http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0629/bill-clinton-we-blow-oil-well/ Bill Clinton: ‘We may have to blow up the well’ John Byrne Tuesday, June 29th, 2010 Little noticed comments from former President Bill Clinton over the weekend which he made in South Africa are perhaps -- well -- a bit explosive. "Unless we send the Navy down deep to blow up the well and cover the leak with piles and piles and piles of rock and debris, which may become necessary - you don't have to use a nuclear weapon by the way, I've seen all that stuff, just blow it up - unless we're going to do that, we are dependent on the technical expertise of these people from BP," Clinton said. Clinton was speaking about British Petroleum's efforts to staunch a massive leak that erupted after one of the oil rigs it was leasing blew up Apr. 20. His remarks about the explosion solution come at about 2:30 into the recording, posted below. Matt Simmons, founder of energy investment bank Simmons & Company, suggested earlier this month that the US military could close the drill hole with a nuclear weapon. "Probably the only thing we can do is create a weapons system and send it down 18,000 feet and detonate it, hopefully encasing the oil," he said. His idea echoes that of a Russian newspaper that earlier this month suggested the US detonate a small nuclear bomb to seal the oil beneath the sea. Komsomoloskaya Pravda argued in an editorial that Russia had successfully used nuclear weapons to seal oil spills on five occasions in the past. "Weapons labs in the former Soviet Union developed special nukes for use to help pinch off the gas wells," Live Science wrote earlier this year. "They believed that the force from a nuclear explosion could squeeze shut any hole within 82 to 164 feet (25 to 50 meters), depending on the explosion's power. That required drilling holes to place the nuclear device close to the target wells." "A first test in the fall of 1966 proved successful in sealing up an underground gas well in southern Uzbekistan, and so the Russians used nukes four more times for capping runaway wells," the site added. Critics of Clinton's plan have told Fox that BP is resisting the option because blowing up the well would ensure they could get no more oil. "If we demolish the well using explosives, the investment's gone," former submarine officer and nuclear policy scholar at Columbia University Christopher Brownfield told Fox News in May. "They lose hundreds of millions of dollars from the drilling of the well, plus no lawmaker in his right mind would allow BP to drill again in that same spot. So basically, it's an all-or-nothing thing with BP: They either keep the well alive, or they lose their whole investment and all the oil that they could potentially get from that well." ***** http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291019/Dr-Kelly-slit-wrist-weak.html Dr Kelly 'couldn't have slit his wrist as he was too weak' Miles Goslett 1st July 2010 Dramatic new testimony has heaped pressure on ministers to reopen the investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly. A female colleague claims that the UN weapons inspector could not have committed suicide as claimed, as he was too weak to cut his own wrist. Mai Pedersen, a U.S. Air Force officer who served with Dr Kelly's inspection team in Iraq, said a hand and arm injury meant that the 59-year-old even 'had difficulty cutting his own steak'. Dr Kelly was found dead in woods near his home in 2003 after the Government exposed him as the source of a BBC report questioning Tony Blair's government's case for war in Iraq. In a letter to the new Attorney General Dominic Grieve through her lawyers, Miss Pedersen also said Dr Kelly had difficulty swallowing pills, casting serious doubt on the Hutton Inquiry conclusion that he swallowed 29 painkillers before slitting his left wrist. Campaigners hope her extraordinary intervention will convince ministers of the need for a new investigation. Mr Grieve has already indicated that he believes the case could merit a further inquiry. Had she testified at the Hutton Inquiry, Miss Pedersen would have revealed that in the months leading up to his death Dr Kelly was unable to use his right hand for basic tasks requiring any strength such as slicing food because of a painful elbow injury. Miss Pedersen says he would therefore have had to be a 'contortionist' to have killed himself by slashing his left wrist, as Lord Hutton concluded in 2004. She called for a 'formal, independent, and complete' review of the case at the earliest opportunity, saying it was the only way to achieve 'closure'. The letter said the absence of a full coroner's inquest into Dr Kelly's death and 'perpetual secrecy' meant it was ' crying out' for further scrutiny. Dr Kelly, who worked for both the UN and later the Ministry of Defence, was found dead seven years ago next month in an Oxfordshire wood. He was said to be deeply upset after being exposed as the source of a controversial BBC news report questioning Britain's grounds for going to war in Iraq. The report, by journalist Andrew Gilligan, stated that Tony Blair's press spokesman Alastair Campbell had 'sexed up' the case for war for political reasons. But, unusually for a death of this nature, no full coroner's inquest has ever been held. Instead, Tony Blair appointed retired judge Lord Hutton to chair a non-statutory public inquiry into the circumstances leading to his body being discovered. Lord Hutton concluded that Dr Kelly died by haemorrhage after slashing his left wrist but, as the Mail reported last week, his death certificate was officially registered before the Hutton Inquiry ended and it was not