Obama administration prompts reporters at press conference

On Tuesday, June 23, 2009, at 12:30 P.M. EDT, President Obama held a press conference in the Brady Press Briefing room.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Press-Conference-by-the-President-6-23-09/)
His first question from a reporter was on Iran and where Obama draws the line on his offer for talking with Iran. When queried as to whether there should be consequences for what's happened so far in Iran, Obama says, "Since we're on Iran, I know Nico Pitney is here from Huffington Post."

THE PRESIDENT: So let me open it up for questions, and I'll start with you,
Jennifer.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your administration has said that
the offer to talk to Iran's leaders remains open. Can you say if that's still
so, even with all the violence that has been committed by the government against
the peaceful protesters? And if it is, is there any red line that your
administration won't cross where that offer will be shut off?

THE
PRESIDENT: Well, obviously what's happened in Iran is profound. And we're still
waiting to see how it plays itself out. My position coming into this office has
been that the United States has core national security interests in making sure
that Iran doesn't possess a nuclear weapon and it stops exporting terrorism
outside of its borders.

We have provided a path whereby Iran can reach
out to the international community, engage, and become a part of international
norms. It is up to them to make a decision as to whether they choose that path.
What we've been seeing over the last several days, the last couple of weeks,
obviously is not encouraging, in terms of the path that this regime may choose
to take. And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate
taking place in Iran may end up coloring how they respond to the international
community as a whole.

We are going to monitor and see how this plays
itself out before we make any judgments about how we proceed. But just to
reiterate, there is a path available to Iran in which their sovereignty is
respected, their traditions, their culture, their faith is respected, but one in
which they are part of a larger community that has responsibilities and operates
according to norms and international rules that are universal. We don't know how
they're going to respond yet, and that's what we're waiting to see.

Q So
should there be consequences for what's happened so far?

THE PRESIDENT:
I think that the international community is, as I said before, bearing witness
to what's taking place. And the Iranian government should understand that how
they handle the dissent within their own country, generated indigenously,
internally, from the Iranian people, will help shape the tone not only for
Iran's future but also its relationship to other countries.

Since we're
on Iran, I know Nico Pitney is here from Huffington Post.

Q Thank you,
Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Nico, I know that you, and all across the
Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know
that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating
through the Internet. Do you have a question?

Q Yes, I did, I wanted to
use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We
solicited questions last night from people who are still courageous enough to be
communicating online, and one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which
conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it
without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal
of what the demonstrators there are working towards?

THE PRESIDENT:
Well, look, we didn't have international observers on the ground. We can't say
definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country.
What we know is that a sizeable percentage of the Iranian people themselves,
spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It's not an
isolated instance -- a little grumbling here or there. There is significant
questions about the legitimacy of the election.

And so ultimately the
most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the
eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States. And that's why
I've been very clear: Ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who
their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.

What we can do is to say unequivocally that there are sets of
international norms and principles about violence, about dealing with peaceful
dissent, that spans cultures, spans borders. And what we've been seeing over the
Internet and what we've been seeing in news reports violates those norms and
violates those principles.

I think it is not too late for the Iranian
government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to
stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they
take it."

Today, on Meet The Press (June 28 2009), David Gregory interviewed David Axelrod.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31584983/ns/meet_the_press/page/2/displaymode/1098/
The topic was a possible change in foreign policy regarding Iran. Near the end of the interview, Gregory played a vidoetaped portion of Tuesday's press conference:

(Videotape, Tuesday)

PRES. OBAMA: Since we're on Iran, I know Nico
Pitney is here from Huffington Post.

MR. NICO PITNEY: Thank you, Mr.
President.

PRES. OBAMA: Nico, I know that you and all across the
Internet we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know
that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating
through the Internet. What--do you have a question?

(End videotape)

Gregory then asked "Did the White House coordinate with a reporter about a question to be asked at a press conference?"

