The Washington Post has finally reporting on this very disturbing story. The truth about Obama’s protection of infanticide and his blatant public dishonesty on the subject.

His extreme views about abortion should be known to all. Maybe now the main street media will be forced to report it. Although I'm sure they will spin it into a simple misunderstanding by everyone else.

Obama’s support for infanticide breaks into mainstream media

The Washington Post became the first major media outlet to finally acknowledge what David Freddoso and National Review have reported for weeks — that Barack Obama had not told the truth about his vote for the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Jonathan Weisman gets the chronology correct and notes that Obama’s committee had added the neutrality clause that Obama claims was not part of the bill before Obama killed the legislation in his committee. This come halfway through a balanced look at the abortion issue in general for both candidates:

Abortion foes are now accusing Obama of being an abortion-rights extremist. In recent days, the National Right to Life Committee has charged that Obama is misrepresenting his record to broaden his appeal. At issue is a measure in both Illinois and Congress called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which defines as a protected human any life expelled from a mother. Abortion foes championed the cause when an Illinois nurse and antiabortion activist said some pre-viable fetuses were being aborted by inducing labor and then being allowed to die.

Obama, then a state senator, opposed the measure in 2001, saying it crossed the line of constitutionality and “essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a pre-viable child, or fetus.”

As a committee chairman in the state Senate in 2003, Obama supported GOP efforts to add language to the act, copied from federal legislation, clarifying that it would have no legal impact on the availability of abortions. Obama then opposed the bill’s final passage. Since then, he has said he would have backed the bill as it was written and approved almost unanimously the year before.

What Weisman mostly avoids is Obama’s attempts to mischaracterize his vote on S.1082, although the last sentence hints at it. When this topic first arose, Obama claimed that his vote against S.1082 in 2003 resulted from a failure of the legislature to include the clause in the federal bill that would have explicitly made this neutral toward the normal practice of abortion. The NRLC’s research proved that he lied about his vote and the status of the bill. When confronted by CBN’s David Brody, he called his critics liars instead, but within 24 hours his campaign had to go into full retreat.

Read full by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air

What are they trying to say?

In 1970, we imported 24% of our oil.
Today it's nearly 70% and growing.

As imports grow and world prices rise, the amount of money we send to foreign nations every year is soaring. At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone — that's four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.

Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion — it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
America uses a lot of oil. Every day 85 million barrels of oil are produced around the world. And 21 million of those are used here in the United States.

That's 25% of the world's oil demand. Used by just 4% of the world's population.

Can't we just produce more oil?

World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn't enough of it to keep up with demand.

The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.

What's the good news?

The argument on whether taxation in America is government coercion, makes Senator Harry Reid look like the fumbling, bumbling fool he actually is. Harry is way too ignorant to make the argument on this issue.


It's painfully obvious that Jan Helfeld is engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

UPDATE: Dennis Miller chimes in ...
Nice!

Obama adviser blames America for starting the AIDS virus.
Racism is alive and well in Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.


He believes he can have his cake and eat it too.

MSNBC ~ Ignore Partisanship?
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

New Saturday Night Live skit about Barack Obama

Al and Jesse just trying to help a brother out.
One can hardly blame him, who, in his position, would want the likes of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton anywhere near his campaign.

Code Pinkos forcibly keep people from entering the Marines Recruiting office while the Berkeley Police stand by and watch. The police were "Staying Neutral" says one officer at the scene.
STAYING NEUTRAL? What are they, freakin' referees?


I think Berkeley is getting a bit carried away at this point. I truly can not believe the administrative powers in this city honestly believe they are going to run the Marines out of town. They must think they live in the United States of Berkeley. Idiots!

Show me a primary and I'll show you Hillary crying.
Some say she is doing this crying thing before ever primary for the sympathy which translates into votes for her. And I have to say, the first couple of times I think it actually worked. But how long can she keep this up? Can she cry herself into the White House? And how is the rest of the world viewing this little one-act play of hers?

Perhaps she’s crying over the incompetence of her campaign

Or is there something else. Could it be, deep down, she sees her shot at the big house dwindling away in front of her eyes. Is she seeing Barack Obama stealing her thunder at every turn. Is he going to steal her vision, her passion of so many years?

