Despite their relative success in recent months, it looks like AT&T might be feeling a bit of the economic burn currently sweeping through the country. The company is offering voluntary severance packages to VP-level executives, hoping that they’ll take the bait and move on to less tumultuous pastures. If the execs choose not to take the package, sources indicate that they will be subject to demotion and pay cuts. Yikes! Cutting back on the general labor force is one thing, but high level moves like this generally indicate that something more serious is afoot. No word on how many execs AT&T hopes will step down, but we’ll certainly have more info in the coming days. Best start counting those pennies, folks!
I am a little behind in writing about some things and many will be not covered as I am planning a long trip soon. But during the Easter week, the Royal Court of Justice in London ruled in favour of PDVSA h., essentially cancelling the freezing order for US$ 12 billion on the company’s assets. ExxonMobil had requested the freeze over the dispute between the two companies over the takeover of Cerro Negro by PDVSA. ExxonMobil refused to accept the change in ownership whereby PDVSA would acquire a 60% control and simply walked away from the project demanding compensation.
The judge in the case did not rule so much on the merits of PDVSA’s actions, but more on the details of the freeze order and whether it is the competence of the Court and whether the injunction is justified or not. Thus, in a long and complicated decision, the Court ruled in the context of UK laws whether to extend the injunction granted by a lower judge.
The judge said in the decision that these type of freezing orders are made to avoid companies from dissipating its assets and explicitly says that for a freeze like the one requested by ExxonMobil to be justified, there has to be compelling evidence of serious international fraud, which is not the case for PDVSA.
However, the judge does refer to the takeover of Cerro Negro as an expropriation and says that ExxonMobil does have an arguable case, but it not only finds that the freeze can not be justified, but states that ExxonMobil has other courses of action for its demands. The case is found to be justified because the original agreements of the association were breached and PDVSA acted in bad faith, but it is not clear what the worth is and the judge made no attempt to resolve the point as to whether the US$ 12 billion is justified or not.
The judge also ruled that in the absence of fraud, PDVSA would need to have substantial assets located in the UK and Wales, which is not the case. Moreover, the judge states, the fact that the seat of arbitration is not UK-based, would make it inappropriate to grant the request. The Judge also faults ExxonMobil for not seeking relief within the Venezuelan Court system, which is clearly laughable given the current state of the Venezuelan Justice system.
There are still injunctions in place in The Netherlands and the United States that PDVSA will have to deal with in the near future. The ruling does force PDVSA to abide and follow the arbitration steps as the judge says the company has followed the steps even if with some delays. We suspect that PDVSA and ExxonMobil will eventually settle a negotiated agreement in which PDVSA will pay ExxonMobil with its stake in the Chalmette refinery.
Filed under: CNN.com was running a "quickvote" poll asking readers t, Cyber-activism, Journalism, Today for some unknown length of time, and when I do read it I check their RSS feed not the we, china, so I found out about their online poll from this post o, which reposted an item from the blog dengjin.com. The b | Tags: china, Cyber-activism, Journalism
SOURCEThe blog post was published some point today, and DoNews republished it at around 5pm Beijing/Hong Kong time. I checked the CNN.com website at 10:30pm Hong Kong time and found they’ve replaced that poll with this thing:

OK… right. [UPDATE 9am Weds HKT: somebody has accused me of implying that the poll was hacked. That's not what I meant. The point is that CNN.com replaced the poll quickly after Chinese netizens started all voting "no" in big numbers...or perhaps somebody complained.]
It’s well known by now that Chinese cyberspace for the past several days has been seething with anger against CNN and most Western media for what many Chinese netizens feel is blatant anti-China bias. If you haven’t seen the anti-CNN website check it out. (The Washington post interviewed the site’s founder here.)