At first, Axelrod said the White House didn't coordinate with the reporter about a question, that they looking for a way to get questions from within Iran. Gregory pressed further with saying that they talked to a reporter beforehand and asked the reporter to ask a question from Iran at the press conference.
Axelrod tried to sidestep the question with a nonaffirmative-affirmative, saying, "We didn't coordinate with, with him about what was asked. ...We had no idea what he was going to ask."

If you have paid attention to anything coming from the Administration, then you know that this format of dancing around the wording of an answer is standard for them. Gregory pursued the topic with,
But you coordinated with him about, about that subject of a question beforehand".
to which Axelrod responded,

"He was a, he was a, he was a, he was a vehicle to get questions from Iran asked at this press conference, and that we thought was not only appropriate but, but necessary.".
When Gregory asked him if he would do it again, Axelrod said he has no problem with what was done.

As I see it: the Administration sees no problem in prompting reporters to ask questions they want to answer. Most of us who have watched the decline in true journalism the last 10 years really shouldn't be surprised that it is considered appropriate to tell reporters what sort of questions you want to be asked. Maybe for the next 'press conference', the Administration will have the whole question and answer session typed up and thrown up on the teleprompters for the reporters to just read on cue.

I won't be surprised when what happened begins to get noticed. And there will probably be the customary '..he mis-spoke when he said...what he meant to say was...' statement released sometime next week. It won't change the fact that the Administration prompts reporters - regardless of how they word it.

Iran's "Angel of Freedom", Neda

Neda Agha Soltan
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200962484755543950.html


On July the 4th, many U.S. citizens will celebrate Independence Day. It is a day in which we honor and celebrate our freedom. We have the right to agree, disagree, argue, and even protest openly against our elected officials, leaders and their policies.

Iran's "Angel of Freedom", Neda Agha Soltan, has had those rights taken away from her. In Iran's supposedly democratic theocracy, the mirage of democratic freedom has finally been stripped away. Iran's leaders are now showing the World their true faces.

It took one bullet from a member of the Basij militia on a motorcycle to kill Neda Agha Soltan. Images of Neda as she was dying have been seen by all the World. The video is graphic and uncensored; it needs to be remembered as it is the raw truth. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/?bcpid=4464161001&bctid=27077553001)
She will be remembered as Iran's "Angel of Freedom". The truth of what happened can not be silenced, even though Iran's leaders have tried to block the Iranian citizens' access to the Internet and the rest of the World.

In a BBC interview, Dr. Arash Hejazi, the doctor seen in the vidoes trying to save Neda, tells what happened:

"...he was visiting friends in Tehran when he heard there were protests nearby, and
decided to take a look. When they reached the main street, they saw anti-riot
police coming on motorcycles towards the crowd.

"All of a sudden
everything turned crazy," he said. "The anti-riot police threw teargas among
people and the motorcycles started rushing towards people."

He
continued: "We heard a gunshot. And Neda was standing one metre away from me...
We were just standing and all of a sudden I turned back and I saw blood gushing
out of Neda's chest.

"She was in a shocked situation, just looking at
her chest, which blood was gushing out... We ran towards her and lay her on the
ground.

"I bent over her and I saw the bullet wound right in the chest
below the neck with blood gushing out. My experience says that it was the aorta
that was hit and the lung as well."

He added: "Her blood was draining
out of her body and I was just putting pressure on the wounds to try to stop the
bleeding, which wasn't successful unfortunately, and she died in less than one
minute."

The people around her took her body away in a car, Dr Hejazi
said.

The protesters thought the gunshot had come from a rooftop nearby,
but later saw a member of the Basij militia on a motorcycle. They stopped him
and disarmed him, the doctor said.

"He was shouting, 'I didn't want to
kill her'. I heard him," Hejazi said."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5644492/Doctor-blames-death-of-Irans-Angel-of-Freedom-Neda-Agha-Soltan-on-militia.html

Iran's leaders have tried to quickly get out propaganda to disparage Neda. They released report she was the sister of a terrorist; someone with a smuggled gun had opened fire in the street and killed her; she was faking her death, another protestor shot her..etc.

