Olbermann: See Change + Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Bill’O! + Bushed! + Cleanliness VS. Godliness

Yeah, Rachel mentioned the exclusion of Kucinich in last night’s “debate”. Too bad Keith never seems to mention Kucinich’s name at all (or rarely). ~ Lo

Dandelion Salad
Ryokibin

Jan. 16, 2008

See Change

Keith talks with Rachel Maddow.

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Bill’O!

Keith talks with Paul Roeckhoff.

I am glad Keith finally went after BillO over the crap he said about homeless vets.

It is a real problem, John Edwards should not have been attacked by BillO over this. It is a problem almost any one can see on the streets on almost every city in the country.

Is Bill this blind, or is he just so out of touch that all poor people to him don’t exist. To think there are no Vets out there with no serious problems, even living under bridges. Well to me it is just out right denial.

Maybe Bill should just go and label him self anti-American, he does not even support our troops. This is just a sad story, and BillO makes a huge joke out of it just to personally attack Edwards.

Bill you better keep to your word on this one, and help with the problem like you said you would. I don’t think just a apology is going to cut it this time. Time to put all that money you make on the crap you say to a good cause for once.

Bushed!

Legacy-Gate

Waterboarding-Gate

Plame-Gate

Cleanliness VS. Godliness

Keith talks with Jonathan Alter.

How The West Is Won

Keith talks with Howard Fineman.

World’s Worst

Worse: Fox & Friends

I knew this one was coming when I saw this in the morning, I even have it posted my self here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaWLMd…

Worser: Investor’s Business Daily

Worst: Frederick Kagan

see

Kucinich Wins Help for Vets

Kucinich Garners $10 Million For Gulf War Veterans Illness Research

Advertisements

Bloody reality bears no relation to the delusions of this President By Robert Fisk

Dandelion Salad

By Robert Fisk
ICH
16/01/08 “The Independent

As a bomb explodes in Beirut and Israel kills 19 in Gaza raids, Bush takes his Middle East peace mission to Saudi Arabia (and signs off $20bn weapons deal with repressive regime)

Twixt silken sheets – in a bedroom whose walls are also covered in silk – and in the very palace of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, President George Bush awakes this morning to confront a Middle East which bears no relation to the policies of his administration nor the warning which he has been relaying constantly to the kings and emirs and oligarchs of the Gulf: that Iran rather than Israel is their enemy.

The President sat chummily beside the all-too-friendly monarch yesterday, enthroned in what looked suspiciously like the kind of casual blue cardigan he might wear on his own Texan ranch; he had even received a jangling gold ” Order of Merit” – it looked a bit like the Lord Chancellor’s chain, though it was not disclosed which particular merit earned Mr Bush this kingly reward. Could it be the hypocritical merit of supplying yet more billions worth of weapons to the Kingdom, to be used against the Saudi regime’s imaginary enemies.

It was illusory, of course, like all the words that the Arabs have heard from the Americans these past seven days, ever since the fading President began his tourist jaunt around the Middle East.

You wouldn’t think it though, watching this preposterous man, prancing around arm-in-arm with the King, in what was presumably meant to be a dance, wielding a massive glinting curved Saudi sword, a latter-day Saladin, who would have appalled the Kurdish leader who once destroyed the Crusaders in what is now referred to by Mr Bush as “the disputed West Bank”.

Is this how lame-duck American presidents are supposed to behave? Certainly, the denizens of the Middle East, watching this outrageous performance will all be asking this question. Ever since the 1979 Iranian revolution, a Muslim Cold War has been raging within the Middle East – but is this how Mr Bush thinks one should fight for the soul of Islam?

Already by dusk last night, the US President’s world was exploding in Beirut when a massive car bomb blew up next to a 4×4 vehicle carrying American embassy employees, killing four Lebanese and apparently badly wounding a US embassy driver. And while Mr Bush was relaxing in the Saudi royal ranch at Al Janadriyah, Israeli forces killed 19 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, most of them members of Hamas, one of them the son of Mahmoud Zahar, a leader of the movement. He later claimed that Israel would not have staged the attack – on the day an Israeli was also killed by a Palestinian rocket – if it had not been encouraged to do so by George Bush.

