Регистрация | Забравена парола
Запомни моята идентификация
Сбърканата поза на Станишев
Отиди на страница:
Добави мнение   Мнения:171 Предишна Страница 2 от 9 1 2 3 4 Следваща »
Чичо Фичо
31 Яну 2004 00:34
Мнения: 24,838
От: United States
Първанов, освен лидер на БСП, е и президент. Той не може да продължава да изпълнява тази длъжност и трябва да се оттегли. Някои от основанията ми - пълен провал на "социалния президент" (нещо очаквано) да помогне на бедните и демонстрация на пълната му зависимост от хищническия червен капитал; противопоставяне на интегрирането ни с НАТО - особено на участието ни в Ирак - и то поради зависимост от Саддам; демонстрация на зависимост от Путин (три срещи с последния за една година, общо осем); демонстрация на ексцесивна любов към Милошевич; тази седмица - и нагла лъжа (напр. лицензирането на фирми за износ в Ирак) и демагогия (напр. искането му "държавата" да защити БСП от обвиненията за Саддам - сякаш преди месец президентът поиска "държавата" да защити бившия премиер Костов от обвиненията на Миша Черной - или настояването му, че "референдума" за ЕС бил "по-важен" проблем от нефтения скандал).
Особено жалки са опитите на Първанов и БСП да изобретят "вражески заговор" на нечистите сили, водени, разбира се, от "ЦРУ", срещу великата идея на президента за "референдум" за ЕС. Не толкова с наивитета на тоя аргумент, явно предназачен за читателите на в. "Кооперативно село" ('Земя'), които може и да не знаят, че има и други страни и часови пояси на света освен нашите, колкото с "постановката", че врагът като такъв - това е "ЦРУ", САЩ.
Абе нали САЩ ни е приятел бе, ало, Позитано! нали ставаме член на НАТО след седмици? Те не разбрали още! И А. Райчев вече разбра, дето така бурно "преживяваше събитието НАТО" преди 15 месеца, само БСП не разбра!

Редактирано от - Чичо Фичо на 31/1/2004 г/ 01:48:16

The Bulgarian
31 Яну 2004 00:38
Мнения: 17
От: Bulgaria
Published on Friday, January 30, 2004 by the lndependent/UK
This is the BBC... Its Leaders Gone, Its Staff Up in Arms
by Andrew Grice

The turmoil at the BBC caused by the Hutton inquiry deepened yesterday when the corporation bowed to pressure from the Government for a full apology and Greg Dyke resigned as director general.

The board of governors voted by a margin of two to one to dismiss Mr Dyke, forcing him to stand down.

Many BBC staff were angry and demoralized that Lord Hutton's investigation into the death of David Kelly had claimed a second scalp, following Wednesday's resignation of the chairman, Gavyn Davies.

After an emotional departure by Mr Dyke, there were spontaneous demonstrations by hundreds of staff who walked out at Broadcasting House and Television Center in London. Staff also stopped work at 11 BBC regional offices around the UK.

After Downing Street raised the stakes by demanding a fuller apology from the BBC, Lord Ryder of Wensum, the acting chairman, said the corporation apologized unreservedly for the allegation by its reporter Andrew Gilligan that Downing Street "sexed up" a dossier on Iraqi weapons. Later, Tony Blair and the BBC tried to lower the temperature by promising to "draw a line" under the dispute. But ministers scented blood, with some saying privately that Richard Sambrook, the BBC director of news, should resign or be moved for failing to brief the board of governors properly about Mr Gilligan's report, which Lord Hutton described as "unfounded".

At the Cabinet's weekly meeting, ministers congratulated Mr Blair on his vindication by Lord Hutton.

Although Downing Street insisted there was "no gloating", Mr Blair's spokesman said the Cabinet's message was that serious issues, such as Iraqi weapons, should be discussed without impugning politicians' integrity.

Some MPs expressed concern that the Government would use its victory to undermine the BBC's editorial independence and put pressure on the rest of the media. Worried by the backlash among BBC staff, ministers promised they would do nothing to put the BBC's independence at risk.

Mr Dyke ­ who is succeeded by his deputy, Mark Byford, as acting director general ­ fell on his sword reluctantly. He told staff who walked out to support him: "I don't want to go. But if, in the end, you screw up, you have to go."

He said he was not "a political animal" but hoped the resignations of the two senior figures at the BBC meant "a line can be drawn under this whole episode".