None of their lies can silence the impact of her martyrdom, her death for the cause of freedom.

Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson

Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson passed on June 25th. Both shared with the World their hearts - her through her acting, and him through his music.

Thank you both and blessed be.

Drew sentencing set for July 2 in MySpace case

Lori Drew's sentencing is slated for July 2 2009. U.S. District Judge George Wu delayed the May 18, 2009 sentencing date to review the case as the defense has stated that prosecution failed to prove its case and requested that the jury verdict be dismissed. (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/drew_sentenced/)

Drew was initially charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, with one count of felony conspiracy and three counts of felony unauthorized computer access for allegedly violating MySpace’s terms of service by participating in the creation of a fake profile for a non-existent 16-year-old boy named “Josh Evans.”

Using the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to prosecute Drew, the indictment charged that in September 2006 Drew conspired to create the Josh Evans account with her then 13-year-old daughter, Sarah, and a then-18-year-old employee and family friend named Ashley Grills, for the purpose of inflicting psychological harm on a 13-year-old neighbor named Megan Meier.

A month after “Josh” initiated the online relationship with Megan, he turned on her and told her he wanted to sever their relationship, writing that the world would be a better place without her in it. Shortly thereafter, Megan hanged herself in her bedroom.

Drew was convicted of three misdemeanor charges for unauthorized computer access and faces a maximum sentence of three years and a $300,000 fine.

Thomas O’Brien, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, aided by Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Krause, personally oversaw the prosecution and handled some of the witness testimony himself. Using the federal anti-hacking statute known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act prosecutors in Los Angeles brought the case against Drew based on the government’s novel argument that violating MySpace’s terms of service for the purpose of harming another was the legal equivalent of computer hacking. Prosecutors stated MySpace’s user agreement requires registrants, among other things, to provide factual information about themselves and to refrain from soliciting personal information from minors or using information obtained from MySpace services to harass or harm other people. By allegedly violating that click-to-agree contract, Drew committed the same crime as any hacker.

During prosecution witness Ashley Grills' Grill’s 80-minutes of testimony, she stated that nobody involved in the hoax actually read the terms of service. Grills also said that the hoax was her idea, not Drew’s, and that it was Grills who opened the account, clicked through the MySpace terms of service, created the Josh Evans profile, and later sent the cruel message that tipped the emotionally vulnerable 13-year-old girl into her final, tragic act. Ashley Grills testified for the prosecution under a grant of immunity. (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/11/lori-drew-pla-3/)

While most of the prosecutors case was built on terms violation of a MySpace account; it was on AOL Instant Messenger that Grills’ sent the last message to Megan: "The world would be a better place without you."
Grills testified that Megan responded: "You are the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over" .

Very little was allowed into testimony about thirteen years old Megan Meiers or her medical history; that she was suicidal by 3rd grade; diagnosed with depression; diagnosed as ADHD and taking a cocktail of prescribed Schedule 2drugs. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/21/080121fa_fact_collins?currentPage=all)
Megan was prescribed Celexa (an antidepression drug), Concerta (for A.D.D.), and Geodon (a mood stabilizer).
In the 7th grade, Megan and the Drews’ daughter had secretly set up a MySpace account. They were found out when a cousin of Megan's mother discovered the profile, which featured a flashing Playboy bunny icon. The Meiers did not mention the incident to the Drews. Supposedly, Lori Drew, going through her cell-phone bills, found that someone had placed a series of calls to New York. Lori’s daughter told her that Megan had made the calls, to talk to a boy they had met online. The Drews and the Meiers never discussed that incident, either.

In September 2006, Megan's parents allowed her open a MySpace with conditions and some restrictions:
1. Both parents were the only ones to know the password.
2. It had to be set to ‘private.’
3. Her parents had to approve the content.
4. Her parents had to be in the room at all times when Megan was on MySpace.