The difference between reality and the dream-world of the US government could hardly have been more savagely illustrated. After promising the Palestinians a “sovereign and contiguous state” before the end of the year, and pledging “security” to Israel – though not, Arabs noted, security for “Palestine” – Mr Bush had arrived in the Gulf to terrify the kings and oligarchs of the oil-soaked kingdoms of the danger of Iranian aggression. As usual, he came armed with the usual American offers of vast weapons sales to protect these largely undemocratic and police state regimes from potentially the most powerful nation in the ” axis of evil”.

It was a potent – even weird – example of the US President’s perambulation of the Arab Middle East, a return to the “policy by fear” which Washington has regularly visited upon Gulf leaders. He agreed to furnish the Saudis with at least £41m of arms, a figure set to rise to more than £10bn in weaponry to the Gulf potentates under a deal announced last year – all of which is supposed to shield them from the supposed territorial ambitions of Iran’s crackpot President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As usual, Washington promised the Israelis that their “qualitative edge” in advanced weapons would be maintained, just in case the Saudis – who have never gone to war with anyone except Saddam Hussein after his 1990 invasion of Kuwait – decided to launch a suicidal attack on America’s only real ally in the Middle East.

This, of course, was not how the whole shooting match was presented to the Arabs. Mr Bush could be seen ostentatiously kissing the cheeks of King Abdullah and holding hands with the autocratic monarch whose Wahhabi Muslim state had only recently showed its “mercy” to a Saudi woman who was charged with adultery after being raped seven times in the desert outside Riyadh. The Saudis, needless to say, are well aware that Mr Bush’s reign is ending amid chaos in Pakistan, a disastrous guerrilla war against Western forces in Afghanistan, fierce fighting in Gaza, near civil war in Lebanon and the hell-disaster of Iraq.

The bomb in Beirut, just before five in the evening, must still have come as a rude shock to the luxuriating President who has such close ties with the Saudi regime – despite the fact that the majority of hijackers in the crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001 came from the kingdom – that he allowed its junior princes to fly home from the United States immediately after the attacks. Two trips to Mr Bush’s Texas ranch by King Abdullah was apparently enough to earn the US President a night in the Saudi king’s palace-farm, surrounded by groomed lawns and grassy hills.

Heard across many miles of the Lebanese capital, the bomb devastated buildings in a narrow street in the east of the city through which the vehicle was passing, just as the US ambassador – on a different route into the city – was travelling to a central Beirut hotel reception before leaving for Washington. A State Department spokesman, however, insisted that no US citizens had been hurt. The American SUV had taken an obscure laneway close to the Karantina bridge to travel north of Beirut along the bank of the city’s only river when it was struck, leading local Lebanese military officials to ask themselves if the bomber had inside knowledge of the route they were taking.

There was talk that this was a “dummy” convoy staged to distract potential bombers from the journey which Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman was taking to a reception at a downtown hotel. A carpet manufacturer’s factory was smashed by the blast which tore down roofs and smashed windows more than half a mile from the scene.

For Arab leaders, Mr Bush’s message to the Gulf leaders was wearily familiar. In the 1980s, when the Reagan administration was supporting Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran, Washington spent its time warning Gulf leaders of the danger of Iranian aggression. Once Saddam invaded Kuwait, America’s emphasis changed: It was now Iraq which posed the greatest danger to their kingdoms. But once the emirate was liberated, the oil-wealthy monarchs were told that – yet again – it was Iran that was their enemy.

Arabs are no more taken in by this topsy-turvy “good-versus-evil” narrative than they are by Washington’s promises to help create a Palestinian state by the end of the year, scarcely a day before Israel publicly admitted to plans for yet more houses for settlers on Arab land amid Jewish colonies illegally built on Palestinian territory.

Yet to understand the nature of this extraordinary relationship with the Gulf monarchs, it is necessary to recall that ever since the President’s father promised a weapons-free “oasis of peace” in the Gulf, Washington – along with Britain, France and Russia – has been pouring arms into the region.

Over the past decade, the Gulf Arabs have squandered billions of their oil dollars on American weapons. The statistics tell their own story. In 1998 and 1999 alone, Gulf Arab military spending came to £40bn. Between 1997 and 2005, the sheikhs of the United Arab Emirates – Mr Bush’s hosts before he continued to Riyadh – signed arms contracts worth £9bn with Western nations. Between 1991 and 1993 – when Iraq was the “enemy” – the US Military Training Mission was administering more than £14bn in Saudi arms procurements and £12bn in new US weapons acquisitions. By this time, the Saudis already possessed 72 American F-15 fighter-bombers and 114 British Tornados.

