First to katy - haha about community organizer! We were discussing that earlier. Careful, my hubby might be president one day! LOL
Anyways he went to the interview today. He thinks it went well. They were pretty laid back. Basically from what he was able to gather between the job description, what we found online, and what they told him, he will be working with the community, schools, and churches to implement programs that will better the welfare of children in the community. It is part of the Family Connection Partnership in Georgia (I think it might also be national). It's a relatively new effort in reply to the fact that Georgia is ranked around 45th for child welfare/raising.
We should know soon if he got it or not. He loves working with high risk teens and children (like most of our youth group!) and helping them to see that they can do better and succeed and be self sufficient!
Thanks to everyone who prayed or gave well wishes! I read some of your replies to him and he said thank you as well!
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database Update
I told her she should try to get some publicity concerning this because most parents probably don't know what's going on, and they have a right to. (She pulled my granddaughter from the class after the first day, so now my granddaughter has a teacher who actually teaches ENGLISH in her English class.)
I told her to contact her paper and/or TV station. She emailed them both. A reporter telephoned her today, said she was very interested in the story and was hoping to print it this coming Thursday.
She then received a reply email from the assistant news director of the TV station, also indicating an interest, and saying he was passing it on to his newsroom reporter and gave the name (apparently a local reporter who is very popular in her area).
She doesn't want to get the teacher in trouble and said so. She just wants her to teach English in her English class, and she mainly wants other parents to know what's going on in case they object, as well.
Thanks for your responses. I copied and pasted them and forwarded them to her, and she's grateful for the reassurance that you offered. It meant a lot to her and helped to convince her to go forward with this.
the article says his wife said they (govt) had planned on pcking up Gary Kasparov prior to the rally...........and this article says he will be *jailed for 5 days* - let's pray that's all it is........but they have been after him for a long, long time........unfortunately.
Thanks for that update
I was about to research it myself as I wait for my pies to get baked so I can go to bed. Another subject worthy of discussion are these activist groups such as Larasa or however they spell it.
UPDATE ........
They manage to take the waterpark out of the stimulus billl......WOW.....it took them how long? NOW, they have 3 billion of our dollars EARMARKED (which is what Obama said would not happen) for obesity and smoking cessation programs.......are you kidding?
If you're obese..................that's your problem! I do not care to pay for your fat coach.....PERIOD! I got a few pounds to lose myself but I sure as he!! don't expect the American citizens to pay for it!!!!
If you smoke................then only you can stop......I don't want to pay for your smoking coach!!!!! Put the d&mn thing down and stop..
WHAT A WASTE!!!!!!
Thanks for the update...(sm)
I knew they were doing the trial but didn't know they had been found guilty.
Update on Palast LOL sm
Looks like Exxon Mobil Corporation is not going to push for charges. Per Palast:
I have sworn to Homeland Security that we no longer send our footage to al-Qaeda — which, in any case, can get a much better view of the refinery and other “critical infrastructure” at Google Maps.
http://www.gregpalast.com/reporter-palast-slips-clutches-of-homeland-security
Still on Bush are ya? Update yourself.....this is an
Tell that lame story to the families of those whose kids were blown apart on the USS Cole............
At some point you just gotta let the Bush thing go and accept the facts......it's Obama's turn at the helm and he chose to let the charges be dropped!! Now, we'll just wait until they blow up another one of our ships....would that make you feel better?
thanks for the spelling update.....
I'm usually a real stickler for spelling........obviously, I screwed that one up.....such is life. mice instead of mouse.........interesting.
Update for you regarding Biden.sm
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, Jr.
United States Senate:
Six-term Sen. Joseph Biden, Jr. of Delaware was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972 when 29 years old, the youngest U.S. senator in modern history.
In January 2007, Biden declared his candidacy for the presidency, but dropped out of the race on January 3, 2008. On August 23, 2008, Barack
Sponsored Links
Joe Biden
United States Senate:
Six-term Sen. Joseph Biden, Jr. of Delaware was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972 when 29 years old, the youngest U.S. senator in modern history.
In January 2007, Biden declared his candidacy for the presidency, but dropped out of the race on January 3, 2008. On August 23, 2008, Barack Obama named Biden to be his vice presidential running mate.
Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the 110th Congress (2007-08), is a gifted negotiator who has helped shape U.S. security and foreign relations policies for decades. He's a moderate Democrat who often bridges the bipartisan gap.