The anger against CNN started after Chinese netizens discovered that CNN.com had cropped out a group of Tibetan rioters, who appear to be beating somebody up, from the original AFP/Getty Images photo. On the left is the cropped photo, on the right is the original image that Chinese netizens located on the internet:

As Roland Soong points out, CNN.com has quietly gone and replaced the photo in the original story with a new version that includes the mob violence in the background. But of course the old version still lives in the Google cache. He writes: “This is a self-inflicted wound. If CNN believed that it was right in the first place, then it should have stuck to that position. Instead, it surrendered quietly. Not only did this not appease the Chinese netizens, it only made it worse.” Roland also links to this forum thread discussing the whole thing, in which one netizen announces that the new “hip phrase” of 2008 is: “做人不能太CNN a person should not be too CNN.” As Roland puts it: “This means that a person should not be too shameless and oblivious to the truth.” Roland also quotes from an Associated Press article which reports:
CNN’s bureau in Beijing has been deluged in recent days by a barrage of harassing phone calls and faxes that accuse the organization of unfair coverage. An e-mail to United Nations-based reporters purportedly from China’s U.N. mission sent an Internet link to a 15-minute state television program showing Tibetans attacking Chinese in Lhasa.
A slideshow posted on YouTube accused CNN, Germany’s Der Spiegel and other media of cropping pictures to show Chinese military while screening out Tibetan rioters, or putting pictures of Indian and Nepalese police wrestling Tibetan protesters with captions about China’s crackdown.
Though of uncertain origin, the piece at least had official blessing, with excerpts appearing on the official English-language China Daily and on state TV.
Many of the examples of Western media anti-China bias posted at anti-cnn.com hone in on a series of agency photos that ran in various Western news outlets which were mislabeled as Chinese police arresting Tibetan protesters, when they are actually Nepalese or Indian police arresting exiled Tibetan protesters. Roland has been tirelessly documenting the conversation about the Tibet riots taking place on the Chinese Internet. He points out that RTL news in Germany has apologized for mis-reporting Nepali police violence as Chinese police violence, and that German station NTV is reviewing its coverage after similar mistakes appeared in their broadcasts. Also be sure to read Roland’s post When Helping Becomes Hurting to see how Western protests are playing not only in China but amongst many Chinese around the world, who have unfettered access to Western media from outside the “Great Firewall.”
Meanwhile with videos such as “Riot in Tibet: True face of Western media” and “Tibet Was, Is and Always Will be a Part of China” getting over 700 thousand and a million views, respectively, at the time of this writing, YouTube has been unblocked in China, though as the Shanghaiist points out access can be shaky at times. The BBC English-language website is also generally unblocked.
Perhaps the Chinese government is feeling a little less worried lately about losing public support? Perhaps they are less worried that people will turn against the Communist Party after reading something in the Western media, now that it is no longer fashionable in many circles to believe what the Western media reports?
It is also worth pointing out that alternative views – though not as loud – do exist in Chinese cyberspace. Lian Yue wrote the other day that the only way to prevent more violence is to allow the press to freely report in Tibet. Memedia also points out that some Chinese netizens have been spreading some fake news themselves – such as this blog post claiming that there was recently a Tibetan terrorist bombing in Chengdu, but using victim photos from a 2005 incident in Fuzhou. The Memedia editors observe that the Tibet issue has become like the South China Photographs incident: “An issue that originally is seen through simple logic, but through the course of debating it people start considering much deeper questions.”
Hopefully most of China’s netizens will draw the obvious conclusion: that in the end you shouldn’t trust any information source – Western or Chinese, professional or amateur, digital or analog – until and unless they have earned your trust.
Addendum: Somebody e-mailed me this report from the Toronto Star containing chilling eyewitness accounts from Canadian tourists who were in Lhasa for the worst of the violence.