Lord Ryder, a former Tory minister, who said he did not want the chairman's job permanently, said: "The BBC must move forward in the wake of Lord Hutton's report, which highlighted serious defects in the corporation's processes and procedures. On behalf of the BBC, I have no hesitation in apologizing unreservedly for our errors and to the individuals whose reputations were affected by them."

Mr Blair welcomed the BBC's statement. "This, for me, has always been a simple matter of an accusation that was very serious. It has now been withdrawn, that is all I ever wanted," he said. "I want to make it absolutely clear I fully respect the independence of the BBC. I have no doubt the BBC will continue, as it should do, to probe and question the Government in every proper way. What this does is allow us to draw a line and move on."

Downing Street denied the Government had demanded the head of Mr Davies and Mr Dyke, both Labour supporters. It said: "They decided to resign and the Prime Minister believes two decent and honorable men have done the decent and honorable thing."

Alastair Campbell, the former communications director at No 10, signaled an end to his personal battle with the BBC. He told Sky News last night: "I'm content with the fact that finally, after all that everybody's had to go through, these allegations have been withdrawn. It's for the BBC to decide whether having somebody like Andrew Gilligan on their payroll is a way to restore their integrity and reputation."

The National Union of Journalists, Mr Gilligan's union, said that he wanted to remain at the corporation.

There was continuing surprise that Lord Hutton had come down so heavily on the BBC while acquitting the Government of almost every charge. Sir Christopher Bland, a former BBC chairman, said there was a "curious imbalance" in a report that exonerated the Government but "tarred and feathered the BBC". He said: "It is legitimate to question whether Hutton was even-handed in the way he treated, on the one hand, politicians, civil servants and the security services and, on the other hand, the standards of conduct he applied to journalists and broadcasters."

Lord Rees-Mogg, a former BBC vice-chairman, said: "I don't have any confidence in Hutton ... I have already come to the conclusion his evidence does not support his conclusions and that it is, put quite simply, a bad bit of work."

In a separate development, Nicholas Gardiner, the Oxfordshire coroner, said he was ready to examine statements from witnesses who withheld their evidence from the Hutton inquiry and would ask Thames Valley Police to hand over the missing material. He will then consider Lord Hutton's report and decide within the next month whether to hold a full inquest into Dr Kelly's death.

A poll found yesterday that a majority of people thought Lord Hutton's report was wrong to lay all the blame at the BBC's door. The poll, by NOP, showed 56 per cent thought the peer was wrong to blame only the BBC; 49 per cent said the report was a whitewash, with 40 per cent disagreeing.

© 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd


31 Яну 2004 00:49
Мнения: 5,458
От: Bulgaria
Внушителен процент от жестикулациите на социолога Андрей райчев са посветени на безпримерния принос на великия и с никой несравнимия незаменим политик Иван Костов, комуто ще е кощунствено да дава съвети или наставления. Какви ли съвети може да му даде, след като там конфронтацията е в апогея си.
Друго си е Станишев и дружината му. Там, с всеки изминат ден все по здраво се обединяват и се сплотяват.
Това дразни Райчев и решава и той да насочи музата си към героя на медийните компромати през последните 3 дни. И да му дава съвети. Какви?! В БСП да се очистят от носталгици, да се отлюспят, да се изключват, да се колят, с една дума и те да се конфронтират и да плюят в лицата си един друг, Да се омаскарят като всички. Да са в такт с ПРЕХОДА.
Преходът е синоним на омаскаряването.
The Bulgarian
31 Яну 2004 00:59
Мнения: 17
От: Bulgaria
Published on Friday, January 30, 2004 by the New York Times
Where's the Apology?
by Paul Krugman

George Bush promised to bring honor and integrity back to the White House. Instead, he got rid of accountability.

Surely even supporters of the Iraq war must be dismayed by the administration's reaction to David Kay's recent statements. Iraq, he now admits, didn't have W.M.D., or even active programs to produce such weapons. Those much-ridiculed U.N. inspectors were right. (But Hans Blix appears to have gone down the memory hole. On Tuesday Mr. Bush declared that the war was justified — under U.N. Resolution 1441, no less — because Saddam "did not let us in."

So where are the apologies? Where are the resignations? Where is the investigation of this intelligence debacle? All we have is bluster from Dick Cheney, evasive W.M.D.-related-program-activity language from Mr. Bush — and a determined effort to prevent an independent inquiry.

True, Mr. Kay still claims that this was a pure intelligence failure. I don't buy it: the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has issued a damning report on how the threat from Iraq was hyped, and former officials warned of politicized intelligence during the war buildup. (Yes, the Hutton report gave Tony Blair a clean bill of health, but many people — including a majority of the British public, according to polls — regard that report as a whitewash.)

