From C-SPAN via YouTube:

Of course we have no respect whatsoever for either of the so-called journalists, Chip Reid or Ms. Thomas.

But at least it is mildly entertaining to see the White House called on their phony events, for once.

(Thanks to Melly for the heads up.)

From an outraged (at Honduras) Associated Press:

Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya laughs during his news conference at the end of the special general assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington July 1, 2009.

OAS gives 3-day deadline to Honduran coup leaders

By Barry Schweid, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON – Honduran coup leaders have three days to restore deposed President Manuel Zelaya to power, the Organization of American States said Wednesday, before Honduras risks being suspended from the group…

OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza delivered what he called "an ultimatum" as OAS talks regarding the crisis dragged into the early morning hours. The talks began Tuesday afternoon.

In a sharply worded resolution, the OAS said it vehemently condemned the coup and "the arbitrary detention and expulsion" of Zelaya.

Also Wednesday, a Pentagon spokesman said joint U.S.-Honduran military operations are on hold.

"We’ve postponed any activities in Honduras right now as we assess that situation," spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

Whitman would not be specific, but the suspension could be far-reaching, since the United States runs a large Central American security and counternarcotics operation from a jointly run air base in Honduras…

The coup, the OAS resolution said, has produced an "unconstitutional alteration of the democratic order." The envoys demanded Zelaya’s immediate and safe return to power…

Zelaya has said he intends to return home accompanied by Insulza, the presidents of Argentina and Ecuador and the head of the U.N. General Assembly to seek restoration of his authority.

Roberto Micheletti, named by Honduras’ Congress as the new president, said Tuesday that Zelaya could be met with an arrest warrant if he returned…

The U.N. adopted a resolution calling on all 192 U.N. member states not to recognize any government in Honduras other than Zelaya’s…

The United States said it saw no acceptable solution to Zelaya’s ouster other than returning him to power. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters that the U.S. was still reviewing whether to cut off aid to the Central American nation.

We’re not sure. But this sounds a little like the OAS is meddling in Honduras’ internal affairs.

In fact, it sounds like they are trying to impose their values on the citizens of Honduras.

Surely, Mr. Obama can’t be such a hypocrite.

An excerpt and some selected charts from a little reported 82 page analysis out of the Congressional Budget Office (a pdf file):

(Click to enlarge.)

The Long Term Budget Outlook

June 25, 2009

Summary

Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path—meaning that federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds longterm fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the U.S. population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits and accumulating debt. Keeping deficits and debt from reaching levels that would cause substantial harm to the economy would require increasing revenues significantly as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), decreasing projected spending sharply, or some combination of the two.

For decades, spending on the federal government’s major health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, has been growing faster than the economy (as has health care spending in the private sector). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035 (what this report describes as the intermediate term) and to more than 17 percent by 2080 (what this report considers to be the long term). That projection means that in 2080, without changes in policy, the federal government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years.

Under current law, spending on Social Security is also projected to rise over time as a share of GDP, albeit much less dramatically. CBO projects that Social Security spending will increase from less than 5 percent of GDP today to about 6 percent in 2035 and then roughly stabilize at that level through 2080. Under the assumptions used for CBO’s long-term projections, government spending on activities other than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—is projected to decline or stay roughly stable as a share of GDP in future decades.

Almost all of the projected growth in federal spending other than interest payments on the debt comes from growth in spending on the three largest entitlement programs— Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. By CBO’s estimates, the increase in spending for Medicare and Medicaid as a share of GDP will account for 80 percent of spending increases for the three entitlement programs between now and 2035 and 90 percent of spending growth between now and 2080. Thus, reducing overall government spending relative to what would occur under current fiscal policy would require fundamental changes in the trajectory of federal health spending. Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid is the central long-term challenge for federal fiscal policy.

Federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will grow relative to the economy both because health care spending per beneficiary is projected to increase and because the population is aging. Spending on Medicare and Medicaid will be driven by both factors, while Social Security spending will rise because of the population’s aging. Between now and 2035, aging is projected to make the larger contribution to the growth of spending for those three programs as a share of GDP. After 2035, continued increases in health care spending per beneficiary are projected to dominate the growth in spending for the three programs.

The current recession has little effect on long-term projections of noninterest spending and revenues. But CBO estimates that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II. As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 41 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 60 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010. Higher debt results in permanently higher spending to pay interest on that debt (unless the debt is later paid off ). Federal interest payments already amount to more than 1 percent of GDP; unless current law changes, that share would rise to 2.5 percent by 2020.