Filed under: 2008, CINDY MCCAIN, COUGAR AND THE DWARF, COUGARS, FUNNY PICTURES, GOP, JOHN MCCAIN, LOSERS, OLD PEOPLE | Tags: 2008, CINDY MCCAIN, COUGAR AND THE DWARF, COUGARS, FUNNY PICTURES, GOP, JOHN MCCAIN, LOSERS, OLD PEOPLE

Oh look, it’s Cougar Cindy McCain and her Albino Dwarf, John McCain. He cannot go outside in the sun, because his species lives underground somewhere, in the Shire. Do we really want to have a “presumed GOP nominee” who can’t even go outside? Last time around we had a GOP nominee who can’t handle his liquor, so he has to drink O’Doul’s and eat candy. By 2012 the Republican nominee will be transgendered. [VOA/AP]
Filed under: Soviets tried to kill Pope | Tags: pope, Soviets, tried mto kill
Agence France Presse is reporting that the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981 – which almost did kill him – was ordered by the old Soviet KGB, the “Committee for State Security.” Comments Civil Commotion,
This has been rumored for a long while, of course, and it is totally believable. It was John Paul II who went to Poland during Lech Walesa?s Solidarity uprising, defying the old Soviet Union to stop him, and kicked-off the disintegration of the USSR.
In fact, the Vatican and President Ronald Reagan’s administration closely coordinated subverting the Communist government of Poland, the Pope’s home country. That came after the assassination attempt, of course, since Reagan entered office only in 1981.
However, the man who took the name John Paul II when elected Pope had been a staunch anti-communist resister in Poland for years. In the early 1970s,
… Karol Cardinal Wojtyla emerged as a strong advocate of human rights and promoted an independent intellectual life. In 1974 Communist Party ideologue Andrej Werbian called the Cardinal “the only real ideological threat in Poland.”
Wojtyla is, of course, John Paul’s Polish name. Wojtyla was elected Pope in 1978, just before the Solidarity workers’ movement was gaining its steam, led by electrician Lech Walesa.
In August 1980 [Walesa] led the Gdansk shipyard strike which gave rise to a wave of strikes over much of the country with Walesa seen as the leader. The primary demands were for workers’ rights. The authorities were forced to capitulate and to negotiate with Walesa the Gdansk Agreement of August 31, 1980, which gave the workers the right to strike and to organise their own independent union.
If any one event had helped to create the psychological climate in which Solidarity trades union emerged, it was the visit of Pope John Paul II to his homeland in June 1979. From the moment that the Pope knelt in Warsaw’s airport to kiss the ground, he was cheered wildly by millions of Poles. John Paul never criticized the Communist regime directly, nor did he have to: his meaning was plain enough. “The exclusion of Christ from the history of man is an act against man,” he told an enormous outdoor congregation in Warsaw. With that hardly veiled allusion to Communism, a deafening roar of approval filled the great city square. Says a Polish bishop of that day: “The Polish people broke the barrier of fear. They were hurling a challenge at their Marxist rulers.”
During the August 1980 defiance of the communist authorities, the Lenin shipyard functioned as the emotional center of an extraordinary national movement. Festooned with flowers, white and red Polish flags and portraits of Pope John Paul II, the plant’s iron gates came to symbolize that heady mixture of hope, faith and patriotism that sustained the workers through their vigil. …
Then in January 1981 Pope John Paul received Walesa at the Vatican and met with him privately for thirty minutes, an unusual honor for a layman of the Church.
In May of that year, Mehmet Ali Agca, an escaped Turkish killer, shot John Paul twice while the Pope was riding in his “Popemobile,” a convertible he used to wave to crowds while standing as the vehicle moved along. According to AFP’s wire report,
New documents found in the files of the former East German intelligence services confirm the 1981 assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II was ordered by the Soviet KGB and assigned to Bulgarian agents, an Italian daily said on Wednesday. …
Bulgaria then handed the execution of the plot to Turkish extremists, including Mehmet Ali Agca, who pulled the trigger.
It’s doubtful that Agca ever knew who actually was paying him. In December 1983, John Paul met with Agca in prison.
“We talked for a long time. Ali Agca is, as everyone says, a professional assassin. Which means that the assassination was not his initiative, that someone else thought of it, someone else gave the order,” he wrote.
“During the entire conversation, it was clear that Ali Agca was burdened by the question: How did it happen that the assassination was unsuccessful? He did everything that was necessary, he took care of the tiniest detail of his plan. But still the victim avoided death. How could this have happened?”