In any case, the point is that a grave mistake was made, and America's credibility has been badly damaged — and nobody is being held accountable. But that's standard operating procedure. As far as I can tell, nobody in the Bush administration has ever paid a price for being wrong. Instead, people are severely punished for telling inconvenient truths. And administration officials have consistently sought to freeze out, undermine or intimidate anyone who might try to check up on their performance.

Let's look at three examples. First is the Valerie Plame affair. When someone in the administration revealed that Ms. Plame was an undercover C.I.A. operative, one probable purpose was to intimidate intelligence professionals. And whatever becomes of the Justice Department investigation, the White House has been notably uninterested in finding the culprit. ("We have let the earthmovers roll in over this one," a senior White House official told The Financial Times.)

Then there's the stonewalling about 9/11. First the administration tried, in defiance of all historical precedents, to prevent any independent inquiry. Then it tried to appoint Henry Kissinger, of all people, to head the investigative panel. Then it obstructed the commission, denying it access to crucial documents and testimony. Now, thanks to all the delays and impediments, the panel's head says it can't deliver its report by the original May 11 deadline — and the administration is trying to prevent a time extension.

Finally, an important story that has largely evaded public attention: the effort to prevent oversight of Iraq spending. Government agencies normally have independent, strictly nonpartisan inspectors general, with broad powers to investigate questionable spending. But the new inspector general's office in Iraq operates under unique rules that greatly limit both its powers and its independence.

And the independence of the Pentagon's own inspector general's office is also in question. Last September, in a move that should have caused shock waves, the administration appointed L. Jean Lewis as the office's chief of staff. Ms. Lewis played a central role in the Whitewater witch hunt (seven years, $70 million, no evidence of Clinton wrongdoing); nobody could call her nonpartisan. So when Mr. Bush's defenders demand hard proof of profiteering in Iraq — as opposed to extensive circumstantial evidence — bear in mind that the administration has systematically undermined the power and independence of institutions that might have provided that proof.

And there are many more examples. These people politicize everything, from military planning to scientific assessments. If you're with them, you pay no penalty for being wrong. If you don't tell them what they want to hear, you're an enemy, and being right is no excuse.

Still, the big story isn't about Mr. Bush; it's about what's happening to America. Other presidents would have liked to bully the C.I.A., stonewall investigations and give huge contracts to their friends without oversight. They knew, however, that they couldn't. What has gone wrong with our country that allows this president to get away with such things?

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company


The Bulgarian
31 Яну 2004 01:09
Мнения: 17
От: Bulgaria
Published on Friday, January 30, 2004 by the Guardian/UK
'The Public Must Look to What is Missing From the Report'
by Scott Ritter

Tony Blair's government is heralding the Hutton report as a victory, since it absolves it of any wrongdoing regarding the "sexing up" of intelligence about the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The Hutton report was released at the same time as the former head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, testified before the US Congress that there appear to be no WMD in Iraq, and that the intelligence was "all wrong". Given this, the Hutton findings have taken on an almost Alice in Wonderland aura. By focusing on a single news story broadcast by the BBC, Hutton has created a political smokescreen behind which Blair is seeking to distract the British public from the harsh reality that his government went to war based on unsustained allegations that have yet to be backed up with a single piece of substantive fact. Lord Hutton was in a position to expose this; he chose not to. It is left to the public, therefore, to carefully examine his report, looking not for what it contains but for what is missing.

A review of testimony submitted to the inquiry elicits a single reference to Operation Rockingham, a secretive intelligence activity buried inside the Defense Intelligence Staff, which dealt with Iraqi WMD and activities of the UN special commission (UNSCOM). This acknowledged that Rockingham managed the interaction between David Kelly, the weapons expert whose suicide led to the Hutton inquiry, and the UN. But Lord Hutton dug no further into this. If he had, some interesting insight would have been provided on several issues of concern, including the possibility of the "shaping" of UN intelligence data by Rockingham to serve the policy objectives of its masters in the Foreign Office and the joint intelligence committee.

Dr Kelly became Rockingham's go-to person for translating the often confusing data that came out of UNSCOM into concise reporting that could be forwarded to analysts in the British intelligence community, as well as to political decision-makers. Rockingham was in a position to know that, increasingly, the facts emerging from inside Iraq supported Baghdad's contention that there was no longer a biological weapons program in Iraq, or any hidden biological weapons or agents.