CBO’s long-term budget projections raise fundamental questions about economic sustainability. If outlays grew as projected and revenues did not rise at a corresponding rate, annual deficits would climb and federal debt would grow significantly. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress income growth in the United States. Over time, the accumulation of debt would seriously harm the economy. Alternatively, if spending grew as projected and taxes were raised in tandem, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the United States. High tax rates would slow the growth of the economy, making the spending burden harder to bear. Policymakers could mitigate the economic damage from rapidly rising debt by putting the nation on a sustainable fiscal course, which would require some combination of lower spending and higher revenues than the amounts now projected. Making such changes sooner rather than later would lessen the risks that current fiscal policy poses to the economy.

(Click to enlarge.)

Mind you, this is a report from the Democrat-controlled Congressional Budget Office. And even they say that the government simply cannot sustain its current spending.

Note, too, that the CBO sees the culprits to be Medicare and Medicaid:

By CBO’s estimates, the increase in spending for Medicare and Medicaid as a share of GDP will account for 80 percent of spending increases for the three entitlement programs between now and 2035 and 90 percent of spending growth between now and 2080. Thus, reducing overall government spending relative to what would occur under current fiscal policy would require fundamental changes in the trajectory of federal health spending. Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid is the central long-term challenge for federal fiscal policy.

And yet what are Mr. Obama and the Democrats seeking to do?

They are seeking to expand Medicare and Medicaid to encompass everyone. For that is the essence of Obama-care.

It is simply madness.

From Iran’s Press TV:

Neda has become the symbol of post-election street rallies in Iran.

Iran police: Neda’s death ‘prearranged scenario’

Wed, 01 Jul 2009

Iran’s Police Chief says the mysterious death of Neda Aqa-Soltan, who became a symbol of post-election street rallies in Iran, was a ‘prearranged scenario’.

Neda, 26, was shot dead on June 20 in an alley away from the scene of clashes between security forces and demonstrators in Tehran.

She immediately became an international icon after graphic videos of her death grabbed the attention of world media outlets.

Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqadam, commander of the Iranian Police, said Wednesday that the unfortunate incident –which has been hyped and dramatized by Western media outlets–, was in fact a ‘premeditated act of murder’.

The Iranian police chief said Arash Hejazi, a doctor who claims he tried to save Neda’s life in her final moments, has fanned the flames of the western media hype.

Ahmadi-Moqadam said the Iranian Intelligence Ministry is making every effort to discover the whereabouts of Hejazi. "He has fled the country and is working against the Iranian government abroad."

Media outlets in the West have blamed Neda’s death on Iranian security forces, but new revelations have found that she was murdered by a small caliber pistol–a weapon that is not used by Iranian security forces.

The man who drove Neda to hospital said in an interview that her death looked ‘highly suspicious’, as there were no security forces or Basij members nearby.

The Iranian government is making every effort to identify the culprit behind Neda’s death with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demanding a through investigation into the incident.

"Amid vast propaganda by foreign media and many other evidence about the heartfelt event, it seems definite that opponents of the Iranian nation interfere (in Iran’s internal affairs) for their political misuse," said Ahmadinejad in a letter to Iran’s Judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi

Really, more and more it seems that the Iranian rulers think they can say and do whatever they want – no matter how preposterous – and get away with it.

After all, they have the media on their side. So who is going to question them?

Thank goodness that could never happen here.

From Iran’s Press TV:

Maziar Bahari

Detained Newsweek reporter comes clean

Wed, 01 Jul 2009

Newsweek’s Canadian-Iranian journalist Maziar Bahari has admitted to giving “false and biased” reports about the recent post-election events in Iran.

Bahari, who also had connections with the BBC and Britain’s Channel 4 news, was arrested in Tehran during the unrest that followed the announcement of the result of the 10th presidential election.

In a Tuesday press conference that was held while he was still in custody, Bahari explained the nature of some of his activities in Iran over the past years and the role that Western media had played in the events, which unfolded in the country.

“Most of the work I did for BBC and Channel 4 had to do with highlighting problems in various areas… the journalist work I did revolved around daily news and issues such as the parliamentary and presidential elections,” Bahari told reports.

“Western media are an inseparable part of the capitalist machine of Western liberal democracies. A Western journalist who comes to Iran… is mainly concerned with the interests of the West, which are defined in relation to each issue at every period of time,” he said.

The Newsweek reporter said international press set the scenes for velvet revolutions in various countries, adding that the gentle overthrow of a government could not be achieved without their critical role.

Bahari specifically highlighted the role of the BBC, CNN, Euronews, The New York Times and Newsweek.

“On the brink of every velvet revolution Western media try to portray the ruling administration as the traditional, bigoted, inefficient and undemocratic side while introducing the Western-inclined trend as a modern, efficient, democratic, and reformist movement that has support among the people,” he said.

Bahar said that in such cases, several months prior to the vote foreign news outlets begin efforts to persuade the public that the election will be rigged and that a coup is just around the corner.