Agca had shot John Paul in the arm and the abdomen. John Paul himself said that divine intervention had steered the latter bullet away from his vital organs. He has never said whom he thought was behind the plot to kill him, but did attribute the attempt to convulsions of “the 20th century ideologies of force.” In 2002, however, John Paul said that he did not believe there was a Bulgarian connection to his assailant.
Filed under: Iran Brokers Call for Ceasefire; Bush reduced to Irrele | Tags: Iran Brokers Call for Ceasefire; Bush reduced to Irrele
McClatchy provides a lot of important detail about Sunday’s surprising developments regarding the fight between the Iraqi government and the Mahdi Army. A parliamentary delegation from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s own coalition (mainly now the Da`wa Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) defied him by going off to the holy seminary city of Qom in Iran and negotiating directly with Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr and with the leader of the Quds Brigades of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Brig. Gen. Qasim Sulaymani.
As a result of those parleys, Muqtada al-Sadr called on his followers to stand down, though I read his statement as permitting continued armed self-defense, as at Basra where the Iraqi Army is attacking them and the US is bombing them. Significantly, he calls on the Mahdi Army to stop attacking the HQs of rival political parties. That language suggests that the parties are suffering from such attacks and are worried that party infrasture is being degraded ahead of the October 1 provincial elections. The southern parties have essentially defied al-Maliki and Bush to make a separate peace.
The entire episode underlines how powerful Iran has become in Iraq. The Iranian government had called on Saturday for the fighting to stop. And by Sunday evening it had negotiated at least a similar call from Sadr (whether the fighting actually stops remains to be seen and depends on local commanders and on whether al-Maliki meets Sadr’s conditions).
Al-Sadr’s statement is translated here. The main points:
‘ We have decided the following:
1. Cancel the armed manifestation in Basra and all over the governorates.
2. Stopping the illegal and random raids and arrests.
3. Demanding the government to apply the General Amnesty law and release all the prisoners that was not proved to be guilty and especially the prisoners of Sadr movement.
4. We announce our innocence from any one who caries the weapon and target the government and services apparatuses and establishments and parties offices.
5. Cooperating with the government apparatuses in achieving security and condemn criminals according to the legal procedures.
6. We assure that the Sadr movement doesn’t have any heavy weapons.
7. Working on returning the displaced people that moved due to security events to their original places.
8. We are asking the government to take care of the Human rights on all of its procedures.
9. Working on achieving the constructional and services projects all over the governorates.
[Signed and stamped Muqtada Sadr 22/Rabi Awal/1429]‘
The NYT notes the irony here that the al-Maliki government is dependent on Muqtada al-Sadr to pull its fat from the fire:
‘Many Iraqi politicians say that Mr. Maliki’s political capital has been severely depleted by the campaign and that he is now in the curious position of having to turn to Mr. Sadr, a longtime rival and now his opponent in battle, for a solution to the crisis.’
McClatchy reports civil war violence on Sunday, suggesting that any cease fire has not yet taken hold:
‘ Baghdad
- Rockets hit the Green Zone (IZ) in Baghdad in different times in the morning and afternoon. No casualties reported.
- Around 5 pm, gunmen attacked New Baghdad police station (east Baghdad) .Three policemen were injured.
- Around 5 pm, mortars hit Dora police station .No casualties recorded.
- Around 5 pm, clashes took place in Ur between gunmen and Iraqi police . Six people were injured including two policemen.
- At 5:10 pm, two mortars hit Karrada neighborhood , one hit Al-Hussein intersection near Al-Hussein two floor bridge killing 3 and injuring 8 others while the second shell hit a barber shop few meters of the same intersection killing 3 and injuring 13 others.
- Police found five dead bodies in . . . neighborhoods in Baghdad . . .
Basra
- Around 7:30 pm, three people were killed due to a fighter plane bombing at Abu Sukheir neighborhood (north Basra).
Diyala
- Around 9:30 am, American planes bombed Jizan neighborhood of Wajihiyah (20 east Baquba).One civilian was killed and another was injured.