I would hardly call this 'kissing butt' qualities.
for his hateful words. Israel now refuses to do business with him because of his bizarre remarks about Sharon. Needless to say, I was very happy to see this.
MSNBC.com
Israel pulls plug on Pat Robertson deal Officials angry over evangelical leader's comments about Sharon's stroke
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:14 a.m. ET Jan. 11, 2006
JERUSALEM - Israel won't do business with Pat Robertson after the evangelical leader suggested Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's massive stroke was divine punishment, a tourism official said Wednesday, putting into doubt plans to develop a large Christian tourism center in northern Israel.
Avi Hartuv, spokesman for Israel's tourism minister, said officials are furious with Robertson's suggestion that the stroke was retribution for Sharon's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip last summer. We can't accept this kind of statement, Hartuv said.
Robertson is leading a group of evangelicals who have pledged to raise $50 million to build the Christian Heritage Center in Israel's northern Galilee region, where tradition says Jesus lived and taught.
Under a tentative agreement, Robertson's group was to put up the funding, while Israel would provide land and infrastructure. Israeli officials believe the project will generate tens of millions of tourism dollars.
But the project now is in question in light of Robertson's comments, said Hartuv.
We will not do business with him, only with other evangelicals who don't back these comments, Hartuv said. We will do business with other evangelical leaders, friends of Israel, but not with him.
A day after Sharon's stroke on Jan. 4, Robertson suggested the prime minister was being punished for dividing God's land, a reference to the August pullout from the Gaza Strip and four West Bank settlements.
God considers this land to be his, Robertson said on his TV program The 700 Club. You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.'
Robertson's comments also drew condemnation from other Christian leaders and even U.S. President George W. Bush.
The ministry's decision was first reported in Wednesday's edition of The Jerusalem Post.
Christian center planned near Galilee Robertson's Christian Heritage Center was to be tucked away in 35 acres of rolling Galilee hills, near key Christian sites such as Capernaum, the Mount of the Beatitudes, where tradition says Jesus delivered the Sermon of the Mount, and Tabgha -- on the shores of the Sea of Galilee -- where Christians believe Jesus performed the miracle of the loaves and fish.
The project underlines how ties have strengthened in recent years between Israel and evangelical Christian groups that support the Jewish state.
Israel was considering leasing the land to the Christians for free. Tourism Minister Avraham Hirschson predicted it would annually draw up to 1 million pilgrims who would spend $1.5 billion in Israel and support about 40,000 jobs.
Hirschson, however, is one of Sharon's biggest supporters, and a member of the centrist Kadima party recently founded by the prime minister.
Hartuv left the door open to continuing the project, but only with people who don't back Robertson's statements.
We want to see who in the group supports his (Robertson's) statements. Those who support the statements cannot do business with us. Those that publicly support Ariel Sharon's recovery ... are welcome to do business with us, Hartuv said. We have to check this very, very carefully.
AFP – US President Barack Obama speaks at Goettge Memorial Field House in Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, North …
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama challenged the nation's vested interests to a legislative duel Saturday, saying he will fight to change health care, energy and education in dramatic ways that will upset the status quo.
"The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long," Obama said in his weekly radio and video address. "But I don't. I work for the American people."
He said the ambitious budget plan he presented Thursday will help millions of people, but only if Congress overcomes resistance from deep-pocket lobbies.
"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "My message to them is this: So am I."
The bring-it-on tone underscored Obama's combative side as he prepares for a drawn-out battle over his tax and spending proposals. Sometimes he uses more conciliatory language and stresses the need for bipartisanship. Often he favors lofty, inspirational phrases.
On Saturday, he was a full-throated populist, casting himself as the people's champion confronting special interest groups that care more about themselves and the wealthy than about the average American.
Some analysts say Obama's proposals are almost radical. But he said all of them were included in his campaign promises. "It is the change the American people voted for in November," he said.
Nonetheless, he said, well-financed interest groups will fight back furiously.
Insurance companies will dislike having "to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that's how we'll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs," the president said. "I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that's how we'll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy."
Passing the budget, even with a Democratic-controlled Congress, "won't be easy," Obama said. "Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington."
Obama also promoted his economic proposals in a video message to a group meeting in Los Angeles on "the state of the black union."
"We have done more in these past 30 days to bring about progressive change than we have in the past many years," the president in remarks the White House released in advance. "We are closing the gap between the nation we are and the nation we can be by implementing policies that will speed our recovery and build a foundation for lasting prosperity and opportunity."