Has she lost her beloved base to... uh uh him?


Possibly, but...
Will she cry her way into the White House?

Ex-Marine and Berkeley California Councilman Max Anderson calls the U.S. Marines, President Bush's Gangsters and trained killers, as his justification to allow "Code Pink" a permit to protest in front of the U.S. Marines recruiting station.



and then there's the Mayor of Bezerkley himself, ass-wipe Tom Bates. Bates chimes in with this lovely statement at the same meeting.


Wow!

Both "America's Greatest Enemies" list and our "A-Hole of the Year" list just grew larger.

Can you name the new A$$HOLE OF THE YEAR?



That's right! The low life, left wing, nutjob Mayor of Bezerkley California
Tom Bates
Now, I'm sure most of you have heard by now, of the moronic antics of the City Council of Berkeley California and their ludicrous decision to drive the U.S. Marine Corps Recruiting office out of town. These ridiculous acts of treason were lead by the one and only Thomas Bates.

That is why he has climbed to the top of our "A$$HOLE OF THE YEAR" list.

Video here of Bates at the meeting.

If you haven't heard by now. Check out "Treason in Berkeley."

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has the latest here. Talk back to Berkeley.

Express yourself Jackie, don't hold it in. Tell us how you really feel.



Was that an endorsement for Romney?

Watch in Full Screen

Typical Clinton... if it's not about them, their not interested.

Bill Clinton cops a few z's during the Martin Luther King celebration at the Convent Avenue Baptist Church in Harlem, N.Y. yesterday.

From video by the New York Post titled "Clinton has a Dream."

Lies Lies Lies



Well? Haven't we?
I have.

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Dated Dec. 13, 2007
by 100 prominent Scientists from around the world.
Full Report in PDF Form - Click here
*********************************************

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,
[List of signatories]

Hillary's Oval Office


Making history, or going in the wrong direction.

 

More than 100 fliers, like this one, were posted around George Washington University this past week.

The posters, which read, "Hate Muslims? So Do We!!!," claim to promote Islamo-Fascism Awareness week, a week-long series of events sponsored by the student conservative group, Young America's Foundation.

The YAF openly condemn radical Islam as being evil and reprehensible. They claim these fliers are fakes, and were designed to stir hatred, rather then rationally discuss issues regarding the threat of radical Islam.

It's obvious the posters intent was malicious. The bottom of the flier, reads "Brought to you by Students for Conservativo-Fascism Awareness," and under it, the very last line reads "PS Seriously, do a Google video search for 'The Power of Nightmares'."

"The Power of Nightmares" is a BBC documentary that compares the American neo-conservative movement to the radical Islamist movement. This film attempts to make the argument that the threat of radical Islamism is in fact, a myth perpetrated by politicians world wide, particularly American Neo-Conservatives, in an attempt to unite.
George Washington University President Steven Knapp said in a statement, “There is no place for expressions of hatred on our campus.” He went on and called the posters reprehensible.

I tried not to go here, but could not help myself.

Chris Matthews gets knocked around, slammed and poked some more by the host of Comedy Central's "Daily Show," Jon Stewart, during an interview for his new book "Life's a Campaign."


MATTHEWS: "This is a book interview from hell," it's the "Worst interview of my life."

STEWART: "I’m not trashing your book, I’m trashing your philosophy of life."

Great Interview!

Are you ready for another eight years of this?



Just say No!

Move away from MoveOn.org

Fight the bully smear merchants at MoveOn.org

This is one of the logos MoveOn.org doesn’t want you to see: Go ahead. Sue.

Earlier in the week, the LA Times reported that MoveOn.org, the infamous left-wing thugs who sponsored the “General Betray Us” ads, had unleashed its lawyers on Internet retailer Cafe Press, which allows folks to sell custom-designed t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. The anti-military smear merchants don’t take kindly to be being mocked and satirized on homemade items and knick-knacks:

MoveOn... Sue this!

It's seems to be a daily occurrence in the U.S. lately. Another slap in the face of the U.S. Military, just to show they are against the war. Listen up people.