He added that these media outlets give full coverage to illegal protests with the belief that broadcasting such events will help enlarge their scale.

The announcement of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election sparked opposition rallies in the capital Tehran with defeated candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi demanding the vote to be annulled.

Iran has blamed the ‘biased’ attitude of European countries and their media for fueling the country’s post-election unrest.

Newsweek has issued a statement about Bahari’s arrest and called for his immediate release, saying that the journalist’s “coverage of Iran, for Newsweek and other outlets, has always been fair and nuanced, and has given full weight to all sides of the issues.”

“He has always worked well with different administrations in Tehran, including the current one,” the statement says.

This is a perfect example of how insular the Iranian regime has become.

If they imagine that an employee of Newsweek/Washington Post would have anything but genuine admiration for a dictatorial regime that is rabidly anti-American, they have to be completely out of touch with the outside world.

Of course Mr. Bahan was simply saying what he thought the people in power wanted him to say.

That, after all, is his job. What he has been trained all of his life to do.

From an elated Associated Press:

Democrat Franken wins protracted Minn. Senate race

By Brian Bakst, Associated Press Writer

ST. PAUL, Minn. – Al Franken refused his rival’s calls for an election night concession last November, choosing instead to begin vote counting and courtroom haggling that stretched almost eight months and ultimately landed him a seat in the U.S. Senate.

Franken’s victory over Republican Norm Coleman gives Democrats 60 Senate seats, the critical number needed to overcome Republican filibusters. When Franken is seated, which could come as early as next week, his party will have a majority not reached on either side of the aisle in some three decades.

Coleman conceded the election hours after a unanimous state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Franken — who moved into politics with books poking fun at conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh — should be certified the winner. In doing so, Coleman pulled the plug on a bitter election that was decided by 312 votes out of almost 2.9 million cast…

So we have yet another election stolen by the Democrats. (In fact, by the very same people who stole the gubernatorial election in Washington State.)

It’s just like in Iran. Except here we are so resigned to it that nobody even bothers to protest in the streets.

Indeed, the US citizenry has been so cowed our ruling mullahs don’t even need a Basij, apart from ACORN.

Note, too, that just like in Iran there was never any thought of doing the election over.

Now, just like in Iran and other third world countries, if a Democrat ends up close in the vote he can be sure of an ultimate victory through creative ‘recounts.’  So why have a do-over?

Of course it doesn’t help that Mr. Franken is one of the least qualified and most hate-filled creatures to ever disgrace the floor of the Congress. (Though, in that respect he the perfect representative to give that party a super majority.)

Still, this latest stolen election is another sign of the death of our country as a republic. A land once ruled by laws rather than men.

We are now merely the first nation of the third world.

Which, after all, is the outcome the Democrats sought for so long.

From Gallup:

More Americans See Democratic Party as “Too Liberal”

More believe Democratic Party’s, rather than Republican Party’s, views are about right

by Jeffrey M. Jones

June 30, 2009

PRINCETON, NJ — A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party’s views as being "too liberal," from 39% to 46%. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party’s losses in that year’s midterm elections…

Notably, there has been no change over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say the Republican Party is "too conservative," though the 43% who say the party leans too far to the right matches the historical high mark set last year.

As a result, now slightly more Americans perceive the Democratic Party as being too liberal (46%) than view the GOP as being too conservative (43%).

But the Democratic Party still compares favorably to the Republican Party from the standpoint that more Americans say the Democrats’ ideology is "about right" (42%) than say this about the Republicans’ ideology (34%)…

One should hope that our fellow citizens would have begun to catch on by now.

And yet:

But the Democratic Party still compares favorably to the Republican Party from the standpoint that more Americans say the Democrats’ ideology is "about right" …

Perhaps this too will change.

Despite our one party media and Democrat controlled ‘establishment.’

But propaganda go only do so much in the face of hard reality.

From an ecstatic Washington Post:

Preventing Another Iraq: Key in Afghanistan: Economy, Not Military

By Bob Woodward
Wednesday, July 1, 2009

CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan — National security adviser James L. Jones told U.S. military commanders here last week that the Obama administration wants to hold troop levels here flat for now, and focus instead on carrying out the previously approved strategy of increased economic development, improved governance and participation by the Afghan military and civilians in the conflict.

The message seems designed to cap expectations that more troops might be coming, though the administration has not ruled out additional deployments in the future. Jones was carrying out directions from President Obama, who said recently, "My strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more and more troops."

"This will not be won by the military alone," Jones said in an interview during his trip. "We tried that for six years." He also said: "The piece of the strategy that has to work in the next year is economic development. If that is not done right, there are not enough troops in the world to succeed." …

The question of the force level for Afghanistan, however, is not settled and will probably be hotly debated over the next year. One senior military officer said privately that the United States would have to deploy a force of more than 100,000 to execute the counterinsurgency strategy of holding areas and towns after clearing out the Taliban insurgents. That is at least 32,000 more than the 68,000 currently authorized…

During the briefing, Nicholson had told Jones that he was "a little light," more than hinting that he could use more forces, probably thousands more. "We don’t have enough force to go everywhere," Nicholson said.