properly completed. It was not signed by a doctor or coroner and does not state a place of death, as all death certificates should if this information can be established. This leaves open the possibility that he died somewhere other than where his body was found. To further deepen the mystery, all evidence relating to the post-mortem has been classified for an incredible 70 years. Miss Pedersen's view is significant because she knew Dr Kelly so well, both personally and professionally. The pair worked together in Iraq in the 1990s and remained close friends until his death, although Miss Pedersen, 50, has always that she and Dr Kelly were not romantically involved. She was initially asked to give evidence to the Hutton Inquiry in 2003 and agreed to do so, but was not called. This was because, it is claimed, the inquiry would not allow her to testify in private. Her letter to Mr Grieve, dated June 10, states: 'We understand you have indicated a willingness to consider possibly reopening the investigation into the continuing controversy into the death of Dr Kelly. 'Given the absence of any coroner's inquest and the perpetual secrecy surrounding the post-mortem examination, it is painfully obvious that this matter continues to cry out for a formal, independent and complete review. Ms Pedersen fully supports and adds her voice to such an effort. 'The passage of time [does] not diminish either the public's interest or the government's responsibility to ascertain the full truth, whatever that might be.' The Hutton Report failed to allay suspicions of foul play in Dr Kelly's death. On the morning of July 17, Dr Kelly mysteriously told a friend by email that there were 'many dark actors playing games'. In 2007 it was discovered, through a Freedom of Information request, that the pruning knife he is said to have used to cut his wrist had no fingerprints on it. ***** http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/video-pentagon-shape-shifter-folds-itself-into-boat-plane/ Pentagon’s Shape-Shifting Bot Folds Into Boat, Plane Noah Shachtman June 29, 2010 Categories: Science! Even for the Pentagon’s science-fiction division, it seemed like a stretch. But in 2007, Darpa really did launch an effort to build programmable matter that could reconfigure itself on command. Then, two years later, Harvard and MIT researchers really did make progress building “self-folding origami” that just might be able to twist themselves into different shapes. Yesterday, Darpa-backed electrical engineers at the two schools released the stunning results: a shape-shifting sheet of rigid tiles and elastomer joints that can fold itself into a little plane or a boat on demand. It’s “a first step towards making everyday objects whose mechanical properties can be programmed,” Harvard’s Robert Wood says in a statement. The sheet, less than a half-millimeter thick, “is studded with thin foil actuators and flexible electronics. The demonstration material contains 25 total actuators, divided into five groupings. A shape is produced by triggering the proper actuator groups in sequence,” the statement explains. The shape-shifter takes a four-step approach to figures out how to rearrange itself. Step one: Take a 3-D model of a completed origami shape, and then reverse-engineer it to see what kind of “folding paths” are needed to get there. Step two: Take that information to “produc[e] a discrete folding plan” for each tile group, Wood and his fellow researchers note in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “The third algorithm receives each of the individual plans [and] assembles them onto one sheet…. Finally, the fourth algorithm chooses the optimum arrangement [to] minimize either the number of actuators or number of actuator groups.” From there, the thin little machine gets to transforming itself. In Darpa’s dreams, this work will eventually lead to everything from morphing aircraft to self-styling uniforms to a “universal spare part.” But in the meantime, a piece of robotic origami that can fold itself into a boat or a plane is wild enough. ***** http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-big-screen-documentary-exposes-pat-tillman-cover-up.html New Big Screen Documentary Exposes Pat Tillman Cover-Up Evidence strongly indicates Tillman was murdered to prevent him from becoming an anti-war icon Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Tuesday, June 29, 2010 A new documentary set to hit the big screen this summer lifts the lid on the cover-up behind the death of Pat Tillman, the pro-football star who gave up a lucrative career to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq before preparing to return to the U.S. as an anti-war icon, at which point he was killed in a so-called friendly fire incident that more closely resembled a deliberate assassination. Whether or not the documentary delves into the question of whether Tillman’s death was a targeted act of murder remains to be seen, but the evidence strongly indicates that Tillman was deliberately assassinated in order to prevent him from becoming an anti-war icon and derailing public support in the United States for the ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Tillman sacrificed the good life and a multi-million dollar football career in the belief that he was defending his country from outside enemies, and soon after 9/11 turned down a contract offer of $3.6 million over three years from the Cardinals to enlist in the U.S. Army. It was during Tillman’s second deployment to Afghanistan, after previously serving in Iraq, that he was killed by what the U.S. military initially claimed was a Taliban ambush. It later emerged that the ambush story had