Congressional Republicans continued to bash Obama's spending proposals and his projection of a $1.75 trillion deficit this year.
Almost every day brings another "multibillion-dollar government spending plan being proposed or even worse, passed," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., who gave the GOP's weekly address.
He said Obama is pushing "the single largest increase in federal spending in the history of the United States, while driving the deficit to levels that were once thought impossible."
Read into it what you please, because that is what always happens:
Obama challenges lobbyists to legislative duel
AFP – US President Barack Obama speaks at Goettge Memorial Field House in Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, North … WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama challenged the nation's vested interests to a legislative duel Saturday, saying he will fight to change health care, energy and education in dramatic ways that will upset the status quo.
"The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long," Obama said in his weekly radio and video address. "But I don't. I work for the American people."
He said the ambitious budget plan he presented Thursday will help millions of people, but only if Congress overcomes resistance from deep-pocket lobbies.
"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "My message to them is this: So am I."
The bring-it-on tone underscored Obama's combative side as he prepares for a drawn-out battle over his tax and spending proposals. Sometimes he uses more conciliatory language and stresses the need for bipartisanship. Often he favors lofty, inspirational phrases.
On Saturday, he was a full-throated populist, casting himself as the people's champion confronting special interest groups that care more about themselves and the wealthy than about the average American.
Some analysts say Obama's proposals are almost radical. But he said all of them were included in his campaign promises. "It is the change the American people voted for in November," he said.
Nonetheless, he said, well-financed interest groups will fight back furiously.
Insurance companies will dislike having "to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that's how we'll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs," the president said. "I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that's how we'll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy."
Passing the budget, even with a Democratic-controlled Congress, "won't be easy," Obama said. "Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington."
Obama also promoted his economic proposals in a video message to a group meeting in Los Angeles on "the state of the black union."
"We have done more in these past 30 days to bring about progressive change than we have in the past many years," the president in remarks the White House released in advance. "We are closing the gap between the nation we are and the nation we can be by implementing policies that will speed our recovery and build a foundation for lasting prosperity and opportunity."
Congressional Republicans continued to bash Obama's spending proposals and his projection of a $1.75 trillion deficit this year.
Almost every day brings another "multibillion-dollar government spending plan being proposed or even worse, passed," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., who gave the GOP's weekly address.
He said Obama is pushing "the single largest increase in federal spending in the history of the United States, while driving the deficit to levels that were once thought impossible."
First, please note that I never said that pics would be released in the OP, only redacted portions of the memos. (Presumably testimonies of the prisoners) The previous thread about this turned into a debate about releasing pics, and I erroneously didn't catch and correct that. My bad.
Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, May 6, 2006; Page A13
A day after scolding Russia for retreating on democracy, Vice President Cheney flew to oil-rich Kazakhstan yesterday and lavished praise on the autocratic leader of a former Soviet republic where opposition parties have been banned, newspapers shut down and advocacy groups intimidated.
Cheney stood next to Kazakhstan's longtime president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, in a marble hall of the presidential palace in Astana and congratulated him on his country's vibrant economy. His tone was markedly different from the tenor of his remarks about Russia a day earlier during a stop in Lithuania, when he accused Moscow of violating its citizens' rights and using intimidation or blackmail against neighbors.
In the course of a 395-word opening statement, according to a White House transcript, Cheney pronounced himself delighted to be a guest of Nazarbayev, saying I consider him my friend and adding that the United States is proud to count Kazakhstan as a friend. Cheney professed great respect for Nazarbayev and said that we are proud to be your strategic partner and look forward to continued friendship between us.
Asked about Kazakhstan's human rights record, he expressed admiration for all that's been accomplished here in Kazakhstan and confidence that it will continue.
Kazakhstan, however, remains a repressive nation, ruled by a former Communist apparatchik who has maintained a tight grip over its 15 million people since Soviet days and parlayed its massive energy reserves into a place on the international stage. Those reserves, human rights advocates say, have earned the country a pass from the Bush administration on human rights.
Nazarbayev, 65, a onetime blast-furnace operator in a steel mill, was a member of the Soviet Politburo who took over as head of the republic of Kazakhstan in 1990, became president after independence in 1991, and has stayed in office through elections that have been judged neither free nor fair by international monitors -- the most recent in December, when he claimed 91 percent of the vote.