How little has changed in the past 17 years. On 17 May 1991, for example, George Bush Snr said there were now “real reasons to be optimistic” about a peace in the Middle East. “We are going to continue to work in the [peace] process,” he said then. “We are not going to abandon it.”

James Baker, who was the American Secretary of State, warned on 23 May 1991 that the continued building of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land ” hindered” a future Middle East peace, just as the present Secretary of State said last week. At the time, the Israelis were reassured by Dick Cheney that the US would safeguard their “security”.

The West may have a short memory. The Arabs, who happen to live in the piece of real estate which we call the Middle East and who are not stupid, have not. They understand all too well what George W Bush now stands for. After advocating “democracy” in the region – a policy which gained electoral victories for Shia in Iraq, for Hamas in Gaza and a substantial gain in political power for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt – it seems to have dawned on Washington that something might be slightly wrong with Bush’s priorities. Instead of advocating a “New Middle East”, Mr Bush, lying amid his silken sheets in the Saudi king’s palace, is now pursuing a return to the “Old Middle East”, a place of secret policemen, torture chambers – to which prisoners can be usefully ” renditioned ” – and dictatorial “moderate” presidents and monarchs. And which of the Gulf despots is going to object to that?

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Is Bush preparing the world for another USS Liberty by Trevor Murphy?

How The Pentagon Planted a False Hormuz Story by Gareth Porter

George Bush Addresses a Nation by Jennifer

01.15.08 Uncensored News Reports From Across The Middle East (video; over 18 only)

Kucinich demands Bush stop beating drums of war on Iran (video)

Abbas: Israeli raid ‘a massacre’

The Bombing at Qarantina – The Message to Bush: Remove Your Crusader Outpost!

How The Pentagon Planted a False Hormuz Story by Gareth Porter

Dandelion Salad

Analysis by Gareth Porter
ICH
16/01/08
(IPS)
WASHINGTON, Jan 15

Senior Pentagon officials, evidently reflecting a broader administration policy decision, used an off-the-record Pentagon briefing to turn the Jan. 6 U.S.-Iranian incident in the Strait of Hormuz into a sensational story demonstrating Iran’s military aggressiveness, a reconstruction of the events following the incident shows.

The initial press stories on the incident, all of which can be traced to a briefing by deputy assistant secretary of defence for public affairs in charge of media operations Bryan Whitman, contained similar information that has since been repudiated by the Navy itself.

Then the Navy disseminated a short video into which was spliced the audio of a phone call warning that U.S. warships would “explode” in “a few seconds”. Although it was ostensibly a Navy production, IPS has learned that the ultimate decision on its content was made by top officials of the Defence Department.

The encounter between five small and apparently unarmed speedboats, each carrying a crew of two to four men, and the three U.S. warships occurred very early on Saturday Jan. 6, Washington time. But no information was released to the public about the incident for more than 24 hours, indicating that it was not viewed initially as being very urgent.

The reason for that absence of public information on the incident for more than a full day is that it was not that different from many others in the Gulf over more than a decade. A Pentagon consultant who asked not to be identified told IPS that he had spoken with officers who had experienced similar encounters with small Iranian boats throughout the 1990s, and that such incidents are “just not a major threat to the U.S. Navy by any stretch of the imagination”.

Just two weeks earlier, on Dec. 19, the USS Whidbey Island, an amphibious warship, had fired warning shots after a small Iranian boat allegedly approached it at high speed. But that incident had gone without public notice.

With the reports from 5th Fleet commander Vice-Adm. Kevin Cosgriff in hand early that morning, top Pentagon officials had all day Sunday, Jan. 6, to discuss what to do about the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz. The result was a decision to play it up as a major incident.

The decision came just as President George W. Bush was about to leave on a Middle East trip aimed in part at rallying Arab states to join the United States in an anti-Iran coalition.

That decision in Washington was followed by a news release by the commander of the 5th Fleet on the incident at about 4:00 a.m. Washington time Jan. 7. It was the first time the 5th Fleet had ever issued a news release on an incident with small Iranian boats.