On the day she committed suicide, Megan's mother had left with her Megan's sister for a dental appointment. She knew Megan was online and told her to shut down. Megan's father was asleep upstairs and her mother found her still online when she returned home. Little was said in court of an insult war had broken out among Megan, Josh, and some of their friends . Megan had called another girl a slut, and the insult were returned in kind. In one interview, Megan's mother stated she was shocked and angry at the foul language replies her daughter had sent.

And as yet, there hasn't been any charges filed against people who pursued the Drews online on message boards, who posted the Drews’ home address and Curt’s business address, who organized a telephone and e-mail campaign against them and the businesses advertised in The Drew Advantage, who hacked into Lori Drew’s voice mail, or any other number of retalitory acts including a creepy video on On YouTube. Nor were any charges filed against Tina Meier, Megan's mother, for following Drew to places she went and asking any businesses “Do you advertise with The Drew Advantage? If so, I advise you to take a look at the Journals. The girl involved was my daughter.” No one has been charged for the acts of damage and vandalism against the Drew's home and property. And who will be charged in the future violence that may happen if the judge sets aside the verdict?

It's all a tragic set of circumstances that lead to a 13 year old commiting suicide. The case has already changed the law on cyber crime issues and possibly also changed the way some people behave online.

Has anybody ever bothered to read the full TOS of any social networking site? On the other side of the coin haven't judges found them to be not enforceable because it is assumed that people arent reading them because they are too long and can change without notification and/or warning. People who have been online for a number of years will tell you to never use your real name on any social networking site. No social networking site is going to 100% guarantee your protection or privacy.

My interest in the case was that Megan was on the usual stimulant drugs given to millions of kids daily for their 'diagnosed' mental problems and disorders. My question has always been; would a normal 13 year old have commited suicide over what was said? Since Drew was found guilty, shouldn't Megan's parents also be charged as they allowed Megan to open a MySpace account at 13? Why aren't the drugs and the medical personel who prescribe them, ever questioned or held accountable?

TARP and China

Where does the T.A.R.P. money banks are repaying go to?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060900891.html?nav=rss_businesshttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB124450458046896047.html

Government officials initially had planned for banks to keep their Treasury's investments for at least three years, but were forced by Congress earlier this year to allow banks an early exit. With signs of the financial sector stabilizing and bank stress tests complete, administration officials decided it was time to allow the strongest banks to return government funds. A handful of community banks are also expected to soon repay their TARP funds. Already, about 22 banks have taken steps to repay TARP, returning about $1.8 billion to the government. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said he plans to reuse returned TARP funds to assist other firms, including smaller banks, including those that have already received an initial TARP infusion.
The timing of repayments will be up to each bank. While banks can easily return the preferred shares the Treasury purchased in October, they must also deal with warrants the government received in the investments.
Those warrants, which gave the government the right to purchase common stock at a set price for 10 years, have value, and the Treasury must determine what price it will accept. A low price could open the Treasury to criticism that it is leaving money on the table. But some banks are unwilling to pay a high price.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
China's screening software on all computers on July 1 2009http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8091044.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8091411.stm

As a U.S. All-American girl, I can say that your government isn't always working for your best interests. Imagine that the U.S. government said it was mandating that all computers in the U.S. - even those that are imported - had to install the software that would filter out pornographic or violent material. And the software has to be pre-installed on U.S.made computers before they leave the factory.
Even if Pres. Obama himself gave a speech encouraging it; I'd be willing to bet that most of the population would laugh out loud.... and then voice a resounding 'NO' that would literally shake the very foundation of the Capital building.
Well, in China, as of July 1st, computers have to have installed the "Green Dam Youth Escort" software. Foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said, "The purpose of this is to effectively manage harmful material for the public and prevent it from being spread. The Chinese government pushes forward the healthy development of the internet. But it lawfully manages the internet."
China does manage it's Internet; and we all agree they do it lawfully - - - not. On the eve of the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen killings, social networking sites such as Twitter and the photo-sharing site Flickr were blocked in China in an attempt by the government to prevent online discussion on the subject. But people just moved onto other social networking sites.
Even the Chinese officials must realize they can not control the whole of the Internet in China. I don't know exactly how it is done; but a few friends have said that rewriting a few lines in the software on a computer could make it look as if were working correctly when it really wasn't.
One of the foreseeable main problems will be in businesses. And since China is the World's leading manufacturing nation; imagine having an idea that would make billions but can't get past the filter to flesh the idea out or market it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Violence against womyn under Islamic rule