The opposition party Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan was liquidated last year, and authorities refused to register two other opposition parties. Two opposition leaders died from gunshot wounds -- the circumstances are contested -- in recent months. The government has closed newspapers and seized print runs while using tax, immigration and other investigations to harass nongovernmental organizations. It is illegal to insult Nazarbayev or to report on his health, finances or private life.
During the year almost all media outlets willing to criticize the president directly were subjected to intimidation, often in the form of law enforcement actions or civil suits, the State Department's annual human rights report stated in March.
Nazarbayev has been accused of massive corruption. His own prime minister revealed in 2002 that Nazarbayev had stashed $1 billion in oil money in a secret Swiss bank account. Aides called it a legitimate special reserve account. U.S. prosecutors have also charged American businessman James H. Giffen with laundering tens of millions of dollars in oil company bribes to Nazarbayev and his family, allegations the Kazakh president denies.
Oil has dominated U.S. relations with Kazakhstan for years. With the largest crude oil reserves in the Caspian Sea region, Kazakhstan pumps 1.2 million barrels a day and exports 1 million of that, making it an increasingly important international supplier. With foreign investment flooding into the country, the Kazakh government hopes to boost production to 3.5 million barrels a day by 2015, rivaling Iran.
But human rights groups that hailed Cheney's comments on Russia said Kazakhstan deserved the same. It is hardly consistent, said Curt Goering, deputy executive director of Amnesty International. He made some important remarks [on Russia]. He said some of the right things that needed to be said. But he should have said some similar things in Kazakhstan.
I know it is not the same interview.
What I was saying is that he outlines in this interview what he feels is the big problem with the White House.
Did you see the interview......
with those three men who were recently released after being hostages in Columbia? I was about in tears when that one guy was talking about being locked in boxes at night and how he would think about his daughter. When he talked about them having no indication of being released and then him and two guys looked out and saw a rainbow......he knew they would get out and go home but he just didn't know when. That rainbow was a sign to him that God was going to get them through. To be able to have such faith in a time like that. Makes my problems seem so small compared to what they went through. I can't even imagine. The one man said that he finally got to meet his 5 y/o twin boys for the first time as they had not been born when he was taken hostage.
No, I did not see that particular interview...
but have read a lot and it is indeed inspiring. And personally I believe trials are when faith is the strongest, you dig deep and find strength you never thought you had. And you are the most open to God communicating to you...like the rainbow communicating to the man and the Holy Spirit confirming that they would be rescued. And yes, when you hear of something like this, certainly does put one's own problems in perspective, doesn't it?
Then why not do an interview for someone who...
doesn't get a tingle up their leg when you speak? Who is going to ask you the hard questions? He avoided that for over a year. If he is so confident, so ready to lead, why let little old Fox News scare him? Your argument rings very hollow...and it is the koolaid you should be reaching for, not chocolate...lol.
I saw that interview
What I didn't see was the reporter questioning McCain/Palin. Did that happen? What kind of questions did she ask THEM? With her attitude, I certainly do not blame Obama/Biden. She admitted on Larry King, I think it was, that she is a Republican. Another conclusion I've come to. Rabid Republicans have poor eyesight!
yup, that was an interview by someone from
man I can't think of his name right now. He has a side kick lady, but you were listening to the same one. The guy with long hair and sunglasses....Stern. That's him. While it was amusing, it was also an eye opener. Even Stern who is very liberal was shocked at the stupidity.
Yesterday's interview on
Matt Cooper pretty much spelled it out. You might not like it, though, because it still holds your boys accountable for their actions. So by all means, read at your own risk.
MSNBC.com
Transcript for July 17
Matt Cooper, John Podesta, Ken Mehlman, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein
NBC News
Updated: 1:57 p.m. ET July 17, 2005
PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."
Sunday, July 17, 2005
GUESTS: Matt Cooper, White House Correspondent, Time Magazine; John Podesta, President and CEO, "Center for American Progress" and Former Chief of Staff, President Bill Clinton; Ken Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee; Bob Woodward, Washington Post and author, "The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat" and Carl Bernstein, former Washington Post Watergate Reporter
MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert, NBC News
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: the investigation into the leak which identified Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. This Time magazine reporter says his source released him from his pledge of confidentiality, allowing him to avoid jail by testifying on Wednesday. What did he say to the grand jury? He'll discuss it for the first here this morning. Our guest: Matt Cooper.
