Neocon Talkshow Host Michael Reagan Wants to Kill Mark Dice!

Dandelion Salad


replaced video June 25, 2008

TheAlexJonesChannel (video no longer available)

Transcript of Reagan’s statements:

“Excuse me folks, I’m going to say this. We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that’s what they are, and you shoot them dead. I’ll pay for the bullets.”

Reagan adds, “How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don’t blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice.”

Dice is demanding that Reagan be fired immediately. “Calling for the murder of someone because you disagree with their political stance is absolutely unacceptable, un American, and possibly illegal,” says Dice.

Dice has filed a report with the FBI and is considering legal action against Reagan.

Dice’s organization, The Resistance, has launched a campaign to send documentary films and declassified documents to U.S. troops who are stationed in Iraq to inform them that the 9/11 attacks were aided by elements within the U.S. government.

# # #



Contact Michael Reagan’s Boss


His death threats were aired Tuesday, June 10th during the second hour.

Email the FCC and let them know.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Neocon Talkshow Host Michael Reagan W…“, posted with vodpod

Graham: Amend Constitution to overturn court’s ruling + McCain: Ruling One of the ‘Worst Decisions’ in History

Dandelion Salad

By James Rosen
McClatchy Newspapers
June 12, 2008

WASHINGTON — A dejected Sen. Lindsey Graham blasted the Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday on Guantanamo Bay detainees, calling it “dangerous and irresponsible.”

The South Carolina Republican, who’s also a military lawyer and a colonel in the Air Force Reserve, helped craft the Military Commissions Act and had confidently predicted that it would pass high court muster.

The Supreme Court repudiated Graham in a 5-4 decision, ruling that the 270 alleged terrorists being held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal courts.


h/t: ICH


McCain: Guantanamo Ruling One of the ‘Worst Decisions’ in History

Friday, June 13, 2008

John McCain said Friday that the Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees is “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

The presumptive GOP nominee said the decision, a 5-4 ruling Thursday that determined Guantanamo detainees have the right to seek release in civilian courts, would lead to a wave of frivolous challenges.

“We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called … habeas corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases,” he said at a town hall meeting in New Jersey.

McCain said he has worked hard to ensure the U.S. military does not torture prisoners but that the detainees at Guantanamo are still “enemy combatants.”

“These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country have,” he said. “Now, my friends, there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people.”


h/t: ICH


Supreme Court ruling could free scores from Guantanamo

By Michael Doyle and Carol Rosenberg
McClatchy Newspapers
June 12, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s landmark Guantanamo Bay decision Thursday could free foreign prisoners while it inflames Capitol Hill.

Some consequences are immediate, for a case that’s big legally, politically and militarily. Within hours of the court’s decision in the combined cases known as Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States, attorneys were preparing to demand hearings for detainees long held without charges.

These habeas corpus hearings before federal judges will force the Bush administration to reveal its evidence and expose publicly how the detainees have been treated. Some attorneys think that the administration simply will start releasing detainees to avoid the potentially embarrassing hearings altogether.

“Frankly, I don’t think the government is going to want to continue to hold these detainees,” predicted Matthew MacLean, co-counsel for a detainee named Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad al Odah.


h/t: ICH

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.


Bush Strongly Disagrees With Recent Supreme Court Decision! (Gitmo)

Why Not, Nancy? by Cindy Sheehan

The Real Cindy Sheehan

by Cindy Sheehan
Dandelion Salad
featured writer
Cindy Sheehan for Congress

June 13, 2008

This past week, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh) historically and courageously introduced 35 articles of impeachment against (p)Resident George W. Bush. Repeated calls to Speaker Pelosi’s offices gave many of us the assurance that impeachment was still off her “table.” The latest absolutely frivolous reason is that impeachment would be “divisive.”

Hello!? The constitution (of our what now has become a rogue nation) DIVIDES our federal government into three distinct branches that were set up to be “checks and balances” on each other. This week, we also witnessed the Supreme Court place a legal check on BushCo by overturning provisions in the Military Commissions Act. Does Ms. Pelosi believe that the nearly eight years of the most criminal administration (and that’s saying something) in US history has been divisive to our country? The founders placed tensions in our founding document to uphold the rule of law and oftentimes divisions are productive when the rule of law is followed.

She has also claimed that she trampled all over our constitution because the House is trying to “change course in Iraq.” This is the most laughable excuse, unless one considers appropriating over half a trillion dollars and the deaths of 1100 American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis (since she has been in “charge”) is a new direction.