The release reported that the Iranian “small boats” had “maneuvered aggressively in close proximity of [sic] the Hopper [the lead ship of the three-ship convoy].” But it did not suggest that the Iranian boats had threatened the boats or that it had nearly resulted in firing on the Iranian boats.

On the contrary, the release made the U.S. warships handling of the incident sound almost routine. “Following standard procedures,” the release said, “Hopper issued warnings, attempted to establish communications with the small boats and conducted evasive maneuvering.”

The release did not refer to a U.S. ship being close to firing on the Iranian boats, or to a call threatening that U.S. ships would “explode in a few minutes”, as later stories would report, or to the dropping of objects into the path of a U.S. ship as a potential danger.

That press release was ignored by the news media, however, because later that Monday morning, the Pentagon provided correspondents with a very different account of the episode.

At 9 a.m., Barbara Starr of CNN reported that “military officials” had told her that the Iranian boats had not only carried out “threatening maneuvers”, but had transmitted a message by radio that “I am coming at you” and “you will explode”. She reported the dramatic news that the commander of one boat was “in the process of giving the order to shoot when they moved away”.

CBS News broadcast a similar story, adding the detail that the Iranian boats “dropped boxes that could have been filled with explosives into the water”. Other news outlets carried almost identical accounts of the incident.

The source of this spate of stories can now be identified as Bryan Whitman, the top Pentagon official in charge of media relations, who gave a press briefing for Pentagon correspondents that morning. Although Whitman did offer a few remarks on the record, most of the Whitman briefing was off the record, meaning that he could not be cited as the source.

In an apparent slip-up, however, an Associated Press story that morning cited Whitman as the source for the statement that U.S. ships were about to fire when the Iranian boats turned and moved away — a part of the story that other correspondents had attributed to an unnamed Pentagon official.

On Jan. 9, the U.S. Navy released excerpts of a video of the incident in which a strange voice — one that was clearly very different from the voice of the Iranian officer who calls the U.S. ship in the Iranian video — appears to threaten the U.S. warships.

A separate audio recording of that voice, which came across the VHS channel open to anyone with access to it, was spliced into a video on which the voice apparently could not be heard. That was a political decision, and Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros of the Pentagon’s Public Affairs Office told IPS the decision on what to include in the video was “a collaborative effort of leadership here, the Central Command and Navy leadership in the field.”

“Leadership here”, of course, refers to the secretary of defence and other top policymakers at the department. An official in the U.S. Navy Office of Information in Washington, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that decision was made in the office of the secretary of defence.

That decision involved a high risk of getting caught in an obvious attempt to mislead. As an official at 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain told IPS, it is common knowledge among officers there that hecklers — often referred to as “Filipino Monkey” — frequently intervene on the VHF ship-to-ship channel to make threats or rude comments.

One of the popular threats made by such hecklers, according to British journalist Lewis Page, who had transited the Strait with the Royal Navy is, “Look out, I am going to hit [collide with] you.”

By Jan. 11, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell was already disavowing the story that Whitman had been instrumental in creating only four days earlier. “No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats,” said Morrell.

The other elements of the story given to Pentagon correspondents were also discredited. The commanding officer of the guided missile cruiser Port Royal, Capt. David Adler, dismissed the Pentagon’s story that he had felt threatened by the dropping of white boxes in the water. Meeting with reporters on Monday, Adler said, “I saw them float by. They didn’t look threatening to me.”
The naval commanders seemed most determined, however, to scotch the idea that they had been close to firing on the Iranians. Vice-Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of the 5th Fleet, denied the story in a press briefing on Jan. 7. A week later, Comdr. Jeffery James, commander of the destroyer Hopper, told reporters that the Iranians had moved away “before we got to the point where we needed to open fire”.

The decision to treat the Jan. 6 incident as evidence of an Iranian threat reveals a chasm between the interests of political officials in Washington and Navy officials in the Gulf. Asked whether the Navy’s reporting of the episode was distorted by Pentagon officials, Cmdr Robertson of 5th Fleet Public Affairs would not comment directly. But she said, “There is a different perspective over there.”

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Is Bush preparing the world for another USS Liberty by Trevor Murphy?

Kucinich First in SoCal Straw Poll by Meryl Ann Butler

Dandelion Salad

by Meryl Ann Butler
http://www.opednews.com
January 16, 2008 at 16:53:27

With the California State Primary less than three weeks away, Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich claimed first place in the straw poll at a presidential forum composed of four democratic clubs in Los Angeles.