- In the morning, one civilian was killed during the clashes between the Iraqi army and gunmen at Kanaan (10 km south east Baquba)
- Around 10 am, a roadside bomb targeted the convoy of Ibrahim Hassan, the head of Diyala governorate council , while it was on its way at Saadiya (90 km east Baquba) between Baquba and Khanaqeen .Two of his guards were killed in that incident.
Karbala
- Around 9.30 pm of Saturday night, a roadside bomb targeted an Iraqi army patrol at Al-Haidriyah (Khan Al-Nus) in midway between Najaf and Karbala. One officer was killed with two other soldiers.
Salahuddin
- In the morning, gunmen attacked a police check point at Bishkan village (10 km east of Dhulwiyah near Balad) .Six policemen were killed including an officer with their vehicle damaged.
- Today, an American force arrested two members of Al-Alam supporting council near AlLaqlaq village (35 km north of Tikrit) one of them is an officer .
Mosul
- In the morning, clashes took place between gunmen and police at Sahachi (west Mosul).Colonel Qasim Ziad, the commander of the first police battalion in Mosul was killed with one of his guards.
Kirkuk
- In the morning, a roadside bomb targeted a rescue police patrol at Tiseen street in Kirkuk city. Three people were injured in that incident including two women. ‘
Labels: Iraq
Filed under: important
Release Date: March 25, 2008
Kuwait City, Kuwait
Secretary Chertoff: Well, I’m delighted to be here. It’s my first visit to Kuwait, but I’ve long been eager to visit. I was actually planning to visit last year, but then we had a congressional debate issue that required me to remain in the United States. But I’ve finally arrived, and I look forward to my meetings tomorrow with the Amir and a number of senior government officials, including the Prime Minister.
One of the main responsibilities of my Department is to deal with the issue of the border; that’s air, land and sea. And some of you may have read about some of the issues that we have — some of you may have read about issues involved in people coming across the land border between the ports of entry, and that gets a lot of publicity, but equally important is how we deal with people who come at our airports or our seaports.
Secretary Rice and I are, as Mr. Fennell said, engaged in what we call an initiative to have secure borders and open doors, which is designed to take advantage of modern technology to make the process of entering as a visitor or as a student or as a businessperson more efficient, more convenient, but also more secure.
There are three parts to what we are trying to do. One is to use more secure documents, including electronic — e-Passports and similar types of documents, so that it is easier to verify who a person is, and that allows them to enter in more quickly. The second is, of course, to use the visa process to have some information about people so that we can make a judgment before they come to the United States about whether they will be admitted. And the third is to use biometrics, specifically fingerprints, as a way of ascertaining someone’s identity and determining whether they have a criminal record, for example.
Now we have set up two model airports, one in Dulles Airport in Washington and one at Houston International Airport, where we are greeting people with a welcoming video and attempting to design the airport waiting area and entry area so that it is more friendly for passengers who are arriving from long flights.
For most people, the vast majority of people, the actual experience of passing through our Immigrations and Customs, once the line has — they’ve made it through the line, is actually three to four minutes.
The process is, for the traveler, they show the inspector his or her passport and visa, a photograph is then taken and compared with the record and the file of the visa, fingerprints are then taken, which we use to compare to fingerprints we have on file and also in other kinds of records, and of course the traveler will be asked a few questions about where he or she intends to go, how long they intend to stay, what the purpose of the visit is, and things along that line.
Although I’m sure from time to time everybody hears stories about someone who is taken aside and questioned further, actually that’s only a very small minority of people who come through. The vast majority don’t actually spend more than a few minutes with an inspector.
Finally, to step away from the immediate issue of our airports, it’s a particular pleasure for me to be here because the United States and Kuwait have had such a strong relationship, particularly over the last 20 years since the Gulf War of the early ‘90s, and then of course the support we’ve had from Kuwait for our armed forces who are currently engaged in military activities in Iraq and in other parts of the world. So we prize this relationship and we want to ensure that it continues to be very strong and very friendly.