• Snubbing our Military... will NOT stop this war.
  
• Interfering with the recruiting efforts of our Military... will NOT stop this war.
  
• Denigrating our Military personnel... will NOT stop this war.

Try supporting them... it may get us out quicker.

Marines Denied Permission To Film Commercial

SAN FRANCISCO, Sep. 24, 2007 (KGO) - New York said "yes," but we said "no." Why were the U.S. Marines denied permission to film a recruiting commercial on the streets of San Francisco?

San Francisco is, once again, the center of a controversy over how city leaders treat the U.S. military. This time, it involves an elite group of Marines who wanted to film a recruitment commercial in San Francisco on the anniversary of 9/11.

The tension has been building in the two weeks since the city turned away members of the Silent Drill Platoon, and it boiled over Monday afternoon at a meeting of the San Francisco Film Commission.

The U.S. Marine Silent Drill Platoon performed Monday morning in New York's Times Square. They filmed part of a recruitment commercial through the start of the morning rush hour -- something they could not do in San Francisco on the anniversary of 9/11.

"It's insulting, it's demeaning. This woman is going to insult these young heroes by just arbitrarily saying, 'no, you're not going to film any Marines on California Street," said Captain Greg Corrales of the SFPD Traffic Bureau.

He says Film Commission Executive Director Stefanie Coyote would only allow the Marine's production crew to film on California Street if there were no Marines in the picture. They wound up filming the empty street and will have to superimpose the Marines later.

The city's treatment of the Marines is making many people angry, from local conservatives like Christine Hughes with the San Francisco Republican Party who told us, "it's an embarrassment. I'm a fourth generation San Franciscan and I don't even recognize my city right now."

"The city of San Francisco made a statement saying, 'we don't like the war' by shutting down the troops. I don't think that was the right thing to do," explained Eric Snyder, a U.S. Marine.

This liberal attitude that, "We're not at war, our military is," is not only disgusting, but down right dangerous.

Contact the Film Commission, Executive Director, Stefanie Coyote.
Make sure and select FILM SERVICES.

Almost 48 hours after the fiasco at Columbia University, it should be crystal-clear to Lee Bollinger that his invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Ivy League campus was a huge mistake. His personal attacks on the Iranian President during his most craven and unprofessional introduction on Monday, are making a bigger stir then the ridiculous statements made by Ahmadinejad. Go figure.

I think the eye of Columbia University is blackening as we speak.

World reaction so far are quite emphatic.

I find nothing courageous about the Bollinger's insulting introductory remarks. On the contrary, they amount to a monumental cheap shot and pandering to a biased audience. It would have been far more appropriate, and much more in keeping with the presumable spirit that led to the invitation in the first place, to have thanked Ahmadinejad for his willingness to address the audience and to have welcomed a forum for discussion.

David Herlihy, Boston USA

***

Respecting guests _ whoever they are is a universal principle. Either you invite somebody or if you do you have to respect them. Bollinger's violation of this etiquette was nothing but lack of culture in a professor, hopefully not in good people of America.

Farzad, Iran

***

Not very fund of Mr. AhmadiNejad but the introduction by the Univ. President was in accordance with neither of:

a)typical univ dialogue manner
b)accepted treatment of an invited guest
c)diplomacy
d)setting a good example for students

He discredited the Univ. by reading a political statment and insulting the president of Iran. Any other leader of a country with cold relations to the U.S. should be a fool to walk to that podium. It's a shame how media impacts a person of his statue.

Jaami, Toronto

***

Iranian president was a invited guest to Columbia University and was invited by its president Bollinger and should have been treated as such. He was insulted and humiliated which was wrong. In future do not invite anybody to your home and then insult him in your home. It is a disgrace to Columbia University.

Pundalik Shenoy, Parsippany, NJ

***

It is a cruel cruel act to Insult a head of State of any country and that too after inviting him. If it was a street protest that was something else. Mr Bollingers should have not invited him in the first place if his intention was to insult him. He has not only lost a chance of creating peace but has made it even worse.