I didn't watch THE SPEECH...I read THE SPEECH.
Maybe I expect too much... ... I don't know.Everytime I hear that Pres. Obama is going to make some pronounced major change, or give a historical major speech: I keep thinking, 'ok...maybe this will show me why a lot of people think he is great.'

Text - http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/06/04/obamas-speech-in-cairo/

"And I’m also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum."

"Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I’m a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith."
"Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That’s why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it."
"In Ankara, I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. "

"Freedom of religion is central to the ability of
peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That’s why I’m committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can’t disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism. "

As I read through the text, I thought 'is this Obama's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' speech?' It was his avoidance of the core of the sixth issue that was problematic for me. In one breath, he speaks of womyn's equality. In the next minute, he is making it sound as if giving Muslim girls an education will gloss over the daily brutality that Muslim girls and womyn face.

"That’s why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right
of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it."
"The sixth issue — the sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.
(Applause.) I know –- I know — and you can tell from this audience, that there
is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that
a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now, let me be clear: Issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we’ve seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.
Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of
American life, and in countries around the world.
I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity — men and women— to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams."

Obama came so close to the point - so close; but became lost in his campaigning persona. He really botched it when he said, "...I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal".
Pres. Obama is supposed to an educated man. Yet, he minimizes the problem more than a few of us in the West have with Islam as if it is a question of fashion preference.
The right of womyn and girls to wear the hijab is not the real issue. It is the brutality and oppression that is forced on them if they decide to make it their CHOICE whether to wear the hijab or not.
The acceptance of violence against womyn as permitted in the Islam religion and under Islamic law is a big part of the problem. It is that the brutality and oppression is viewed as a right of the Muslim man to meter it out as he sees fit to do so. In every country with a government set up under Islamic law, womyn and children are raped, torured, beaten, sold off into marriage, sexually mutilated, and killed with no consequence to the man responsible for it.
Only recently in the U.S. a Muslim husband beheaded his estranged wife because she was filing for divorce. It was deemed under Islamic law as an 'honor killing'. Every day there can be found a number of these 'honor killings' among Muslims.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Iraqi Women Can Now Say No to Hijab or Head Scarf
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7168860&page=1
Militants routinely threatened to kill each and every woman who did not dress according to the precepts of sharia law that were put in force in 2007..

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Child of 13 stoned to death in Somalia
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/child-of+-13-stoned-to-death-in-somalia-20081031
A girl stoned to death in Somalia this week was 13 years old. She had been accused of adultery in breach of Islamic law. Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was killed on Monday 27
October, by a group of 50 men in a stadium in the southern port of Kismayu, in front of around 1,000 spectators. Inside the stadium, militia members opened fire when
some of the witnesses to the killing attempted to save her life, and shot dead a boy who was a bystander.At one point during the stoning, Amnesty International has been
told by numerous eyewitnesses that nurses were instructed to check whether Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was still alive when buried in the ground. They removed her from the
ground, declared that she was, and she was replaced in the hole where she had been buried for the stoning to continue.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Trapped by Violence – Women in Iraq
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/trapped-violence-women-iraq-20090420
17-year-old Rand ‘Abd al-Qader was killed in the city of Basra on 16 March 2008. She was murdered by her father, apparently assisted by two of her brothers, because
she had developed a friendship with a British soldier based in the city. ‘Abdel Qader ‘Ali, who admits killing his daughter, was questioned at a local police station. He told a British newspaper that police officers sympathized with his motive and released him after two hours of questioning. He has still not been charged or tried. Leila Hussein, Rand ‘Abd al-Qader’s mother, denounced her husband’s crime and left him, even though this meant she had to go into hiding. She did so with the support of a local women’s organization. She too was killed on 17 May 2008, shot dead in the street in Basra. Two women accompanying her were shot and wounded. The authorities have failed to identify the perpetrators.