Then Newsweek magazine quotes Karl Rove as saying it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency, who authorized the trip." What now for President Bush's deputy chief of staff? With us, Rove's former deputy, now chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, and President Clinton's former chief of staff, John Podesta.
And 33 years ago, another famous source, Deep Throat, provided information which brought about the resignation of Richard M. Nixon. His identity has now been revealed and his story now chronicled in a new book: "The Secret Man." With us, Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
But, first, joining us now is Matt Cooper of Time magazine. Welcome.
MR. MATT COOPER: Morning, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the cover of your magazine: "Rove on the Spot," subtitled "What I Told the Grand Jury," by Matthew Cooper. And here is an excerpt from your article, which will be available tomorrow in Time magazine.
"So did [Karl] Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him?"--to Niger. "Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the `agency' on `WMD'?"--weapons of mass destruction. "Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know."
For the record, the first time you learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove?
MR. COOPER: That's correct.
MR. RUSSERT: And when Karl concluded his conversation with you, you write he said, "I've already said too much." What did that mean?
MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure what it meant, Tim. At first, you know, I thought maybe he meant "I've been indiscreet." But then, as I thought about it, I thought it might be just more benign, like "I've said too much; I've got to get to a meeting." I don't know exactly what he meant, but I do know that memory of that line has stayed in my head for two years.
MR. RUSSERT: When you were told that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, did you have any sense then that this is important or "I better be careful about identifying someone who works for the CIA"?
MR. COOPER: Well, I certainly thought it was important. I wrote it in the e-mail to my bosses moments later that has since leaked out after this long court battle I've been in. You know, I certainly thought it was important. But I didn't know her name at the time until, you know, after Bob Novak's column came out.
MR. RUSSERT: Did you have any reluctance writing something so important?
MR. COOPER: Well, I wrote it after Bob Novak's column had come out and identified her, so I was not in, you know, danger of outing her the way he did.
MR. RUSSERT: You also write in Time magazine this week, "This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversation with [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a special waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recorded an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew"--of--"or played any role the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."
Did you interpret that as a confirmation?
MR. COOPER: I did, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: No, he didn't say that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you said it to him?
MR. COOPER: I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: And that she worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: I believe so.
MR. RUSSERT: The piece that you finally ran in Time magazine on July 17th, it says, "And some government officials have noted to Time in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger..."
"Some government officials"--That is Rove and Libby?
MR. COOPER: Yes, those were among the sources for that, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Are there more?
MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into it, but it's possible.
MR. RUSSERT: Have you told the grand jury about that?
MR. COOPER: The grand jury knows what I know, yes.
MR. RUSSERT: That there may have been more sources?
MR. COOPER: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: The big discussion, Matt Cooper, has been about your willingness to testify...
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...before the grand jury. And let's go through that. This was Wednesday, July 6, Matt Cooper talking to the assembled press corps.
(Videotape, July 6, 2005):
MR. COOPER: This morning, in what can only be described as a stunning set of developments, that source agreed to give me a specific, personal and unambiguous waiver to speak before the grand jury.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Now, Karl Rove's attorney has spoken to The Washington Post. "[Karl Rove's attorney, Robert] Luskin has said that he merely reaffirmed the blanket waiver by Rove ...and that the assurance would have been available at any time. He said that [Matt] Cooper's description of last-minute theatrics `does not look so good' and that `it just looks to me like there was less a desire to protect a source.'"
MR. COOPER: Well, can I back up a little bit, Tim? For two years, you know, I have protected the identity of my sources. As you know, I was in a rather infamous court battle that went through all the courts in Washington, right up to the Supreme Court, and we lost there with a special prosecutor trying to get me to disclose my source. My principle the whole time was that no court and no corporation can release me from a pledge of confidentiality with my source. And so even after Time magazine, over my objections, handed over my notes and e-mails, which included, really, everything I had and identified all my sources, I still believed that I needed some kind of personal release from the source himself.
And so on the morning of that clip you just saw, my lawyer called me and had seen in The Wall Street Journal that morning Mr. Rove's lawyer saying, "Karl does not stand by any confidentiality with these conversations," or words to that effect, and then went on to say, "If Matt Cooper's going to jail, it's not for Karl Rove." And at that point, at that point only, my lawyer contacted Mr. Rove's lawyer and said, you know, "Can we get a kind of personal waiver that applies to Matt?" And Mr. Luskin and he worked out an agreement and we have a letter that says that "Mr. Rove waives confidentiality for conversations with Matt Cooper in July 2003." So it's specific to me and it's personal, and that's why I felt comfortable, only at that point, going to testify before the grand jury. And once I testified before the grand jury, then I felt I should share that with the readers of Time.