But Jones recalled how Obama had initially decided to deploy additional forces this year. "At a table much like this," Jones said, referring to the polished wood table in the White House Situation Room, "the president’s principals met and agreed to recommend 17,000 more troops for Afghanistan." The principals — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Gates; Mullen; and the director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair — made this recommendation in February during the first full month of the Obama administration. The president approved the deployments, which included Nicholson’s Marines.

Soon after that, Jones said, the principals told the president, "oops," we need an additional 4,000 to help train the Afghan army.

"They then said, ‘If you do all that, we think we can turn this around,’ " Jones said, reminding the Marines here that the president had quickly approved and publicly announced the additional 4,000.

Now suppose you’re the president, Jones told them, and the requests come into the White House for yet more force. How do you think Obama might look at this? Jones asked, casting his eyes around the colonels. How do you think he might feel? …

Nicholson and his colonels — all or nearly all veterans of Iraq — seemed to blanch at the unambiguous message that this might be all the troops they were going to get.

Jones, speaking with great emphasis to this group of Iraq veterans, said Afghanistan is not Iraq. "We are not going to build that empire again," he said flatly.

Obama sent Jones last week to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to make an assessment and explain the president’s thinking.

As a presidential candidate and as president, Obama stressed that the Afghan war was neglected in the Bush administration. In announcing the first additional 17,000 troops on Feb. 17, Obama said that "the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan" and that al-Qaeda "threatens America from its safe haven" in neighboring Pakistan…

Jones said repeatedly on this trip that the new strategy has three legs, all of which he said had to be dramatically improved: security; economic development and reconstruction; and governance by the Afghans under the rule of law.

"The president realizes it’s on the razor’s edge," Jones said, suggesting not only a difficult, dangerous time but also a situation that could cut either way. "And he’s worried that others don’t." …

Remember how during the campaign Mr. Obama demanded a ‘surge’ in Afghanistan? That the Afghan War was a war we had to win?

That was then, and this is now:

National security adviser James L. Jones told U.S. military commanders here last week that the Obama administration wants to hold troop levels here flat for now, and focus instead on carrying out the previously approved strategy of increased economic development, improved governance and participation by the Afghan military and civilians in the conflict.

Note that this now being called “the previously approved strategy.”

So there never was going to be any meaningful ‘surge’ in Afghanistan, after all. All of those promises were ‘just words.’

Despite itself, this article does contain some actual admissions. Certainly the Obama administration wants to “prevent another Iraq.”

That is, they do not want us to win in Afghanistan as we have done in Iraq.

Instead, they seek to squander the money already allocated for the war in ‘economic development’ so that the Taliban will have a nicer country to run when they take over.

Lest we forget, back in a January 17, 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Mr. Obama predicted the consequences of his upcoming energy programs:

Mr. Obama candidly admitted to the (friendly) newspaper editors that his policies would make energy prices “skyrocket.”

Mr. Obama also promised to bankrupt anyone foolish enough to build coal-burning power plants.

And, thanks to the upcoming ‘Cap And Trade’ bill, he may yet have his way.

From the very discreet Associated Press:

Protesters demand mortgage help from loan firms

June 30, 2009

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Protests are planned in more than a dozen cities across the country to demand that a group of mortgage companies who benefited from federal bailout money participate in a government program designed to prevent foreclosures.

The protesters want the companies to sign on to the Obama administration initiative called "Making Home Affordable." The administration estimates it could help up to 9 million financially troubled homeowners stay in their homes.

Rally organizers say about 80 percent of eligible loan companies are participating already.

The protests are scheduled Tuesday in 14 cities, including Philadelphia, Dallas, Boston, Los Angeles and Miami. They’re organized by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, also known as ACORN.

This AP article has only been picked up by a handful of local media outlets.

Despite their very professional ‘press announcement’:

Why is that?

Meanwhile, here is another Associated Press story that is also only being carried by a the smallest local news sites:

Sixth Ex-ACORN Worker Will Face Trial In Pa.

June 30, 2009

PITTSBURGH — A sixth former ACORN worker has been ordered to stand trial on charges of illegally filling out voter registration cards in the months before the 2008 general election.

Allegheny County prosecutors said 20-year-old Eric Jordan, of North Braddock, tried to meet an alleged quota by submitting his own registration three times, changing his address or party affiliation.

But District Judge Richard Zoller told prosecutors at Jordan’s preliminary hearing Monday that they should be prosecuting local ACORN officials, not the workers.