Over 200 members of the West LA, Westchester, LAX, and Loyola Marymount Democratic Clubs participated on Monday night, Jan. 14, at Loyola Marymount University.

continued… with photos

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Vote in the 2008 Democratic Party Republican Straw Poll

Kucinich demands Bush stop beating drums of war on Iran (video)

Dennis Kucinich Can Win by Lo (more polls, surveys, etc.)

On The Issues: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul by Lo

Kucinich-Dennis

Dennis 4 President

The Underwater: Render (music video)

Dandelion Salad

Note: replaced video May 31, 2012

On Myspace:

the Underwater

on Oct 30, 2006

The Underwater – September 2, 2006 – Rams Head Live – Baltimore, MD – Song 8 – Render – Alternative Rock Band Live Music Video

http://www.myspace.com/theunderwater
http://www.webmusicvideo.com/bands/theunderwater
http://www.parocks.com

The Underwater Sept 2, 2006 Rams Head Live Balt, MD -8

Lyrics:

i’m choosing my poison
i’m walking the path beneath my feet
in every decision
i’m taking the shape of what’s to be

take the time to render
the one that you should be
don’t sell your soul for squalor
don’t sell yourself for cheap
find your greatness
in the place where
all hearts convene

from all of my failures
to all of the times i get it right
i’m meeting my maker
within the reflections of my mind

let love compel
a greater self
mind body soul
and all they hold

The Myths behind Iraq’s Civil War by Jennifer

Jennifer Wants Justice and Peace

by Jennifer
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Jennifer’s blog
Justice and Peace
Jan. 16, 2008

The groundbreaking film, Meeting Resistance, seeks to explain the current disconnect in American media and the realities on the ground of what forces are behind the violence in Iraq. Similar arguments used during Vietnam are largely accepted by American audiences as a legitimate reason for the continued occupation of Iraq. The “War on Terror” and the fight against communism in Vietnam both give Americans an enemy to fear and our troops an honorable military operation.

Never before in American history has a documentary film examined “the enemy” while the conflict continues. The information contained in the film has become so valuable in gaining understanding of the violence in Iraq; it has been shown not only to civilian audiences, but to military audiences as well. Of note is the recent showing to “The Red Team” operating in Iraq whose main job is to conduct exercises and war games, providing an adversarial perspective, especially when this perspective includes plausible tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) as well as realistic policy and doctrine… of the enemy. Although the filmmakers themselves are journalists, with no specific political or military agenda, the military has recognized the great value this film offers.

Explanations to several myths making their way through the American media give audiences a new and necessary perspective. The first myth largely accepted is that the majority of the violence in Iraq is due to sectarian violence targeting mostly civilians. Clearly, this is not the case as the Department of Defense quarterly reports show a very different reality. An average of 74% of all violence is attributed to attacks on American forces, 16% target Iraqi police and army personal, and a mere 10% target civilians. These numbers break apart the myth that a US troop presence is needed in order to mediate or stifle a civil war based on old sectarian tensions.

The second myth circulated for American audiences is the idea that sectarian tensions in Iraq existed before the US led invasion (mostly between Sunni and Shi’a). However, when one look at current polls, showing that 100% of Iraqi’s disagree with targeting other Iraqi’s, regardless of faith, the presumption that deep seeded hate among these groups exists is false at best. In fact in 2002 close to half of all marriages in Iraq were comprised of people with mixed faith and ethnicities.

The third myth is that violence is largely attributed to “outside influences,” namely that of foreign fighters from Iran and Syria. Although there is minimal truth to these claims the percentage of attacks on American forces and perceived collaborators are largely perpetrated by Iraqi’s themselves and motivated by Iraqi nationalism and a desire to “protect the homeland.” Of the one Syrian fighter interviewed for the film, it was a desire to fight the enemy in Iraq in order to quell an American attack on Syrian soil that motivated his particular movement. Ironically, it has been this same argument offered up by Vice President Dick Cheney and the political right in this country to justify the continued occupation of Iraq. We will fight them over there so we won’t have to fight them over here dominates the mentality of all foreign fighters in Iraq, including US troops.