Last Wednesday (June 11th) when the House voted to send the articles to be buried and for all intents and purposes killed in the House Judiciary Committee EVERY DEMOCRAT voted to do this. A simple majority is needed to send the indictment of the president or vice president to the Senate, where there does seem to be an insurmountable 2/3rds vote need to convict and remove from office, but Pelosi’s “not enough votes in the House, and Senate,” is probably one of the lamest excuses. The vote on Wednesday was proof that the Dems can vote in a block and it is NOT Ms. Pelosi’s job to worry about what happens in the Senate. The closer this nation gets to impeachment, the more healing can begin to happen and the reps that courageously stand up for our country and the rule of law will be honored in posterity, but the ones that do not will be vilified by a future that is bereft of peace and justice.

Instead of offering us silly justifications for abdicating her constitutional obligations, I challenge Ms. Pelosi to answer each and every one of the 35 charges that Dennis leveled against George Bush and explain, in writing with the same attention to detail that Dennis gave to the articles, why her good buddy, George, is not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors (if not treason). I would like to see her put foth constitutional and legal arguments befitting the stature of her office.

One of the statements defending Nancy’s lack of oversight that I find to be the most dismissive and abhorrent to 4100 American families is that George Bush is not “worth it.” What is he worth? A retirement from politics where he slinks off scott-free to Texas with his pointy tail tucked between his legs, (or by some reports, Paraguay), where he will be able to bike and/or clear brush to his heart’s content while millions of people suffer from his regimes’ scorched earth policies?

If George is not “worth” Ms Pelosi’s troubles, then I want to suggest to her billions of beings that are “worth it:” My new grandson, Jonah, and his peers who deserve a world where peace and prosperity are the norm: not war, poverty, famine and violence.

A few of the articles (torture, war, and warrantless spying, for some) definitely implicate the Democrats as much as BushCo and the Republicans, but for future justice, impeachment must be instituted immediately or Ms. Pelosi must cogently and speedily answer the American public as to why she refuses do her duty. We are sick of tired platitudes, sound bites and talking points.

We demand answers.


Kucinich Vows to Continue Impeachment Effort Against Bush

John Conyers is Still Failing America + Veterans for Peace Meeting

Cafferty: Why won’t Congress consider impeachment?

Put Kucinich on Meet the Press

Bill O’Reilly & Dennis Kucinich Together At Last!

Impeach! Email, Snail Mail & Call The Judiciary Committee Members!

Music to My Ears by Cindy Sheehan

House votes to send impeachment resolution to Judiciary Committee

Impeachment: We Have What Conyers Needs!

Support Rep. Kucinich’s Articles of Impeachment + video (take action)

Dennis Kucinich Documents Grounds for Impeachment of Bush & Cheney (4 hours)

Kucinich introduces Bush impeachment resolution + videos + transcript


The Rising of Latin America By John Pilger

Dandelion Salad

By John Pilger
06/13/08 “ICH”

The Genesis of ‘The War On Democracy’

In the 1960s, when I first went to Latin America, I travelled up the cone of the continent from Chile across the Altiplano to Peru, mostly in rickety buses and single-carriage trains. It was an experience my memory stored for life, especially the spectacle of the movement of people.

Continue reading

BBC’s Pro-Israeli Bias by Stephen Lendman

Dandelion Salad

by Stephen Lendman
Global Research
June 13, 2008

In its near 86 year history, BBC has a long, unbroken and dubious distinction. Today it’s little different from its corporate-run counterparts in America, Britain and throughout the world. In fact, on its tailored for a US BBC America audience, what passes for news matches stride for stride what people here see every day – mind-numbing commercialism, shoddy reporting, pseudo-journalism, celebrity and sports features, and other diverting and distracting non-news that should embarrass correspondents and presenters delivering it. It offends viewers and treats them like mushrooms – well-watered, in the dark, and uninformed about the most important world and national issues affecting their lives and welfare.

That’s the idea, of course, and has been since BBC’s inception. John Reith was its founder and first general manager. Reassuring the powerful, he set the standard adhered to thereafter: “(You) know (you) can trust us not to be really impartial.” BBC never was and never is.

Impartiality has no place on BBC nor does its claim about “honesty, integrity, (and being) free from political influence and commercial pressure.” How can it? Its Director-General, Executive Board Chairman, BBC Trust Chairman and senior managers are government-appointed and charged with a singular task – to function as a “propaganda system for elite interests.” On all vital issues – war and peace, state and corporate corruption, human rights, social justice, or coverage of the Middle East’s longest and most intractable conflict, Westminster and the establishment rest easy. They know BBC is “reliable” – pro-government, pro-business and dismissive of the public trust it disdains. Now more than ever.