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Luskin, Rove's attorney, is suggesting that you had the same waiver throughout the last two years, and only when you were confronted with going to jail did you, in effect, decide to compromise your source or not protect your source.
MR. COOPER: Well, I protected my source all along. I don't maintain that I haven't. I have all the way along, and that's why we went to the Supreme Court. That's why I stood by the source even after Time had disclosed my documents. We went to Rove only after seeing his lawyer, in some sense, invite us to, in that quote in The Wall Street Journal. My lawyers and the editors at the time did not feel it was appropriate for me to go and approach Rove about some kind of waiver before then.
MR. RUSSERT: In your piece, as I mentioned, you said "some government officials," and you said it may be more than just Rove and Libby. Did you get waivers from those additional sources when you testified before the grand jury?
MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into anything else, but I don't--anything I discuss before the grand jury, I have a waiver for.
MR. RUSSERT: Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief...
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...of Time magazine, authorized the release of your e-mails and notes to the prosecutor. Pearlstine said this: "I found myself really coming to the conclusion that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do." Do you agree?
MR. COOPER: In part. I mean, I think Norman Pearlstine made a very tough decision. I spent a lot of time with him and I admired the way he made it. I disagreed. I thought we should have at least, you know, gone forward, gone into civil contempt. I would have been willing to go to jail. I think we should have, you know, held on a little longer, but that's a reasonable, you know, disagreement between people.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, he came to Washington, Pearlstine, and some other editors from New Work and met with the Washington bureau of Time magazine.
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: At least two correspondents produced e-mails saying, "Our sources are now telling us they will no longer confide in Time magazine. They will no longer trust us to protect our sources." Is that going to be a long-term problem for your magazine?
MR. COOPER: Well, I think, you know, Time will have to, you know, reassure confidential sources that we're going to continue to rely on them and continue to protect them. You know, this--Tim, I think the important thing is here that one aberration in this case was it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and it was then--you know, Time did decide in this case to turn over the notes. Now, Pearlstine has said that in other cases he might not. I think the important thing to remember here is that, you know, the reporters of Time will keep their word. I kept my word for two years. I didn't feel like any court or corporation could release me from that confidence, and I kept my word and so only spoke with the grand jury after I received that written personal waiver from my source.
MR. RUSSERT: You are going to testify this week before Congress for a shield law. Explain that.
MR. COOPER: Sure . Well, Tim, you know, this is the 12th day, I believe, of my colleague Judith Miller from The New York Times being in jail in this investigation because she did not get a waiver that she feels comfortable with and she's protecting her sources. There's incredible aberration, Tim. Forty- nine states have some kind of protection for journalists and their confidential sources, but there is no protection at the federal level. And so in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats have put forward legislation in Congress to create some kind of protection for whistle-blowers and confidential sources and other people who want to come forward to the press so there'd be some kind of federal law, too.
MR. RUSSERT: What's your biggest regret in this whole matter?
MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure I have that many. I mean, I believe the story I wrote was entirely accurate and fair, and I stand by it. And I think it was important because it was about an important thing that was going on. It was called A War on Wilson, and I believe there was something like a war on Wilson going on. I guess I'd be a little more discreet about my e-mails, I think. I'm an object lesson in that, you know, e-mails have a way of getting out.
MR. RUSSERT: Will this affect your career as a journalist?
MR. COOPER: I don't think it should, Tim. I kept my word to my source. I only spoke after I got a waiver from that source. That's what other journalists have done in this case. I don't think it should.
MR. RUSSERT: How did you find the grand jury?
MR. COOPER: I was surprised, Tim. You know, I'd heard this old line that grand jurors are very passive, that they'll indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor tells them. I thought this grand jury was very interested in the case. They--a lot of the questions I answered were posed by them as opposed to the prosecutor. I thought they were very involved.
MR. RUSSERT: Where do you think it's heading?
MR. COOPER: You know, I really don't know, Tim. I've been, you know, involved in this case as anyone, I guess, for a couple of years now, and at times I think it's a very big case, at times I think it's, you know, politics as usual and not going to be that big a case at all. I just don't know.
MR. RUSSERT: And we'll find out. Matt Cooper, we thank you very much for joining us and sharing your views.
MR. COOPER: Thank you, Tim.