ACORN officials have denied using quotas to motivate registration workers, who were paid about $8 to $10 an hour, since its workers were charged in May.

The district attorney’s office said its investigation of local ACORN officials "remains open and active."

Never mind that we have also never heard about the trials of former ACORN workers 1 through 5.

Remember when our watchdog media used to pretend to care about the sanctity of the vote?

  Update!

Some further elucidation from the Phoenix Business Journal:

ACORN presses Goldman Sachs, Barclays, American Home for mortgage modifications

Phoenix Business Journal – by Mike Sunnucks

The ACORN housing and community activist group is pressuring American Home Mortgage Corp., IndyMac Bank successor OneWest Bank and mortgage arms of Goldman Sachs & Co. and Barclays PLC to increase aid to distressed mortgage holders and participate in federal programs offering incentives for such actions.

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, launched a campaign Monday criticizing the four lenders for not doing more to help with refinancing and modification of distressed mortgages.

The Phoenix housing market has been one of the hardest hit by the real estate slide and has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the U.S.

ACORN will hold rallies Tuesday in cities including Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Seattle. None have been set yet for Phoenix.

ACORN is one of the nonprofit agencies approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to help homeowners refinance and modify troubled mortgages. The group has stirred controversy with its voter registration drives, political advocacy and links to President Barack Obama.

Why doesn’t Mr. Obama just lean on his Goldman Sachs buddies?

His cabinet is chock full of them.

From Iran’s Press TV:

Ahmadinejad votes up after partial re-count

Tue, 30 Jun 2009

A random re-count of 10 percent of votes cast in Iran’s June 12 elections results in a slight increase of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s votes in some cities.

After ballot boxes were randomly chosen and re-counted in the presence of the Guardian Council, interior ministry and district governor representatives, Ahmadinejad’s votes increased in the province of Kerman, Fars news reported on Monday.

The incumbent president’s tally also rose by 12 votes in Jirof, after 17 of the 170 ballot boxes in the southeastern city were re-counted, according to Fars news.

The report added that the re-count in Jiroft resulted in five votes being deducted from runner up Mir-Hossein Mousavi and one vote being deducted form Mehdi Karroubi, while Mohsen Rezaei’s ballots increased by three votes.

However, the changes in the tally were announced as being ‘too small’ to be deemed decisive in the outcome of the election.

Fars news also reported that recounts in the central city of Qom, northeastern city of Gorgan and northern city of Sari ended without any changes in the original results.

Iran’s election watchdog, the Guardian Council, confirmed the election results on Monday after finishing the random re-count…

Hey, it’s just like in our country.

Whenever there is a ‘close race’ with a Democrat that requires a ‘recount.’

  Update!

Also from Iran’s Press TV:

Guardian Council closes file on Iran election

Tue, 30 Jun 2009

The Guardian Council, the Iranian electoral watchdog, has declared the file on Iran’s 10th presidential elections closed.

Council spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei told Press TV’s correspondent on Tuesday that the Council has had its ‘final say’ on the issue and has closed the file on the election upon verifying the vote result. He added that no other complaints would be investigated.

Kadkhodaei added that the body would release a detailed report of the vote recount despite not having found any significant irregularities.

When asked whether the defeated candidates could pursue their complaints with the Iranian parliament, Kadkhodaei reaffirmed that the case was closed and only certain ‘marginal issues’ could be taken to parliament.

"The events taking place on the sidelines of the election and the irregularities on Election Day … they will be looked into and any wrongdoing will be dealt with. But Article 90 [of the constitution] can only deal with the marginal issues pertaining to the election."

Article 90 of the Iranian Constitution states that complaints concerning the work of the executive body, led by the president, can be referred to parliament, which is obligated to investigate the complaint and demand proper investigation into the matter.

After incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared winner of the 10th election with almost two-thirds of the votes, defeated candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi rejected the result as fraudulent and demanded a re-run.

While Iran’s electoral watchdog did not agree to a re-run, it announced readiness for a random recount of 10 percent of the votes.

The council announced late Monday that the recount of 10 percent of the ballot boxes had shown no irregularities and confirmed Ahmadinejad as the winner of the presidential race.

Gosh.

And we had held out such hope for a open and honest counting of the ballots.

We almost missed this bit of actual reporting from the Wall Street Journal:

New Rift Opens Over Rights of Detainees

JUNE 29, 2009

By JESS BRAVIN

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has determined that detainees tried by military commissions in the U.S. can claim at least some constitutional rights, particularly protection against the use of statements taken through coercive interrogations, officials said.

The conclusion, explained in a confidential memorandum whose contents were shared with The Wall Street Journal, could alter significantly the way the commissions operate — and has created new divisions among the agencies responsible for overseeing the commissions.