Last, the myth that Iraqi on Iraqi violence is motivated by religious ideology is also shown to be largely false. A more accurate description of the civil strife in Iraq is that it is political in nature and is comprised of Iraqi Nationalists who wish to see Iraq remain united, unoccupied, and self-governing and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council who have advocated a partitioning of Iraq.

As documented in the film and evidenced by the Department of Defense ‘s own reports if US policy makers truly wish to see a decrease in violence, a clear course of action is offered up by this film. The removal of US forces alone would decrease violence by 74%, a substantial decrease in violence by anyone’s standards. Anyone, that is, except those politicians making the decision to keep any US forces in Iraq.

see
Meeting Resistance (video; Iraq)

America’s “Divide and Rule” Strategies in the Middle East by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Interview with Dahr Jamail (audio) + Police & Army Getting Sidelined By Ahmed Ali & Dahr Jamail

George Bush Addresses a Nation by Jennifer

Jennifer Wants Justice and Peace

by Jennifer
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Jennifer’s blog
Justice and Peace
Jan. 16, 2008

On Sunday January 13, 2008, President George Bush addressed a nation. True to Bush form, his speech opened with an arrogance few would suppose, “I am honored by the opportunity to stand on Arab soil and speak to the people of this nation and this region.” This opening sentence should give those in attendance the first hint that the intended audience was not for the people of the Arab world, but rather for the American people. Much the same as pre-Iraq rhetoric, the words that slithered from Bush’s mouth were as hollow as they were untrue.

Apparently oblivious, Bush spoke only as the leader of the free world should. He spoke of greatness, freedom, and democracy, “In my country, we speak of these developments as the advance of freedom. Others may call it the advance of justice. Yet whatever term we use, the ideal is the same. In a free and just society, every person is treated with dignity. In a free and just society, leaders are accountable to those they govern. And in a free and just society, individuals can rise as far as their talents and hard work will take them.

As Bush has stated on many occasions, he does not bother to read polls, nor does he make decisions based on polling results. Perhaps it is this lack of attention to the will of the people he claims to bring democracy to that has led to the worst blunder in American history. A blunder that has increased terrorism and anti-American sentiment around the globe. Recent polling data shows that over 80% in the Arab world believe that US policies are the largest threat they face personally and the largest threat to stability in the region. Indeed, Bush denounces such stability in exchange for freedom, “For decades, the people of this region saw their desire for liberty and justice denied at home and dismissed abroad in the name of stability.” It has been the very will of the people in Iraq Bush himself has denied these freedoms. In June of 2007 the Iraqi Parliament voted to have Americans set a timeline for withdraw, which was largely ignored in American media and completely ignored by Bush himself. Clearly, discussion of people governing themselves is reserved only for those of us fortunate enough to have been born here, not over there.  

One can only wonder what any Arab listening to the president’s speech today thought? The main argument used for US policy in the Middle East is democracy promotion. However, as Oxford Analytica, notes, the invasion of Iraq has undermined the credibility of U.S. democracy promotion programs. After the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the United States and United Kingdom described the invasion as bringing democracy to Iraq, in turn having a domino effect of democratization in the wider Middle East. Bush also ignorantly goes on to tout the United Arab Emirates as an example for the rest of the Middle East to follow, however, he ignores the fact that it was only after the UAE was free from British occupation that it was able to realize its move towards a more democratic state.

Perhaps if US policy in the Middle East were to take the shape of Bush’s words instead of his actions, one might find themselves feeling hopeful, but sadly for the next year, the people of the Middle East can only hold their breath and wait for the next bomb to drop.

01.15.08 Uncensored News Reports From Across The Middle East (video; over 18 only)

Dandelion Salad

Warning
.
This video may contain images depicting the reality and horror of war and should only be viewed by a mature audience.

Selected Episode

Jan. 17, 2008

linktv

For more: http://linktv.org/originalseries
“US Embassy Vehicle Bombed in Beirut,” LBC TV, Lebanon
“Kibutz Worker Killed By Sniper’s Fire from Gaza,” IBA TV, Israel
“Son of a Top Hamas Leader Killed by Israel,” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
“Talks on Final Status Issues Derailed,” Dubai TV, UAE
“4 Arrested in Connection of Suicide Attack in Afghanistan,” Al Jazeera English, Qatar
“Iraq Launches Campaign to Retreive Stolen Antiquities,” Al-Iraqiya TV, Iraq
“International Campaign Against Guantanamo Prison,” Syria TV, Syria
“France & UAE Sign Nuclear Cooperation Agreement,” Al Jazeera TV, Qatar
“Underground Lake May Ease Darfur’s Crisis,” Sudan TV, Sudan
“Produced for Link TV by Jamal Dajani.