Saw this interview, and I would surmise the man
knows what he is talking about...apparently things are NOT hunky-dory with the freedom-thing in Iraq, and so much as says let's get out now! and I agree!
I saw this interview on Countdown.
Twice. (I taped it.) Jonathan Turley is a very well respected expert in Constitutional law, and I was actually very pleasantly surprised at the courage he showed by saying what he said. I just hope he isn't the next victim to be crushed by the Bush career-demolition machine.
POWERFUL INTERVIEW....sm
Double wowzers!!!
I am impressed and concur with Pat and the interviewers view points.
I felt very uncomfortable for her. She was clearly out of her depth and Charlie really give her general questions, not detailed-oriented questions he could have asked. The blank look she had at "Bush Doctrine" was the worst; the way she tried to get a hint from Charlie about what he was talking about was squirm-inducing. A commentator noted she agreed with Obama's policy on Afghanistan rather than McCain's. I am hoping that voters will view her sympathetically as an uniformed foreign policy neophyte who simply cannot cram the vast knowledge required to deal with potentially explosive affairs in a few weeks time. I am hoping voters are willing to give her a few more years to grow into a national position. I am hoping voters will not put our children at risk by electing someone they "like" to be understudy to a man who is clearly being worn down physically by this campaign. We need well-informed, knowledgable leaders. If voters want to reward people for service and likeability, they can do so with the numerous reality shows where viewers vote for candidates.
Obama Interview.........sm
Hey sam, are up for a complete dissection on every single answer or non-answer that Obama gave on the O'Reilly interview?
Personally, what I came away with is this:
1. Obama is very charming, likable, charismatic. He looks good and acts presidential, most of the time.
2. Even though the interview was scripted, and Obama knew what the questions were going to be, I think he answered things pretty well. He did sound thoughtful, and knowledgeable.
3. I thought he was going to be given a free ride, but O'Reilly really was kind of tough on him a few times.
4. But really, the single most interesting thing I came away with was......I had no idea what he said a couple of times. He danced around a couple of questions, talking both sides, I really didn't know what his answer was. I guess he was trying to please everyone, but I have no idea what he was really thought or said. It was weird.
Anyway, I see why they all follow blindly. He looks good and sounds good, and says exactly what they want to hear. But I just still don't see anything of real substance there behind the man.
Tell me, who would you choose to interview him? nm
There is a big black hole under his left ear behind that chipmunk type cheek. I kept thinking it was a trick of light, but there is a deep crevice there or something.
watched so many with all the political shows. Can't even visualize the reporter.
Did you see the short interview she did with ...sm
reporters where she was asked to comment on her censure by the Alaska legislature? She totally ignores the fact that she was censored for unethical behavior in the interference she allowed to occur trying to get the trooper fired. She just said she was grateful to the Alaska legislature for absolving her of unethical or criminal behavior in the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, no mention of what she was actually censored for. Unbelievable!
"Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, the chief investigator of an Alaska legislative panel concluded Friday".
And I truly don't understand why. I tried to quickly find the transcript of the entire interview, but I was unable to find it.
I wish they would have posted the entire interview because Sean and Newt argued and probably for the first time did not agree. If I remember correctly, there was even a jovial comment at the end about Newt being closer to Alan than Sean (or something to that effect). I don't remember the exact words. I did watch the entire interview, and I can tell you that Sean challenged Newt on points, but Newt still disagreed with him. The gist of what Newt said was that the President just needs to start being honest with the American people about things he does.
If I have more time later, I will search some more and see if I can find the entire interview in case you don't believe what I have told you after watching the entire interview.
I do agree, however, that the entire interview should have been there because I think his disagreement with Sean was much more interesting than his agreement with Alan.
I actually watched the interview on TV and was going to wait a day or two until the transcript was available and post the transcript, but I was able to find a clip of the interview, which is much better than the transcript.
Unfortunately, there is still a lot that can go wrong in the year and a half Bush has left because there are growing numbers of *bogeymen,* in my opinion, partly because USA is seen as an arrogant bully by a significant portion of the world. We have to worry about North Korea and Iran. (Ironically, Valerie Plame had been working on Iran's nuclear program when she was outted by Rove and Libby, which makes me wonder whether we're being told the truth about them by the Bush administration.)