[ssami80], Toronto, Canada

***

Although Ahmadinejad (AJad) is no saint, he managed to score some very good points. He stayed composed in the face of childish insults from Bolwinkel:),he made some very good points on hypocrisy of US with regards to terrorits & Nuclear issue. As he pointed out, US has designated the MEK as a terrorist organization yet it harbors them in Iraq because they serve its purpose. AJad's speech showed the hypocrisy of the West and media that were trying so hard to discredit him by spinning the outcome!

Bahram, San Jose

***

Mr. Bollinger should not have given the Iranian president the benefit of his anger. Ahmadinejhad knows that the best way for him to gain attention on the world stage is to deny the Holocaust- it shocks people, it makes the news, people listen to him. If any leader had the guts to say, well you have a right to your opinion, I'm interested to know why you think that way sir, I'm sure Ahmadinejad would drop his silly act. Bollinger only made the man looked insulted and himself lowered.

Michelle, Albuquerque

***

This was not an invitation to embrace freedom of speech. It was a propaganda campaign organized by Mr. Bollinger and co. - one which they lost to Ahmadinejad. How can the president of a famous university be so "astonishingly uneducated" as to take it upon himself to dictate to his audience what to think of his guest? Is this freedom of thought, common courtsey?
Rather than insulting a nation by insulting its elected president, Mr. Bollinger should take a look at his own president right at home.

hamid, Toronto

***

Although I strongly disagree with Mr. Ahmadinejad's politics, I believe it was right to allow him to speak at Columbia. To deny him his right to speak freely is to deny him the right in which Americans most strongly believe. We do not need to agree with Mr. Ahmadinejad, but when we are accusatory and insulting, it does no good for the already strained relationship between our country and many others, including Iran. Diplomacy must be tried before all else-mission is definitely not accomplished.

SK, New York City

***

The reactions and actions of American unlearned society and their institutional behaviour at Columbia University shows how arrogant Americans are. American education is geared toward bully rather than the pursuit of knowledge. By insulting Ahmadinejad Americans have shown the world their shallow, hallow cognition. I had predicted this would happen. American politics, civil administration and social institutions are intertwined. You are with us or against us is the thinking. What a dementia hell

Obwota Omwony, Magwi, Sudan

***

Bollinger acted disgracefully, in a way all too typical of loud, obscene Americans. What a poor example to give to the students of the university! Mr Ahmadinejad was invited to express his opinions and should have been welcomed as a guest rather than insulted and ridiculed by a petty uni president.

Anthony Nixon, Dundalk, Ireland

***

So the president of the University called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a petty and cruel dictator. This is so typical of the ignorance of world affairs by US citizens. How rude can Americans get?

[cunnind], La Chatre, France

***

Mr. Lee was not only rude but also ungentlemanlly. I gather the impression that the Iraninan President was not invited for purely academic reasons as the host would like us the beleive. Rather it was intended to make him a public redicule / spectacle and to emphasise the extent of hate Americans have towards him. such a move in my is a disgrace to modern diplomacy.I wonder if Bush would not receive the same reception in Cameroon.

Kwendi, Buea, Cameroon

***

Mr Lee Bollinger's was not agood Amaricans representative when he presented his rudly speech against Irans president.He showed that what U.S always tell about Iran coming true about it self.Mr.Ahmadinejat defeted the iranians rights logicaly,camly and ofcourse politly.He prove that Iranians want to achieve their rights in this way but the U.S want to privant Iran from it's right in such way Mr Lee Bollinger's talked to him ...illogical and rude.

mitra, Shiraz

***

Ahmadinejad is an elected president of my country. I may not agree with him on many things but I would hate to see him being disrespected by a few idiots who haven't set a foot outside a coutry that doesnt know what culture, etquete and knowledge really is.

Leyli Karima, Tehran, Iran

***

"This was not an invitation to embrace freedom of speech. It was a propaganda campaign organized by Mr. Bollinger and co. - one which they lost to Ahmadinejad. How can the president of a famous university be so "astonishingly uneducated" as to take it upon himself to dictate to his audience what to think of his guest? Is this freedom of thought, common courtesy?"

hamid, toronto

Ugly... but true!