Vote in the 2008 Democratic Party Republican Straw Poll

Dandelion Salad

from an email
http://www.democrats.org
Jan. 16, 2008

You’ve seen the headlines this primary season: Republicans face an enthusiasm gap and historic low turnouts while Democrats are showing up in record numbers, eager to close the book on the George W. Bush presidency.

Republicans aren’t split because of an abundance of good choices. They’re divided because none of their candidates are what they’re looking for. So let’s fill in the gap and pick a nominee for them. Vote in the 2008 Democratic Party Republican Straw Poll, and let us know which presidential candidate best represents the values of the Republican Party.

Vote here.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Big Business is Even More Unpopular Than You Thought By Robert Weissman

Dandelion Salad

By Robert Weissman
ICH
15/01/08 “Counterpunch

Is There Any Politician Reading These Polls?

The U.S. public holds Big Business in shockingly low regard.

A November 2007 Harris poll found that less than 15 percent of the population believes each of the following industries to be “generally honest and trustworthy:” tobacco companies (3 percent); oil companies (3 percent); managed care companies such as HMOs (5 percent); health insurance companies (7 percent); telephone companies (10 percent); life insurance companies (10 percent); online retailers (10 percent); pharmaceutical and drug companies (11 percent); car manufacturers (11 percent); airlines (11 percent); packaged food companies (12 percent); electric and gas utilities (15 percent). Only 32 percent of adults said they trusted the best-rated industry about which Harris surveyed, supermarkets. [1]

These are remarkable numbers. It is very hard to get this degree of agreement about anything. By way of comparison, 79 percent of adults believe the earth revolves around the sun; 18 percent say it is the other way around.[2]

The Harris results are not an aberration. The results have not varied considerably over the past five years — although overall trust levels have actually declined from the already very low threshold in 2003.

The Harris results are also in line with an array of polling data showing deep concern about concentrated corporate power.

An amazing 84 percent told Harris in a poll earlier in 2007 that big companies have too much power in Washington. By contrast, only 47 percent said that labor unions have too much power in Washington (as against 42 percent who said labor has too little power), and 18 percent who said nonprofit organizations have too much power in Washington.[3]

These results have proven durable. At least 80 percent of the public has ranked big companies as having too much power in Washington since 1994. In 2000, Business Week and Harris asked a broader question: Has business gained too much power over too many aspects of American life? Seventy-four percent agreed.[4]

The November 2007 poll also asked about support for measures to control corporations. These results are eye-opening as well, though perhaps not in the expected way.

Harris asked which industries “should be more regulated by government — for example for health, safety or environmental reasons — than they are now?” Only oil companies (53 percent), pharmaceutical companies (53 percent) and health insurance companies (52 percent) crossed the 50 percent threshold. Even the tobacco industry managed to escape in the survey with only 41 percent favoring greater regulation. These data trend significantly negative — against greater regulation — over the last five years.

Does this show that while people distrust Big Business, they equally distrust the government to constrain corporate power?

No.

The U.S. skepticism to regulation is only skin deep. When polls present specific regulatory proposals for consideration, U.S. public support is typically strong and often overwhelming — even when arguments against government action are presented.

For example:

* After hearing arguments for and against, 76 percent favor granting the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco, with 22 percent opposed.[5]

* After hearing arguments for and against, 75 percent favor legislation that would significantly increase energy efficiency, including auto fuel efficiency standards, and the use of renewable energy.[6]

* Eighty-five percent favor country-of-origin labeling for meat, seafood, produce and grocery products, and three quarters favor a legislative mandate.[7]

* Seventy-one percent say it is important that drugs remain under close review by the FDA and drug companies after they have been placed on the market.[8]

* And, from a Harris finding a week after the poll showing skepticism about industry regulation in general, the polling agency found that those who think there is too little government regulation in the area of environmental protection outpaced those who think there is too much by a more than 2-to-1 margin (53 to 21 percent).[9]

What the Harris findings on attitudes to regulation do show is that the business campaign against regulation as an abstract concept has been very successful.