Six years after the overthrow of former President Saddam Hussein, Iraqi legislators have yet to amend legislation that effectively condones, even facilitates, violence against women and girls. The Penal Code, for example, provides that a convicted murderer who pleads in mitigation that he killed with “honourable motives” may face just six months in prison. It also effectively allows husbands to use violence against their wives. The “exercise of a legal right” to exemption from criminal liability is permitted for:
“Disciplining a wife by her husband, the disciplining by parents and teachers of children under their authority within certain limits prescribed by Islamic law (Shari’a), by
law or by custom.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Afghanistan: 4 years after the US-led invasion
http://rwor.org/a/020/afghanistan-after-us-invasion-pt2.htm
The situation for women has remained unchanged in many aspects or has even become worse under the occupation. A few months ago a woman accused of adultery was stoned to death by a local court in Badakhshan, while the man was sentenced to a beating. Women are still persecuted and imprisoned for adultery on the say-so of their husband or other men. There are more and more cases of young women burning themselves alive. In the fourth year of the occupation there has been a fifty percent increase compared to the previous year. Women are at much greater risk of rape and kidnap now than before the invasion. Wearing a burqa is no longer legally compulsory, and women might not get beaten by the Taleban morality police anymore, but instead they might get raped or kidnapped or both. Forced marriage is as standard as ever. Girl children are sold for a couple of hundred of dollars. Since the invasion, prostitution has increased tremendously. Violence against women by family members is still as widespread as before, if not worse. The situation of women in Afghanistan cannot be judged by the few women in certain limited areas of the capital who
might now wear a scarf and drive a car. It should be judged by the hell that more that 90 percent of the women are going through.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bengali mother caned for talking to Hindu man
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/06/75023.html
A Muslim mother has been caned for talking to a Hindu man in Bangladesh, police said Saturday, prompting fresh concerns about a rise in cases of harsh treatment of women under strict interpretation of Islamic law.The punishment was carried out in a remote village in Muslim-majority Bangladesh on the orders of village elders, local police chief Enamul Monowar told AFP. There is major concern among women's groups in Muslim-majority but officially secular Bangladesh about what they say is a rise in brutal treatment of women under locally applied Islamic laws."In the last few months, we have seen villagers invoking Shariah to mete out barbaric punishments to women," said Salma Ali, the head of rights group Bangladesh National Woman Lawyers Association.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are thousands more reports of violence against womyn that result from, and are sanctioned by Islamic law. It's not the "West that views a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal", Pres. Obama; it's Islamic law.

Why should the US attempt relationships with the Muslim countries?

I as read this, I was once again asking a question that no one has answered for me.
In an exclusive interview with NBC News' Brian Williams: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31071200]

"Obama told Williams on Tuesday that people in Islamic countries recognize that the “path of extremism” won’t better their lives, and being “anti-American” won’t solve their problems.
“And so what I hope will happen, as a consequence of this speech, is people will have a better sense of how America views its relationship to the broader world and to Islam,” he said.
“I hope that Americans will recognize that Islam is not a monolithic faith, that there are all sorts of debates taking place within Islam, about how to adjust to a modern world.”

Obama in an interview with BBC North America correspondent Justin Webb about the Middle East, states:http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/06/090602_obama_transcript.shtml

"..there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world.
And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."