Defense Department officials warn that the Justice Department position could reduce the chance of convicting some defendants. Military prosecutors have said involuntary statements comprise the lion’s share of their evidence against dozens of Guantanamo prisoners who could be tried.

The Obama Justice Department’s view is a sharp turn from that of the Bush administration, which argued detainees have no constitutional rights. It isn’t clear how the Obama administration will act, but the Justice Department’s legal counsel’s office traditionally has the last word on constitutional interpretation in the executive branch. The White House declined to comment….

In a memorandum issued May 4, David Barron, acting assistant attorney general, said the office believes there is a "serious risk" that federal courts "would adopt a constitutional due process approach" when evaluating military commission trials, people familiar with the memo say.

Mr. Barron advised that federal courts were unlikely to require strict adherence to Bill of Rights provisions spelling out specific procedures, such as the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right, or the Miranda warning, which the Supreme Court imposed in 1966 to ensure compliance with the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney.

But Mr. Barron advised that courts were likely to view the use of coerced statements to convict and punish defendants as violating any definition of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which courts have cited in establishing a baseline of fundamental rights. As a result, some officials believe a legislative fix to the Military Commissions Act should include additional rights for defendants in order to lower the chances courts would strike it down…

Mr. Barron, a professor on leave from Harvard Law School, is in charge while Mr. Obama’s nominee to head the legal-counsel office, Dawn Johnsen, awaits Senate confirmation….

"There is a school of thought…that if they actually convene these things in the [U.S.], the courts will quickly find that all the due process constitutional stuff we deal with in criminal courts will be applicable," said another military official familiar with the talks. "The main push for this argument comes out of" the Justice Department and the Office of Legal Counsel, the official said…

Mr. Barron said he couldn’t comment on the matter and referred questions to the Justice Department’s public affairs office. A spokeswoman there declined to confirm the memorandum’s existence or discuss whether detainees had constitutional rights, citing "ongoing deliberations."

So, just as we have long suspected, Mr. Obama’s intentions are to free as many of the terrorists in Guantanamo as possible.

And he will do all they can to get it done.

To that end Mr. Obama carefully staffed the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel with the most rabidly anti-Bush (and pro-terrorist) lawyers he could find.

And this is some of the fruit of that effort.

From those champions of the rule of law at the New York Times:

The riot police dispersed supporters of the ousted president on Monday near the presidential palace in the capital, Tegucigalpa.

In a Coup in Honduras, Ghosts of Past U.S. Policies

By HELENE COOPER and MARC LACEY

June 30, 2009

WASHINGTON — … The crisis in Honduras, where members of the country’s military abruptly awakened President Manuel Zelaya on Sunday and forced him out of the country in his bedclothes, is pitting Mr. Obama against the ghosts of past American foreign policy in Latin America.

The United States has a history of backing rival political factions and instigating coups in the region, and administration officials have found themselves on the defensive in recent days, dismissing repeated allegations by President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela that the C.I.A. may have had a hand in the president’s removal.

Obama administration officials said that they were surprised by the coup on Sunday. But they also said that they had been working for several weeks to try to head off a political crisis in Honduras as the confrontation between Mr. Zelaya and the military over his efforts to lift presidential term limits escalated.

The United States has long had strong ties to the Honduras military and helps train Honduran military forces. Those close ties have put the Obama administration in a difficult position, opening it up to accusations that it may have turned a blind eye to the pending coup. Administration officials strongly deny the charges, and Mr. Obama’s quick response to the Honduran president’s removal has differed sharply from the actions of the Bush administration, which in 2002 offered a rapid, tacit endorsement of a short-lived coup against Mr. Chávez.

On June 2, Obama administration officials got a firsthand look at the brewing political battle when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Honduras for an Organization of American States conference. Mrs. Clinton met with Mr. Zelaya, and he reportedly annoyed her when he summoned her to a private room late in the night after her arrival and had her shake hands with his extended family.

During a more formal meeting afterward, they discussed Mr. Zelaya’s plans for a referendum that would have laid the groundwork for an assembly to remake the Constitution, a senior administration official said.

But American officials did not believe that Mr. Zelaya’s plans for the referendum were in line with the Constitution, and were worried that it would further inflame tensions with the military and other political factions, administration officials said.

Even so, one administration official said that while the United States thought the referendum was a bad idea, it did not justify a coup.

“On the one instance, we’re talking about conducting a survey, a nonbinding survey; in the other instance, we’re talking about the forcible removal of a president from a country,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity during a teleconference call with reporters.

As the situation in Honduras worsened, Assistant Secretary of State Thomas A. Shannon Jr., along with Hugo Llorens, the American ambassador to Honduras, spoke with Mr. Zelaya, military officials and opposition leaders, administration officials said. Then things reached a boil last Wednesday and Thursday, when Mr. Zelaya fired the leader of the armed forces and the Supreme Court followed up with a declaration that Mr. Zelaya’s planned referendum was illegal.

