadat to agree on a peace treaty. And when they did sign-both of them signed the agreement-I guess that was probably my best moment."
http://www.americanpresident.org/history...

How did President Clinton answer the question?

JIM LEHRER: As we sit here right now, Mr. President, is this the best moment of your presidency?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Oh, no, I won't say that. I don't know. So many things have happened here at home that have been important to me; passing economic plan, passing the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban, so many things have happened internationally, the role that I was fortunate to be able to play in the peace process in the Middle East and in Northern Ireland, but this could have the biggest long-term positive consequences if we do it right. But frankly, I hadn't, you know -- Sometimes people say "do you feel vindicated?" The answer is no. I think America has been vindicated. I think what we stand for has been vindicated. But keep in mind that there have been times in the past where people win a conflict and then squander the peace. So a lot of our work is still ahead of us. We've gotta get the people home, get the land mines up, work out the details of who is involved in the peacekeeping mission. We have to get this -- We've got to organize police forces and civil government for the Kosovars. And then the really big thing over the long-run, our European friends want to take the lead in this but we ought to help them, we've got to get the World Bank and all these other people involved in a development plan for the Balkans that involves not just Kosovo, but Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, and I hope someday Serbia if they have a government that respects freedom and democracy and human rights. So that these people have something pulling them together instead of these ancient ethnic troubles pulling them apart.

Now if we get all that done, it might be perhaps the most satisfying thing because it might prove that people can lay down their hatreds of people who are different. You know, I basically think free people will figure out a way to make the most of their lives and work out their problems if they can get the rules of engagement right. That's why I gave somewhat of an extended answer to what you said about the Republicans. Because, I think, you know, differences are good. Nobody's got the whole truth. But you gotta get the rules of engagement right. And I think what we did in Kosovo was profoundly important.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/ja...

How did President Bush answer the question?

You know, I've experienced many great moments and it's hard to name the best," Bush told weekly Bild am Sonntag when asked about his high point since becoming president in January 2001.

"I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound (3.402 kilos) perch in my lake," he told the newspaper in an interview published on Sunday.

President Bush said Thursday that America's history is inexorably tied to prayer.

"In my travels across the great land, a comment that I hear often from our fellow citizens is, `Mr. President, I pray for you and your family.' It's amazing how many times a total stranger walks up and says that to me," Bush said. "You'd think they'd say, `How about the bridge?' Or, `How about filling the potholes?' No, they say, `I've come to tell you I pray for you, Mr. President'."

The Real Story on the CIA "Shake-up"

How the Busheviks Continue to Put America's National Security at Risk

May 8, 2006

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

The Real Story on the CIA "Shake-up" in a BuzzFlash Brief:

Okay, we'll cut to the chase.

Bush did the usual Washington B.S. thing by praising Porter Goss for leading "ably....He has a five-year plan to increase the analysts and operatives." Well, in fact, Goss made an already chaotic agency more chaotic. And if he had a five-year plan, why did Bush refer to Goss's "tenure as one of transition."

Yeah, transition between failure and more failure.

The reality is this. Goss was appointed to purge, Soviet style, the CIA of any staff who might dissent from the Bush/Cheney politburo agenda by actually offering real intelligence that might contradict the WH party line. That's it, period.

Many CIA professionals rebelled at becoming extensions of a WH/Rumsfeld DOD propaganda operation and the agency became even more embroiled in turmoil. On top of that, Goss brought in top administrators who were apparently tied into the Cunningham corruption -- and Goss may have himself been involved in hookergate.
Meanwhile, the WH floated as an unattributed cover story that Goss was "let go" as part of the "shake-up" because "Intelligence Czar," John Negroponte, was not happy with Goss. In fact, Negroponte is widely acknowledged to be an abyssmal failure as head of overall intelligence gathering for the United States. It is rumored that he spends long hours smoking cigars and getting rub downs at an exclusive D.C. club, and that his major intelligence attribute is kissing Bush's butt.

So Goss, a total Bush loyalist abruptly leaves the CIA under mysterious circumstances (Goss told CNN his resignation was "just one of those mysteries" -- we are not making that quote up either), and the likely replacement is apparently going to be the current head of the NSA, the agency that has been charged with illegal spying. Furthermore the alleged replacement, General Michael V. Hayden, wouldn't deny that the NSA is spying on Americans domestically for Bush partisan political purposes. Before a senate hearing, Attorney General Alberto "Consigliere" Gonzales, awhile back, also wouldn't deny that domestic spying for Bush political purposes was being conducted by the NSA (and one can assume other agencies).

So, here's the story: we have a failed intelligence chief with a checkered history (Negroponte) now overseeing a failed NSA chief turned CIA director, a man who conducted illegal and warrantless spying on Americans, and who, by his silence, admits that some of the spying is political in nature -- we have these two men in charge of our key intelligence efforts. We also can't forget that Rumsfeld and Cheney have key roles in "fixing" intelligence to support their failed fantasies of empire building.

All around then, we have failure overseeing failure, starting at the top with Bush.
Of course, the mainstream media still compartmentalizes this total breakdown in intelligence gathering necessary to insure our national security. They talk about how Goss left behind a CIA in turmoil and wonder if Hayden is up to the job.
But the real issue is that the abysmal performance on intelligence gathering begins at the top with Bush, which no mainstream media we have come across appears to emphasize. It's like they keep describing a ship floating on the high seas in which everything happens without a captain being responsible for decisions.

The problem is that the the national security of the United States of America is at stake, as these utter incompetents are allowed to wallow in their dismal records, time after time.

The press keeps writing sentences like "the CIA is still trying to struggle to reorganize intelligence gathering in the post 9/11 world." But the reality is America is still trying to survive Bush Administration incompetence in overseeing intelligence gathering in the post-9/11 world. Because the Bush Administration isn't interested in any intelligence that doesn't support the "fixed facts."

In their continued strategic effort not to offend Bush in order to secure their financial well-being as corporations, the big media provides a nefarioius disservice to America, because they put the nation at risk by not holding Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld accountable for their utter failure, ineptness, lying and illegal behavior.

The national security of America should supersede the business interests of the media conglomerates, but it doesn't. As a result, they betray America too.

Gen. Hayden: "4th Amendment and wrong"

This is Bush's replacement for Porter........

Knight-Ridder's Jonathan Landay questioned Gen. Michael Hayden at the National Press Club in January:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-nsa-Hayden.wmv




Landay: "...the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to violate an American's right against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

Gen. Hayden: "No, actually - the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure."

Landay: "But the --"

Gen. Hayden: "That's what it says."

Landay: "The legal measure is probable cause, it says."

Gen. Hayden: "The Amendment says: unreasonable search and seizure."

Landay: "But does it not say 'probable cause'?"

Gen. Hayden [exasperated, scowling]: "No! The Amendment says unreasonable search and seizure."

Landay: "The legal standard is probable cause, General -- "

Gen. Hayden [indignant]: "Just to be very clear ... mmkay... and believe me, if there's any Amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. Alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional standard is 'reasonable'"

To quote the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in its entirety, the one the general and the NSA folks are so familiar with and know is about reasonableness and not about probable cause, quote, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Well, maybe they have a different Constitution over there at the NSA.