Al-Qaida released a 12-minute audio message titled "The Torturers of Egypt and the Agents of America Welcome Obama" posted on militant Web sites that have been used by al-Qaida in the past and carried the logo of As-Sahab, the terrorist organization's media wing. [ http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_AL_QAIDA_OBAMA?SITE=CASDT&SECTION=INTERNATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-06-02-16-34-51 ]
But al-Qaida's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri, al-Qaida's No. 2, on Tuesday said the speech will not erase what the U.S. military is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"His bloody messages were received and are still being received by Muslims, and they will not be concealed by public relations campaigns or by farcical visits or elegant words," said Ayman al-Zawahri.
Al-Zawahri said the Egyptian officials who will welcome Obama are U.S. "slaves" and have turned the country into an "international station of torture in America's war on Islam." He was likely referring to suspected Islamic militants who have been captured by the U.S. and sent to Egypt for interrogation, a process known as rendition.
Al-Zawahri urged Egyptians to reject Obama when he makes his
speech, calling him "that criminal who came seeking, with deception, to obtain what he failed to achieve in the field after the mujahideen ruined the project of the crusader America in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia."
He said Obama's decision to come to Cairo showed the U.S. had not given up its alliances with dictatorial and corrupt Mideast governments.
"It is a clear message that America does not stand with reform and change and other lying American propaganda, but it stands with the continuation of the existing tyrannical, rotten regimes," said al-Zawahri."
Meanwhile, a group of Muslim clerics connected with Egypt's prestigious Al-Azhar University have announced the creation of a new satellite channel to propagate moderate Islam and challenge what it describes as extremist distortions of the religion.
Al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam's premier educational institution, is co-sponsoring
Obama’s Thursday address.
Sheik Khaled el-Guindy, a member of Egypt's Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs and a driving force behind the "Azhari" channel, said the idea is to use the knowledge and skills of Al-Azhar graduates to combat ignorant interpretations of the religion.
"Azhari will promote the idea that Islam is a religion of moderation free from extremism," he told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "Several satellite channels right now promote a strict interpretation of Islam and issue incorrect religious opinions that fill young people with extremist ideas."
Azhari is set to be launched in mid-August, at the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramada. It will present a mix of entertainment and educational programming, including children's cartoons, soap operas and call-in shows.
The channel will initially be broadcast in English and Arabic, with plans to expand it to Turkish and Hindi, and will be viewable from Europe to Southeast Asia.

My question is and has been ; why should we repeatedly attempt to create a dialog with, apologize to, or befriend the Muslim world?

We are continuously told Islam is a religion. Yet, we see whole countries in the Middle East and Southern Asia have it as their government and ruling law. After 9/11, the U.S. populace were told on a daily basis that we are not at war with Islam - it was al-Qaida, a fanatical Islamic group. The U.S government officials and the Mainstream Media were very careful in drawng the difference to the front of our minds on a daily basis. What I think Pres. Obama needs to remember is that most U.S. citizens had no trouble drawing the distinctions between Islam and fanatical Islamic al-Qaida. Most of us had known Muslims in our neighborhoods and didn't harbor ill feelings toward them as a result of 9/11.

Then we have our first introduction to the Taliban. It was the CNN documentary "Beneath the Veil" that gave us a view of Muslims that was the exact opposite of what we had been told. http://www.rawa.org/cnn-king.htm
We saw the government rule of fundamentalist groups of Muslims. We saw womyn openly beaten and whipped; and the most horrendous lawful execution of womyn in a former soccer stadium. Since that first documentary in October 2001, there have been reports of other atrocities, such as, of girls being allowed to burn to death in a school because they did not have proper head coverings. We have seen reports of other beatings, of executions, of having acid thrown in their faces , of being 'married' at the age of 8, of being sold to pay off debts, and many other acts all considered lawful under Islamic governments.

How are we, as Americans, suppose to overlook these heinous acts and establish a realtionship with those goevernments that allow this?