And now, questions.
Question: Do you have statistics about the number of passengers coming to the U.S. in the past year? And is there a record of — is the record increasing or decreasing? Do you have any specifics about Kuwaiti passengers?
Secretary Chertoff: I don’t have specifics to Kuwaiti passengers. I can tell you that we’ve had about 80 million air travelers over the past year, and if you include people who’ve come across the land borders — 80 — it’s been about 400 million. Some of those, of course, are multiple entries back and forth. In general, across all categories, the numbers of this year’s have risen.
Moderator: If you want, I can probably find out the number of tourist visas this year. I know it’s gone up, but I don’t know the number. I can find out and email it to you.
Question: Two full questions. Part one is, what were the reasons to take security procedures at the airports and points of entry? And second question is, what do you anticipate — discuss with the government of Kuwait tomorrow unofficially?
Secretary Chertoff: Well, let me answer the first question by saying that like all countries, we want to ensure that the people who come into the United States are first of all not criminals or terrorists. Secondly, we want to make sure that the people who come in as tourists do not expect or intend to stay beyond the scope of the visa and become illegal immigrants.
As far as my meetings tomorrow are concerned, that will relate to security cooperation, which will benefit both countries, as well as ways which we can continue to promote travel and trade between Kuwait and the United States and the strong, friendly relationships that we have.
Question: President Bush has mentioned, and he also mentioned in Kuwait in his visit, that the U.S. — government of the U.S. fights terrorism overseas to prevent terrorists from performing terrorist acts in the U.S. What’s your comment on these thoughts and these statements from the President, given the fact that some Arab countries are in contradiction with those statements?
Secretary Chertoff: Well, I think actually we fight terrorism overseas not only to prevent ourselves from having to confront it in the United States but to prevent our friends and allies around the world, including in the Arab world, from having to confront it. I remember — well, let me — I’ll let you translate that.
I remember, for example, that I think within the last two years, Zarqawi, when he was the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, ordered a bombing of a wedding in Amman that killed a number of the wedding party, including, I believe, the bride and the groom. And that was an act of terror perpetrated against an Arab country. More recently in the last few months we saw al Qaeda in the Maghreb set off bombs that killed schoolchildren in Algeria. So this is a threat against all of our friends, and we all benefit when we join together in fighting this kind of terror.
Question: How are you trying to convince Arab countries with this policy, and is that part of your agenda for the trip?
Secretary Chertoff: I think, actually, all or virtually all Arab countries are convinced then — and I think that — for example, the bombing in Amman in the last couple of years and the murder of the wedding party at a hotel I think turned the Jordanian population against al Qaeda. So I think that we don’t need to persuade the Arab countries of the objective. We need to continue to work on the specific ways we can work to achieve the objective.
Question: Can you comment on the policy of the U.S. to manage crisis in the Middle East, given the fact that Syria and Iran are in almost a war state — Iran promoting a war state? And there is the impression with others that the United States does not care about any of the casualties. What else — what are the possibilities of changing, and the U.S. policy will change?
Secretary Chertoff: Well, I think the U.S. strategy here is very clear: We want to prevent aggression in the Middle East, by which I mean one state invading or seeking to control another state. And I think that obviously the citizens of Kuwait have first-hand experience with being victims of that aggression. So what that means is we need to continue to support our friends in the region with assistance and with our presence. It also means we’re obviously concerned to work with the international community to prevent bin Laden, for example, from getting nuclear weapons, which would certainly be a negative — have a negative effect on the regime.
Question: Two-part question. I don’t know if you’re aware of the — it was heard often here there was — the guy who was killed in Syria in a terrorist attack — Mughniyeh? Imad Mughniyeh. There were services done here in Kuwait as a sympathy for his death — but just as a background. The question said: Is there a list of what’s called the blacklist of people (inaudible) to the U.S., and has the threat been updated after big developments in Kuwait? And what is your comment on the siege of Gaza and the occupied territory?