been concocted by the Pentagon in an attempt to exploit Tillman’s death for pro-war propaganda. Subsequent investigations claimed that Tillman was killed as a result of a friendly fire accident. However, in July 2007, the results of an Army medical report found that Tillman had been shot three times in the head with an M16 from a mere 10 yards away, clearly suggesting that the incident was a targeted assassination. “Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman’s forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player’s death amounted to a crime,” reported the Associated Press. “The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators. “The doctors – whose names were blacked out – said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.” The report also states that “No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene – no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.” The article also reveals that “Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.” The doctor who autopsied Tillman’s body tried to pursue an investigation into the question of whether Tillman was murdered but was prevented from doing so by higher-ups at the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. The motive for the murder would undoubtedly have been Tillman’s plans to return to the U.S. and a vocal critic of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. The evidence points directly to it and the motivation is clear – Tillman abandoned a lucrative career in pro-football immediately after 9/11 because he felt a rampaging patriotic urge to defend his country, and became a poster child for the war on terror as a result. But when he discovered that the invasion of Iraq was based on a mountain of lies and deceit and had nothing to do with defending America, he became infuriated and was ready to return home to become an anti-war hero. In September 2005, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a friend of Tillman had set up a meeting with author and prominent war critic Noam Chomsky, which was scheduled to take place after Tillman’s return from Afghanistan. Chomsky confirmed that the meeting was arranged. As far back as March 2003, immediately after the invasion of Iraq, Tillman famously told his comrade Spc. Russell Baer, “You know, this war is so fucking illegal,” and urged his entire platoon to vote against Bush in the 2004 election. During a July 2007 appearance on Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show, four star General Wesley Clark stated that “the orders came from the very top” to cover-up the nature of Tillman’s death as he was a political symbol and his opposition to the war in Iraq would have rallied the population around supporting immediate withdrawal. ***** http://www.hillbillyreport.org/diary/1686/rand-paul-flipflops-on-farm-subsidies Rand Paul Flip-Flops on Farm Subsidies RDemocrat Wed Jun 30, 2010 Poor Rand Paul. He thought he would use the fundraising base of his father and cruise to tea-party victory. What he did not depend on however was his extremist views on just about everything being completely exposed by those who are voting. Now, in a state rich with farming some of those statements are coming back to haunt him as rural Kentucky sees that he scorns them as much as everyone else. Of course, in typical McConnell Republican fashion the Mad Doctor is just flip-flopping and floundering. You see, farmers and the entire Commonwealth of Kentucky benefit from farm subsidies: Allison Haley, Conway's press secretary, said Kentucky received at least $446 million from the Department of Agriculture last year "through programs that include helping our Kentucky farmers improve water quality, cope with environmental disasters and provide nutritional assistance for women and children. In federal fiscal year 2009, Kentucky farmers got more than $265 million in commodities subsidies through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, according to a publication from the USDA Farm Service Agency. So it was quite a surprise when Rand Paul let the cat out of the bag that he wanted to end this money coming into the state he would represent altogether: In a May 10 appearance on Kentucky Educational Television with other Republican primary candidates, Paul said he was not in favor of agricultural subsidies. "I don't think federal subsidies of agriculture are a good idea," he said. Ah, but the powers to be McConnell must have intervened and let the Mad Doctor know that he had once again done the unthinkable, let real Americans know what Republicans really think of them. Since Republican leadership can simply not afford to allow that, Paul was forced to do a little flipping and flopping: Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul tempered his opposition to federal farm subsidies Wednesday, saying he is "much more moderate" on the issue than he has been portrayed in the media. Appearing on WHAS-AM radio in Louisville with host Mandy Connell, Paul did not repeat a previous blanket assertion against farm subsidies. Moderate?? LOL!! Rand Paul will be called many things in this campaign but moderate will not be one of them. The problem is Paul said a stupid thing on his anti-government crusade and got called out on it. The truth is that Paul is just another lackey cut out of the Mitch McConnell Kentucky Republican mode. Government is only good when it benefits them. Profits are only good when they go to the right people and Americans should just work for peanuts if business sees fit. The nightmarish world of Rand Paul comes straight from a McConnell wet dream. They would starve the beast and steal governmental protections from Corporations from working