But this data received little or no attention inside Rockingham. Dr Kelly was not only an active participant in the investigations in Iraq, but also a key player in shaping the findings to the British government. He was also one of the key behind-the-scenes advocates of the government position. For some time, the government had allowed him unfettered access to the press, where he spoke, often on the record, about his work with UNSCOM

Any probing of Rockingham by Lord Hutton would have exposed it for what it had become - a big player in the shaping of information regarding Iraq's WMD inside the government and, through its media connections, in shaping public opinion as well.

Given Rockingham's penetration of UNSCOM at virtually every level, there existed a seamless flow of data from Iraq, through New York, to London, carefully shaped from beginning to end by people working not for the UN security council, but for the British government. Iraq's guilt, preordained by the government, became a self-fulfilling prophesy that only collapsed when occupied Iraq failed to disgorge that which Rockingham, and the rest of the UK intelligence community, had said must exist.

· Scott Ritter was formerly chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004


31 Яну 2004 01:12
Мнения: 324
От: Bulgaria
Новият генерален секретар на НАТО излага плановете си за организацията
Пактът преживя трудна година заради разногласията за войната в Ирак

Яп де Хоп Схефер*
“Интърнешънъл хералд трибюн”
31 Яну 2004 01:17
Мнения: 80,095
От: Bulgaria
Комисията и докладът "Хътън" наистина ОНЕВИНЯВАТ Тони Блеър- за предполагаемата връзка /предмет на разследването/ между реакцията на Правителството- по повод изнесеното от ВВС, и смърта на Кели! Комисията НЕ е имала за задача да потвърди или отхвърли ИСТИННОСТТА на твърденията на ВВС- относно изнесените от Правителството на Т.Блеър "силно преувеличени" данни/ според ВВС/ за оръжията и потенциала на Ирак, като основание за участие на Великобритания вав военната кампания срещу Ирак!!! В този смасъл, докладът на "Комисията Хътън" с нищо НЕ ОНЕВИНЯВА Тони Блеър по отношение на отправените към него обвинения от ВВС!!! Т.е., от вчера Тони Блеър може да се счита за НЕВИНЕН за смъртта на Кели, но НЕ и за невинен относно участието на Великобритания във войната срещу Ирак! Това, второто, ТЕПЪРВА ще се разнищва!!! И, със сигурност, "наранената британска медийна лъвица"-ВВС, скоро ШЕ ОТВЪРНЕ НА УДАРА !!!
Написаното днес от Райчев НЯМА да коментирам сега! Може би и поради факта, че Райчев е пропуснал да обвини Станишев и БСП и в "съучастие" в самоубийството на британския оръжеен експерт Кели...
The Bulgarian
31 Яну 2004 01:25
Мнения: 17
От: Bulgaria
Scottie & Me
(formerly known as Ari & I)
White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan
Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 1:30 PM
by Russell Mokhiber

Mokhiber: Paul Bremer has ruled out quick elections in Iraq. The constitutional law advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority, Noah Feldman, is quoted in today's New York Times as saying "If you move too fast, the wrong people could get elected." Apparently, there is a fear of electing - polls show that the Shiites would gain control in Iraq if there were an election today - there is a fear of electing an Islamic Iraqi government. Does the President agree with Mr. Feldman - if you move too fast, the wrong people could get elected?

Scott McClellan: That's not the way the President of the United States looks at it. One, if you look at the November 15th agreement that was worked on by Iraqi Governing Council and agreed to with the Coalition Provisional Authority, it calls for free direct elections within that framework. It calls for election of the drafters of the Constitution - it calls for direct election on the ratification of the Constitution, and finally, at the end of 2005, it calls for a permanent representative government to be directly elected by the people of Iraq. What you are seeing now is that more and more Iraqi people are assuming the responsibility for their future. This is becoming more and more of an Iraqi-driven process. The UN announced today that they would be sending a team in there. They still need to work with the coalition on security arrangements. And that was something requested by the Iraqi Governing Council - for the United Nations to go in and assess the feasibility of conducting elections by the June 30 deadline for transferring full sovereignty to the Iraqi people. And so we look forward to seeing their assessment and hearing their advice. We've made it very clear in terms of the November 15 agreement that we are open to refinements and clarifications. This is more and more of an Iraqi-driven process. They are assuming more and more responsibility for their future and their decisions. We believe that it is important to move forward as quickly as possible to transfer sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. They are in a better position as time goes by to assuming full responsibility now for their future. The decisions about their future permanent government will be made directly by the Iraqi people.

Mokhiber: If I could follow up on that. And if they say they want an Islamic government and they want the U.S. out, will we get out?