This article covers one example among many – BBC’s distorted, one-sided support for Israel and its antipathy toward Palestinians. In this respect, it’s fully in step with its American and European counterparts – Israeli interests matter; Palestinian ones don’t; as long as that holds, conflict resolution is impossible. Therein lies the problem. With its reputation, world reach, and influence, BBC’s coverage exacerbates it.

Key BBC Terms In Its Israeli – Palestinian Coverage

In October 2006, Electronic listed BBC’s “key terms” in its conflict coverage – to “find a balance” that, in fact, tilts strongly toward Israel. For example:

— pre-meditated assassinations are called “killings” or occasionally “targeted killings” if Israeli sources say it;

— the separation or apartheid wall is called a “barrier, separation barrier, West Bank barrier, (or simply) this wall;” sometimes “fence” is used as well; no hint of its real purpose or that the World Court ruled it illegal; no mention either that it’s unrelated to security and simply a land-grab scheme and effort to heighten Palestinian isolation;

— East Jerusalem – BBC recognizes West Jerusalem as part of Israel; East Jerusalem is considered occupied with its status “still to be determined in permanent status negotiations between the parties….We recognize no sovereignty over the city;” The phrase “Arab East Jerusalem” is avoided; so is any mention that Israeli settlements encroach on it and aim to annex it entirely; Palestinians want the city for their capital; it belongs to them; Israel won’t allow it; BBC won’t explain it;

— Gaza – Israel nominally disengaged in summer 2005; in fact, it never did; it merely redeployed its forces, and maintains rigid control over the Territory’s land, coast and airspace; it invades and attacks at will and maintains a brutish mediaeval siege; all movement in and out of Gaza is restricted; so are Gazans’ access to food, water, health care, fuel, electricity and other life essentials; the result is a deep humanitarian crisis; BBC ignores it; instead it merely refers to an “end to Israel’s permanent military presence,” not an end to its occupation, repression, continued incursions, mass killings, targeted assassinations, and systemic use of torture;

The Green Line – it separates Israel from the West Bank, but BBC reporting blurs it; it doesn’t call it a border because that implies internationally recognized status; instead it fudges by calling it “the generally recognised boundary between Israel and the West Bank;”

— Intifada – more fudging when referring to causes; value judgments are avoided; so is truth; don’t say Ariel Sharon’s September 29, 2000 Haram al-Sharif provocation incited a popular uprising; package his visit with Palestinian frustration over a failed peace process and say it “sparked the (second) intifada (rather than it) led (to it or) started (it);”

— Jewish – distinguish between “Israeli” or “Jewish” to avoid religious or racial connotations; stress political ones instead; ignore how Israelis stress Jewishness by relating to “the promised land,” one “without people for a people without a land,” a Jewish homeland, Israel’s biblical connection, and raising the issue of anti-semitism against harsh Israeli critics; when they’re Jewish call them self-hating;

— Occupied Territories or Occupation – BBC refers to East Jerusalem and the West Bank, not the Golan Heights; after Israel “disengaged,” Gaza is in political limbo; BBC distinguishes between the “occupied territories” and Palestinian Land or Palestinian Territories; calling Gaza and the West Bank “disputed territories” is preferred; in fact, there’s no dispute; they’re both Israeli occupied Palestinian land;

— settlements and outposts – BBC distinguishes between them when, in fact, they vary only in size; BBC avoids calling them illegal; they’re all illegal but adjectives aren’t used unless they’re vital to a story; in all reports, BBC is one-sided; it stresses that Israel disputes international law; anti-Israeli value judgments aren’t made; the rule of law is dismissed; Palestinian rights are ignored; the growing number of Israeli settlers is fudged, downplayed and generally not mentioned;

— Palestine – BBC acknowledges that no independent state exists but the “peace process” aims to create one; unmentioned is that negotiations are fake and their reports try to hide it; so do deceptive words to appease pro-Israel critics; BBC obliges them;

— “relative calm” or “quiet” periods – it refers to quiescent Palestinian resistance, no Israeli deaths, but not ongoing Israeli attacks and killings;

— right of return – BBC ignores international law and UN Resolution 194; it promotes the Israeli position instead; and

— “terrorists” – a loaded term applying only to Palestinians; never Israelis; most often other words are used like “bomber, attacker, gunman, kidnapper, insurgent (or) militant;” Palestinian self-defense is never called resistance, and Israeli incursions aren’t ever called aggression.