It highlights the need for consumer, environmental, labor and other corporate accountability advocates to defend the concept of regulation, and to connect the rampant corporate abuses in society with the deregulation and non-regulatory failures of the last three decades. There’s little doubt that the general public attitude toward regulation significantly affects the willingness of politicians — none to eager to offend business patrons in the first place — to take on corporate power.

Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor and director of Essential.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Kucinich-Dennis

Human trafficking (video)

Dandelion Salad

Replaced video Oct. 6, 2013

Al Jazeera on Jul 4, 2012

Dozens of suspected gang members have been arrested in Italy accused of smuggling women from Nigeria to work as drug couriers and prostitutes. Thousands of women from Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe are lured by the prospect of well-paid work in shops and factories.

But their dreams of a better life often end in a brothel. Isoke Aikpitanyi from Nigeria is one of those women, she tell us her story.

January 16, 2008

Continue reading

Kucinich demands Bush stop beating drums of war on Iran (video + transcript)

Dandelion Salad

CSPANJUNKIEdotORG

January 16, 2008 C-SPAN Morning Speeches

***

Updated: Jan. 17, 2008

Kucinich: Bush Administration Must Stop Beating Drums For War With Iran

by Dennis Kucinich

Washington, Jan 16 – Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) gave the following speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives this morning:

“Over the past few years, this Administration has been beating the drums of war against Iran. There are parallels between their efforts to try to create a war against Iran and the falsehoods that set us on a path to war against Iraq.

“We know that the United States intelligence community was able to demonstrate that the Administration’s claims that Iran had a nuclear weapons program were, in fact, not true.

“The January 6 incident at the Strait of Hormuz is still another cause for this Congress to look deeply at the Administration’s Iranian war buildup.

“It appears from news reports that the Department of Defense grossly inflated an encounter that took place in the Strait — an encounter that was not unlike any that had taken place before. Not only did the Department of Defense inflate it, but they fabricated information that would cause the American people to believe that Iran was demonstrating military aggressiveness.

“We really have to get off the path of war toward Iran and start working on building diplomatic relations.”

see

Kucinich: Evidence Undercuts Bush’s Rhetoric On Iran

Breaking the Sound Barrier: Kucinich Answers Debate Questions (video)

Kucinich-Dennis

Earthship Biotecture on the Weather Channel (video)

Dandelion Salad

earthship

Episode 128: “Alternative Homes”
Original Air Date: 2007-08-25
Take a tour through a unique community in Taos, New Mexico. It features eco-friendly homes that are built with discarded materials, and they’re also “off the grid.” That means they’re totally energy independent. How cool is that?
http://climate.weather.com/ontv/showA…
http://www.earthship.com

Added: September 15, 2007

Continue reading

7-year plan aligns U.S. with Europe’s economy By Jerome R. Corsi

Dandelion Salad

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
January 16, 2008

Rules, regs to be integrated without congressional review

Six U.S. senators and 49 House members are advisers for a group working toward a Transatlantic Common Market between the U.S. and the European Union by 2015.

The Transatlantic Policy Network – a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels – is advised by the bi-partisan congressional TPN policy group, chaired by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah.

The plan – currently being implemented by the Bush administration with the formation of the Transatlantic Economic Council in April 2007 – appears to be following a plan written in 1939 by a world-government advocate who sought to create a Transatlantic Union as an international governing body.

An economist from the World Bank has argued in print that the formation of the Transatlantic Common Market is designed to follow the blueprint of Jean Monnet, a key intellectual architect of the European Union, recognizing that economic integration must inevitably lead to political integration.

As WND previously reported, a key step in advancing this goal was the creation of the Transatlantic Economic Council by the U.S. and the EU through an agreement signed by President Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel – the current president of the European Council – and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso at a White House summit meeting last April. Writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal “Freedom and Union,” Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., a member of the TPN advisory group, affirmed the target date of 2015 for the creation of a Transatlantic Common Market.

continued…

h/t: Mariah

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Able Danger The Movie, 9/11 Coverup (video trailer)

Dandelion Salad

Global Research, January 16, 2008

“The 911 Commission is a Fraud.”

When the Able Danger Story comes out,  there will be embarrassement all over the place

A coverup…

Premiere in Rotterdam, 27 January 2008

To view click below

abledangerthemovie.com

© Copyright , Global Research, 2008
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7815