The White House and the State Department had Mr. Llorens “talk with the parties involved, to tell them, ‘You have to talk your way through this,’ ” a senior administration official said Monday. “ ‘You can’t do anything outside the bounds of your constitution.’ ”

Still, administration officials said that they did not expect that the military would go so far as to carry out a coup. “There was talk of how they might remove the president from office, how he could be arrested, on whose authority they could do that,” the administration official said. But the official said that the speculation had focused on legal maneuvers to remove the president, not a coup.

Whether Mr. Zelaya merited removal remains a strong point of debate in Honduras. Fierce clashes erupted Monday between thousands of soldiers and thousands of Mr. Zelaya’s backers. The protesters blocked streets, set fires and hurled stones at the soldiers, who fired tear gas in response. But opponents of Mr. Zelaya said they intended to rally Tuesday in support of his ouster.

On the diplomatic front, three of the country’s neighbors — Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua — said they would halt commerce along their borders for 48 hours. Beyond that, Venezuela and some of its allies, including Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Cuba, said they were withdrawing their ambassadors from Honduras in an effort to isolate the new government. Brazil also said it had ordered its ambassador to Honduras, who was out of the country at the time of the coup, not to return until further notice.

In the face of criticism from across the hemisphere, the new government hunkered down in Mr. Zelaya’s old office, ringed by soldiers and defending its actions as a bid to save the country’s democracy, not undermine it…

You see, the Obama administration were completely surprised by this illegal coup. A coup they had worked weeks to prevent.

After all, the referendum was not very important. It’s not like Mr. Zelaya would have used the illegal vote as an excuse to hold onto power.

That would never happen in South America.

Mrs. Clinton met with Mr. Zelaya, and he reportedly annoyed her when he summoned her to a private room late in the night after her arrival and had her shake hands with his extended family.

We’re surprised that they stopped at merely exiling him.

From the (great) cartoonist Michael Ramirez at the Investors Business Daily and the (not so great) Associated Press:

Leaders from Obama to Chavez blast Honduras coup

By Will Weissert And Freddy Cuevas, Associated Press Writers

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – Police and soldiers clashed with thousands of protesters outside Honduras’ national palace Monday, leaving at least 45 people injured, as world leaders from Barack Obama to Hugo Chavez demanded the return of a president ousted in a military coup…

Across Latin America, leftist leaders pulled their ambassadors from Honduras and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala would cut trade with neighboring Honduras for at least 48 hours. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called for Hondurans to rise up against those who toppled his ally.

"We’re ready to support the rebellion of the Honduran people," Chavez said. He later vowed to halt Venezuelan oil shipments to Honduras and called for its soldiers to rise up against "that tyrannical, puppet government." …

In Washington, Obama said the United States will "stand on the side of democracy" and work with other nations and international groups to resolve the matter peacefully.

"We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there," Obama said.

"It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," he added. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions. … We don’t want to go back to a dark past." …

Honduras’ new government, however, was defiant. Roberto Micheletti, named by Congress to serve out the final seven months of Zelaya’s term, vowed to ignore foreign pressure and began naming Cabinet members, including a new minister of defense.

"We respect everybody and we ask only that they respect us and leave us in peace because the country is headed toward free and transparent general elections in November," Micheletti told HRN radio.

He insisted Zelaya’s ouster was legal and accused the former president himself of violating the constitution by sponsoring a referendum that was outlawed by the Supreme Court. Many saw the foiled vote as a step toward eliminating barriers to his re-election, as other Latin American leaders have done in recent years…

Venezuela’s Chavez told the gathered leaders that "it’s the moment to act" to restore Zelaya. "I’ll do everything possible to overthrow this gorilla government of Honduras. It must be overthrown," the socialist leader said.

While Obama said Zelaya is still president, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hedged on that point at an earlier news conference, suggesting that both the ousted president and his foes should make compromises.

Asked if the administration would insist that Zelaya be restored to power, she said: "We haven’t laid out any demands that we’re insisting on, because we’re working with others on behalf of our ultimate objectives." …

Mr. Obama has been wrong at every foreign policy call since the campaign. The Russian invasion of Georgia. The stolen Iranian elections.

And now this, the Honduran courts and military putting down Mr. Zalaya’s attempted coup and destruction of its constitution.

Who is surprised to see Mr. Obama on the wrong side of history again?

Even Mrs. Clinton is sounding more sensible. (After having made a fool of herself in her own right, of course.)

It’s almost as if Mr. Obama was misrepresented to us during the campaign.

From a gladdened Associated Press:

Iraqi security forces patrol in central Baghdad, Iraq, Tuesday, June 30, 2009.