Americans. They would end any taxes on the wealthy to pay for anything. Corporate responsibility would be figuring out how to cheat more working Americans out of wages and benefits and farmers would see their subsidies and price controls stolen away. Luckily we have an alternative to Rand Paul who cares more about the people of this state than making some misled political statement demonizing everything the government does and all of those who look to the federal government for any kind of assistance. Jack Conway offers a real alternative to the lunacy offered up by Rand Paul and his McConnell on steroids vision of the world: Jack has always been committed to public service. Just after graduating law school he began working on Gov. Paul Patton's 1995 campaign and after the election he began working as Secretary of the Cabinet. Jack managed many high level administrators and developed a close friendship with current State Auditor, Crit Luallen, who taught him how to be an upstanding public servant. In 2002, Jack ran for Congress and narrowly lost to incumbent, Ann Northup, in one of the closest congressional races that year. And in 2007, Jack was elected as the 49th Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. ***** http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0630/media-redefined-torture/ Study: US media redefined torture after US started practicing it By Daniel Tencer Wednesday, June 30th, 2010 The US news media radically changed how it reported on the issue of waterboarding after it emerged that US forces had used the practice, says a new study from Harvard University. The study also found a double standard when defining waterboarding, with news sources commonly referring to waterboarding as "torture" when talking about foreign countries using the practice, but declining to do so when it's being carried out by the United States. The study reports: From the early 1930's until the modern story broke in 2004, the newspapers that covered waterboarding almost uniformly called the practice torture or implied it was torture: The New York Times characterized it thus in 81.5% (44 of 54) of articles on the subject and The Los Angeles Times did so in 96.3% of articles (26 of 27). By contrast, from 2002-2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture. The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63). The Wall Street Journal characterized the practice as torture in just 1 of 63 articles (1.6%). USA Today never called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture. The study went on to note a marked difference in the way waterboarding is portrayed when the individuals doing the waterboarding are American, and when they're not. [N]ewspapers are much more likely to call waterboarding torture if a country other than the United States is the perpetrator. In The New York Times, 85.8% of articles (28 of 33) that dealt with a country other than the United States using waterboarding called it torture or implied it was torture while only 7.69% (16 of 208) did so when the United States was responsible. The Los Angeles Times characterized the practice as torture in 91.3% of articles (21 of 23) when another country was the violator, but in only 11.4% of articles (9 of 79) when the United States was the perpetrator. The study, from Harvard University's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, may be the first empirical evidence of what many media critics have been accusing the US media of, anecdotally, for some time: That the press changed its standards for "torture" once it became known the US was practicing it. That shift was not an accident, argues Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald, who first reported the study. "Media outlets such as the NYT, The Washington Post and NPR explicitly adopted policies to ban the use of the word 'torture' for techniques the US government had authorized once government officials announced it should not be called 'torture,'" Greenwald writes. "We don't need a state-run media because our media outlets volunteer for the task: once the US government decrees that a technique is no longer torture, US media outlets dutifully cease using the term," Greenwald writes. Adam Serwer at the American Prospect argues that it's not "servitude" to the media that motivated the news media, but rather "the conventions of journalism ... are at fault here." Serwer writes: As soon as Republicans started quibbling over the definition of torture, traditional media outlets felt compelled to treat the issue as a "controversial" matter, and in order to appear as though they weren't taking a side, media outlets treated the issue as unsettled, rather than confronting a blatant falsehood.... Of course, this attempt at "neutrality" was, in and of itself, taking a side, if inadvertently. It was taking the side of people who supported torture, opposed investigating it as a crime, and wanted to protect those who implemented the policy from any kind of legal accountability. The Harvard study leaves it to readers to draw their own conclusion as to why the US media changed how it reported on waterboarding, but it does refute the argument, made by New York Times editor Clark Hoyt, that reporters and editors voluntarily stopped using the word torture to maintain the appearance of neutrality. "The willingness of the newspapers to call the practice torture prior to 2004 seems to refute this claim," the study states. "According to the data, for almost a century before 2004 there was consensus within the print media that waterboarding was torture. Yet once reports of the use of waterboarding by the CIA and other abuses by the US surfaced, this consensus no longer held...."