Scott McClellan: There is a fundamental law that they are working on right now. It has some basic principles that will be enshrined. The other aspect in terms of the United States and our military presence along with the Coalition, those are discussions that are being had with the Iraqi Governing Council now as well. I think that the Iraqi people appreciate our efforts to help them with their security. But more and more the Iraqis are assuming responsibility for their own security. They are the largest contributor to security forces right now. I don't know the latest number - I think it is around 160, 000 Iraqis who are now involved in their own security. Those discussions under the November 15th agreement are under way now.

Mokhiber: But if they want us out, will we get out?

Scott McClellan: I think I've addressed it.


boiko gazara
31 Яну 2004 02:03
Мнения: 42
Kakto vuv vica:"Ga iade kifteta ne reva, sega revesh, tiasna ti bila ustata a shnicelite kak gi miatkashe?
31 Яну 2004 02:12
Мнения: 3,134
От: Bulgaria
Съвършено ясно е, че където има 200млн. няма никакво значение кой от коя партия е ( и това е така не само у нас). Какво точно е станало и кои са замесени в далаверата ще разберем вероятно колкото разбрахме кой уби Луканов и прочие; все си мисля обаче, че който е успял да върне по някакъв начин 200млн. от безнадеждния иракски дълг обратно в БГ, трябва да бъде награден, а не оплюван!
31 Яну 2004 02:31
Мнения: 80,095
От: Bulgaria
А какво ще разберем, когато разберем И :кой уби Дж. Ф. Кенеди?!?
31 Яну 2004 02:47
Мнения: 5,458
От: Bulgaria
Май беше някакъв вице, Линдон Бейнс Джонсон.
31 Яну 2004 02:53
Мнения: 3
От: France
Tova za sudbite na 6-te miliarda beshe otkroveno presileno. Kolko ot kitaicite znayat kakvo e BBC? Vav Francia, koyato se pada malko poveche sused na GB otkolkoto g-n Raichev, za BBC na nikoi ne mu puka osobeno, za Blear oshte po-malko. To biva vuzhita ama chak puk tolkova...
31 Яну 2004 03:04
Мнения: 5,458
От: Bulgaria
Също и Роберт Ф. Кенеди и Мартин Лютер Кинг.
31 Яну 2004 04:35
Мнения: 5,780
От: United States
Оплакала се една жена на кадията от съседка, че и дала на заем здраво гърне да сготви боб, пък оная и го върнала спукано. Когато кадията дал думата на обвиняемата да се защити, тя казала:
- Първо, не ми е давала никакво гърне. Аз боб не ям. Второ, тя ми го даде пукнато и трето, аз и го върнах здраво.
31 Яну 2004 04:39
Мнения: 37
От: Bulgaria
Султанчето, оправи си "черковнославянския" правопис...
Светло Пиво
31 Яну 2004 06:33
Мнения: 2,124
От: Bulgaria
McChick, султан фесов мисли на език доганеско и се опитва да пише на български. Ама аз кат го карам да каже "Аз съм Българче" не мои........
Та да си дойда на думат - г-на другар Райчев започва да се върти кат фурнаджийска лопата, демек готвим се за избори........
31 Яну 2004 06:36
Мнения: 37
От: Bulgaria
Той явно е от онези, дето се срамуват да казват "старобългарски" и му викат "черковнославянски". Затова и хортуват по кремълски маниер...
31 Яну 2004 07:18
Мнения: 5,620
От: Bulgaria
"...самата поза на г-н Станишев сега е сбъркана..."
Тук Райчев греши.
Станишев просто няма избор, освен да продължи неясната мимикрия пред света и обществото и същевременно заиграването с комунистическата носталгия на членската маса.
Той не може да отсече от партията и закърмените с държавни пари "червени мобифони"(Продев), защото ако направи препоръчваното от Райчев, то цялата БСП ще се събира в салона на "Позитано".
Станишев не може да разчита на друго, освен на комунистическите носталгици, като членове и електорат и на "червените мобифони" като управленски кадри.
А социалдемокрацията ?
Че то при толкова регулация и бюрокрация в държавата - накъде повече социалдемокрация ?
Avram Bakalina
31 Яну 2004 07:46
Мнения: 344
От: Bulgaria
Какви социалдемократи бе Раичев? 90% са си носталгици по "комунизъма", когато "си бачкахме колкото да не е без хич и си краднехме колкото може да отнесеме".Идеалист ли си ти или глупак?Не ми се вярва.
Добави мнение   Мнения:171 Предишна Страница 2 от 9 1 2 3 4 Следваща »