4 US soldiers killed during Iraq cities pullout

By Patrick Quinn, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD – Four U.S. soldiers were killed in combat shortly before the American military completed a withdrawal from Iraq’s cities, and the prime minister assured Iraqis that government forces taking control of urban areas on Tuesday were more than capable of protecting the country.

Nouri al-Maliki said in a televised address that "those who think that Iraqis are not able to protect their country and that the withdrawal of foreign forces will create a security vacuum are committing a big mistake."

The streets of Baghdad were relatively quiet, as the Iraqi government named June 30 National Sovereignty Day and declared it a public holiday.

In the walled-off Green Zone in central Baghdad, al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders appeared at a military parade to mark the day…

In the attack Monday against U.S. forces, the military said the four soldiers who were killed served with the Multi-National Division-Baghdad but did not provide further details pending notification of their families. It said they died as a "result of combat related injuries."

It was the deadliest attack against U.S. forces since May 21, when three soldiers were killed and nine others were wounded in a roadside bombing in southern Baghdad.

The top U.S. commander in Iraq said the latest deaths show militants remain a threat but said he was confident Iraqi security forces could face the challenge.

"It reminds me that there are still dangers out there. There are still people out there who do not want the government of Iraq to succeed. They do not want to see a democratic country move forward," Gen. Ray Odierno said Tuesday at a news conference.

He said many of the attacks in Baghdad were being carried out by militants being funded or trained by Iran, including powerful roadside bombs and rocket strikes against the Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy.

But, he said, the number of such attacks was "significantly smaller" due to security measures making them more difficult to carry out.

"Iran is still supporting, funding and training surrogates who operate inside of Iraq. They have not stopped and I don’t think they will stop," Odierno told reporters at Camp Victory, a U.S. military base on the western edge of Baghdad…

Isn’t Iran run by a regime that Mr. Obama says has ‘legitimate aspirations’? A regime we no longer seek to change?

Iraq will never know peace as long as Iran’s mullahs want its territory.

  Update!

The latest from an unfazed Associated Press:

Car bomb kills at least 24 people in Iraqi city

By Patrick Quinn, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD – A car bomb exploded in a crowded outdoor market in the northern city of Kirkuk on Tuesday, killing at least 24 people, police said, a deadly reminder of the challenges facing the Iraqi government even as it celebrated the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from cities.

The bombing marred what had otherwise been a festive day as Iraqis marked what the government decreed National Sovereignty Day…

The car bomb exploded as the vegetable and poultry market was crowded with people shopping for their evening meal, police Brig. Gen. Sarhat Qadir said.

Police and hospital officials gave the death toll and said about 40 people were wounded.

It was the latest in a series of bombings and shootings that have killed more than 250 people since June 20, including a truck bombing near Kirkuk that killed 82 people…

The Iraqis must be feeling safer already.

From a giddy Reuters:

Iraqis rejoice as U.S. troops leave Baghdad

By Tim Cocks And Muhanad Mohammed Mon Jun 29

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – U.S. troops pulled out of Baghdad on Monday, triggering jubilation among Iraqis hopeful that foreign military occupation is ending six years after the invasion to depose Saddam Hussein.

Iraqi soldiers paraded through the streets in their American-made vehicles draped with Iraqi flags and flowers, chanting, dancing and calling the pullout a "victory." …

Addressing military leaders in Baghdad, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said: "Our sovereignty has started and … we should move forward to build a modern state and enjoy (the) security which has been achieved." …

The government has declared June 30 a national holiday, "National Sovereignty Day." …

A spate of bombings in recent days, including two of the deadliest for more than a year that killed 150 people between them, have raised fears militants will try to step up the pace of attacks.

Yet few Iraqis see that as reason for the Americans to stay.

"It is a big joy to see them leaving," said Abu Hassan, 60, a shop owner. "There might be some more attacks because of struggles between the different parties, but Iraqis are controlling security now. It’s up to our forces now." …

More than six years of U.S. occupation and the orgy of sectarian violence it unleashed have left most Iraqis feeling at best ambivalent about U.S. forces.

Many complain their lives have improved little since then, with daily struggles caused by power cuts and water shortages.

"They did a good job getting rid of that tyrant, Saddam, and we thank them for that, but it’s really time for them to leave," said Talib Rasheed, 70, sitting outside in one of Baghdad’s leafier suburbs. "Maybe they could leave us some electricity?"

Let’s hope that all of the blood spilled by our brave soldiers has not been in vain.

More than six years of U.S. occupation and the orgy of sectarian violence it unleashed…

Bush’s fault to the end, eh Reuters?

We’ll see.

Many complain their lives have improved little since then, with daily struggles caused by power cuts and water shortages.

Again, the famous Iraqi gratitude is truly breathtaking.