The Iranian president, Mahmod Ahmadinejad, came to the U.S. this week to address the United Nations and to speak, by invitation, at a prestigious U.S. University.

Much has already been written about the Iranian President, so I will refrain from stating the obvious, to which we all know about this dictator of Iran and his feeling about the Holocaust and Israel. I want to speak to the way he was treated as an invited guest to Columbia University.

To begin, I want to say that I personally think the President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, made a mistake inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia at this time, with regard to the current political atmosphere and world events. However he made his decision and stood by it, claiming he would take the leader of Iran to task on many issues like the Holocaust, Human rights, Nuclear war etc. etc.. I respected him for that.

But what I saw from Lee Bollinger in his introduction of the Iranian President, was, to say the least, a surprising and stunning displayed of calculated disrespect and belligerence toward an invited foreign leader.

During his introduction he called the Iranian President a "petty and cruel dictator."

He continued with his harangue and monologue as students listened attentively to his every word, with the suggestion that Ahmadinejad was either "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," because of his continued denial of the Holocaust.


Click Video
This was an obviously craven and cowardly capitulation to outside pressures, and unworthy of the academic institution that Bollinger represents. He should have challenged Ahmedinejad’s many ridiculous and absurd statements in a manner that was not abusive or insulting. His behavior was completely inappropriate. It presented to the world, the face of an arrogant and bullying America.

Ahmadinejad was finally introduced and allowed to speak. He was obviously shocked at how he was being treated, before being allowed to speak.

Through an interpretor, he began his speech,

“At the outset I want to complain a bit from the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite to be a speaker we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don't think it's necessary before this speech is even given to come in with a series of claims...”

An eruption of applause interrupted the President.

Ahmadinejad continued: “...I think the text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all.

Certainly he took more than all the time I was allocated to speak, and that's fine with me. We'll just leave that to add up with the claims of respect for freedom and the freedom of speech that's given to us in this country.

Many parts of his speech, there were many insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully. .”

In my opinion, this display was just an awkward attempt by Lee Bollinger to redeem his reputation and keep the funds coming in from alumni who said they would withhold contributions to the University in the future because of his decision to have Ahmadinejad on campus.

Unfortunately, this pitiful introduction of Ahmadinejad may eclipse, in the eyes of the world, any of the appalling and horrible things that Ahmadinejad is said to stand for.

It appears, Mr. Bollinger, that Mr. Ahmadinejad may have looked more the statesman and will be shown that way throughout the Arab world.

This says it all.


Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad walks among us

Hatemonger Mahmoud Ahmadinejad landed in a hornet's nest of outrage yesterday as Columbia University prepared to welcome him with open arms today and stuck by a dean's outrageous assertion that it would let Adolf Hitler speak, too.

The Holocaust-denying Iranian tyrant jetted into New York as students, faculty and political leaders protested Columbia's decision to roll out the red carpet.

"It's a stain on the university," said sophomore Elizabeth Friess, 20. "You can't have an open debate with someone who wants to wipe out Israel. There is no reasoning with someone like that."

The Fars News Agency is reporting this morning that while the Iranian President is here in New York this week to address the U.N., he is going to meet with the "survivors and bereaved families of the 9-11 incident."


Excuse me!

Ahmadinejad Leaves for New York
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad left Tehran on Sunday for his third trip to the United States, saying the visit was a good chance to present Iran's solutions for the problems of the world". (emphasis mine)

During his two-day sojourn in New York, the Iranian president, who will be accompanied by a group of high-ranking officials, is also scheduled to attend bilateral talks with several of his counterparts and meet Iranians residing in the US.

Ahmadinejad is also set to use a speech at a leading US university to challenge George W Bush at a time of high tensions with Washington over his country's pursuit of nuclear technology.

The invitation by New York's Columbia University to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is attracting growing criticism from the US hawks ahead of his arrival on Sunday.

Meetings with the survivors and bereaved families of the 9-11 incident, journalists and critics of the Bush administration are also included in Ahmadinejad's itinerary.

When and where is this suppose to happen? Or is this just a bunch of hype for those sheep he left behind in Iran?

Still waiting on confirmation of this Fars report.