Secretary Chertoff: Well, I don’t want to spread too far beyond the domain of my department. I think I’ll leave the issue of Gaza to the Secretary of State, but with respect to watch lists, we do update our, in general, our terrorist watch lists, when we have information that somebody is a terrorist or connected with terrorism or facilitating terrorism, and that’s based upon specific information that we get through our investigations and our intelligence. But I should say that we don’t simply put people on a watch list because we don’t agree with their politics; it’s because we have a reason to be concerned that they are connected with terrorism or with some other kind of crime.
Question: Are there any specific Kuwaitis that you know are on the watch list?
Secretary Chertoff: Oh, I would never be able to talk about specific individuals. Nice try.
Question: Two whole questions. Number one, since the U.S. announced a launch on a war on terrorism after the event of September 11th, in your assessment is the world a safer place now after all that has been done? And number two, or part two of the question, what is the level, or the — what is the level of cooperation between Kuwait and the United States in achieving a safer world?
Secretary Chertoff: Well, let me answer the second question first — it’s easier. We have a very good level of cooperation and a very good relationship, and we look forward to continuing to build that relationship and expand that cooperation, and that’s one of the reasons I’m here.
As to whether the world is safer, I believe the world is safer, but I do not believe the world is yet safe. And we are reminded of that whenever we see bombings carried out in which innocent people are killed. For example, again in the last few months, two women who were known to the community as being mentally handicapped had bombs placed upon them and those bombs were detonated when the two women walked into a marketplace to kill innocent people. And what was striking is that the bombers themselves were victims because they were mentally handicapped.
Translator: I mean, location, where was it –
Secretary Chertoff: Oh, it was Iraq, in Iraq.
Question: What’s your assessment of the security situation in Iraq at this time? What about withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq? Is this going to happen, or (inaudible) happen before the end of the current presidency of President Bush?
Secretary Chertoff: Well, I think the general assessment of security in Iraq, both what I’ve heard reported publicly and also in my own conversations with people, and I’m not there — obviously it’s not my department so I don’t claim to be an expert — but I think the general consensus is security has gotten much better in Iraq. But still we see bombings, and the threat remains, and we need to make sure that we do not leave Iraq in a precarious situation.
So I think this President, President Bush, is committed to maintaining a level of troops that the military commanders believe necessary to continue to build on the progress that’s been made in stabilizing Iraq and creating breathing space for the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to continue to rebuild their society.
Question: There is a scheduled regional meeting in Kuwait for Iraq’s neighboring countries, and Secretary Rice is the secretary — will attend the conference in Kuwait. What’s your comment — or your vision for that conference, and is there a (inaudible) that you are sort of bringing to this conference?
Secretary Chertoff: Well, as you can probably tell, I’m not Secretary Rice. So I think –
Question: (Inaudible.)
Secretary Chertoff: I do, but I think I will let her describe what her plans are and what her agenda is.
Question: Thank you very much, sir.
Secretary Chertoff: Thank you.
###
Filed under: Brands, Strange, bad, policy | Tags: bad, Brands, policy, Strange
In yet another display of corporate legal idiocy, T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom sent a letter to Weblogs, Inc.’s Engadget Mobile asking them to stop using the color magenta in their logo. The letter states T-Mobile uses the color magenta in its logo and, as a result, people might somehow become confused as to what T-Mobile does and what Engadget Mobile does.
I’d like to sit in one of these corporate lawyers’ offices one day just to observe their mentality and how they can assume the general public is so idiotic they can’t tell the difference between a mobile carrier and a website. Mostly, I’d like to look these lawyers in the eyes and ask, “Are you fucking serious?”
In case Deutsch Telekom’s lawyers have suddenly suffered from some form of color-challenged dyslexia, Engadget Mobile was kind enough to put together a handy chart clearly explaining the differences between T-Mobile and Engadget Mobile.
Filed under: $300 million, Al Gore, green ads, money | Tags: $300 million, Al Gore, green ads, money
Al Gore putting $300 million into green ads
|