I'm very glad I saw this because I've increasingly wondered how two different sides of the political spectrum could see things so very differently, with one of them having such venom towards the other side. I remember the good old days when Democrats and Republicans could discuss and debate issues. Even if the debate became heated, they walked away from it still friends and still respecting each other. The Republicans would debate, not personally attack. I haven't seen that in a long time.
Recent Russo interview ...sm
With Conscious Media Network. Of course, it wasn't on CNN, etc. I have seen the trailers.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3254488777215293198&q=aaron+russo
Ron Paul radio interview
For those of you in the listening area, Ron Paul is being interviewed on NPR. I am in New England and it is on now. But if you miss it, you can log onto NPR on the web and play it back at your leisure. :o)
For those itching for that Focks interview sm
After commanding an audience of 84,000 at Mile High, and another 38,000,000 or so in the TV viewing audience (more than the Oscars, the opening ceremonies of the Olympics or the American Idol finale), he probably can go without appearing in front of that that so-called "largest viewing audience" of Focks News you accuse him of fearing, and their golden boys, Bill O'Reilly and/or Sean Hannity...and come out of it just fine. Still, if you insist, let's strike a deal.
Tell you what. Obama will submit to an interview on Focks News just as soon as McCain agrees to an unscripted Q&A with any of the following:
Michael Moore
Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman
Ariana Huffington.
Bill Mahar.
Bill Moyers.
Indymedia.
Independent Press Association (IPA)
Chris Matthews
Keith Olberman
Richard Dreyfuss
Helen Thomas
Jim Hightower
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
Naomi Klein
Al-Jazeera English
Jeremy Scahill
Robert Scheer
Nir Rosen
Allan Nairn
James Steele
John Ghazvinian
Seymour Hersh
Scotter Ritter
The Nation
Rolling Stone
Mother Jones
The American Prospect
Greg Palast
Could go on, but you get my drift, yes or no?
I saw Biden in an interview this morning....
he got realll agitated when confronted about an issue they really did not want to break. Talking to a reporter and he almost got loud. They are not on the run, but they are definitely concerned. The debates will be verrryyyy interesting.
To Biden's credit, though, he was almost snarly to the press for sexism and attacking Palin's family. Much more forceful about it than Obama. Good for him!
marks the location of current message within thread
Needless to say, I was very happy to see this.
MSNBC.com![Obama](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090228/videolthumb.983a6028673afffb912927d28ef3bb47.jpg?x=213&y=160&xc=1&yc=1&wc=399&hc=300&q=85&sig=PMO6DFmeTgJVwZABqsZxhg--")
![Against](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/abc/20090301/videolthumb.c1becf9b57df7968fc79ac681f1c5546.jpg?x=50&y=50&xc=38&yc=1&wc=146&hc=146&q=85&sig=lGqwKf5pNYL.7lrvsXsvEA--")
![Obama](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20090228/capt.photo_1235820905761-1-0.jpg?x=213&y=158&xc=1&yc=1&wc=410&hc=304&q=85&sig=RHo1D8wDBTGadU_8GT.Lsg--")
![The](http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/4/0b/40bc92fdfac8f6c94c962d1f04184d98.jpeg")
![Obama](http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/5/60/5608acea6cd336654ffb582a31020cb1.jpeg")
![Source:](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090301/videolthumb.9ea75f453eaa4e4b405c21bbc242f8a9.jpg?x=105&y=70&xc=1&yc=1&wc=400&hc=267&q=85&sig=OSjRiW8hZsZ5mOlIYm1vMg--")
![The](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/fox/20090228/vidlthumb.1fbe0fc9dcddf5b9b5538fd477f1019b.jpg?x=103&y=58&xc=1&yc=1&wc=103&hc=58&q=85&sig=WBNn8Qi3eK16sJHXvVsrSQ--")
![Rhetoric](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/fox/20090228/vidlthumb.2c4c9f4f9bff8e1934b2c7c1d6da823d.jpg?x=103&y=58&xc=1&yc=1&wc=103&hc=58&q=85&sig=Z5rAjvQkvmAuG3EUiP0_1g--")
![Burr:](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090228/videolthumb.8a2b7fb50fce1c69d219b3b674f485e3.jpg?x=105&y=70&xc=1&yc=1&wc=400&hc=267&q=85&sig=Djq2iMYpSQjksp2FHiWL3Q--")
![Education](http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/f/a9/fa94bb45acbcc0411a95c05da4b3a43a.jpeg")
![Education](http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/0/c9/0c97cdf7843828fe0dc528a94be360a1.jpeg")