Media “Rules of Engagement” in Covering the Middle East

In June 2002, Robin Miller listed “The Media’s Middle East Rules of Engagement.” BBC’s Israeli-Palestinian coverage adheres to them rigidly:

Rule 1 – “View the Middle East (ME) through Israeli eyes;” Palestinians are terrorists and aggressors; Israelis are victims who retaliate; self-defense is their motive; so is avoiding the truth;

Rule 2 – “Treat American and Israeli governmental statements as (truthful) hard news;” avoid any information that contradicts them;

Rule 3 – “Ignore the historical context;” avoid mentioning six decades of dispossession, occupation, and hundreds of preceding years during which Palestine was the Palestinian homeland; also suppress the idea that a Jewish homeland first originated with Zionism’s late 19th century’s founding and didn’t exist prior to that;

Rule 4 – “Avoid the fundamental legal and moral issues posed by the Israeli occupation;” say nothing about Geneva, UN Resolution 194, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and all other recognized international human rights laws;

Rule 5 – “Suppress or minimize news unfavorable to the Israelis;” this rule is ironclad and unforgiving; open debate isn’t tolerated; facts are suppressed; aggressors are called victims; self-defense is called terrorism; news is carefully “filtered,” minds manipulated, and truth conspicuously absent; BBC excels at it and lets Israel get away with murder;

Rule 6 – “Muddy the waters when necessary;” major US media do it; so do human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; they tread lightly on Israeli-Palestinian issues and slant their views accordingly; so does BBC;

Rule 7 – “Credit all Israeli claims (as fact), even if wholly unfounded;” if Israelis say it, it’s true; BBC approves;

Rule 8 – “Doubt all Palestinian assertions, no matter how self-evident;” if Palestinians say it, it’s false or at best an unsubstantiated claim; most often ignore, downplay or fudge it;

Rule 9 – “Condemn only Palestinian violence;” treat it as a crime against innocent Israeli victims; ignore any reference to self-defense against Israeli aggression and rule of law violations; and

Rule 10 – “Disparage the international consensus supporting Palestinian rights;” better still – ignore it or condemn it as biased or anti-semitic.

Add one more rule for good measure. Repeat any lie often enough and most people will believe it. It’s foolproof and works every time.

Independent Analysis of BBC’s Israel – Palestine Coverage

In 2005, the BBC commissioned a study to review the impartiality of its Israeli – Palestinian coverage. It consisted of an independent panel, the Communications Research Centre at Loughborough University, and British – Israeli international lawyer Noam Lubell. Their published April 2006 findings weren’t what the broadcaster wished. Highlights from them showed BBC coverage:

— rarely covered daily Palestinian hardships and repression under occupation;

— was incomplete, misleading, and failed to consistently provide a full and fair account of the conflict;

— overlooked important themes; in the study period it most notably ignored Israeli annexation of land in and around East Jerusalem;

— omitted a substantial amount of important news vital to Palestinian concerns;

— failed to convey the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience; specifically that one side is dominant and the other under occupation and forced to endure dependence indignities and hard line repression;

— seldom used the term occupation; mentioned military occupation only once during the study period;

— reported nothing about nearly four decades of occupation and repression;

— misportrayed Israel’s Gaza disengagement as a positive step; failed to clarify it as a ruse and that Gaza remains occupied, invaded and attacked at will;

— failed to report Israeli assertions that relocating Gaza settlers would strengthen Israel’s control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem;

— never clarified that Gaza settlements were illegal; that Gazans face ongoing hardships and stressed instead the “controversy” of withdrawing among Israelis;

— misused or misportrayed the term “terrorism” and only applied it to Palestinians;

— omitted any reference to historical background and failed to put stories in proper context;

— provided inadequate analysis and interpretation of key events and issues;

— failed to explain the meaning of Zionism;

— failed to provide background of the 1967 and 1973 wars;

— consistently misportrayed Hamas; described it as formally committed to Israel’s destruction; ignored Hamas’ acceptance of the Arab peace proposal and its willingness to recognize Israel in return for an end to the occupation;

— mischaracterized the Oslo Accords as positive; ignored its deficiencies and betrayal;

— mentioned the Intifada with no explanation of cause or justification;

— failed to cite international law and UN resolutions; their call for an end to Israel’s occupation; and the fact that Israel ignores international rulings contrary to its interests;

— ignored Palestinians’ legal right to return or restitution if they choose not to;

— ignored humanitarian and human rights laws;

— failed to explain extrajudicial executions are illegal;

— mischaracterized the Separation Wall that the World Court ruled illegal;

— misrepresented the status of Jerusalem;

— gave unequal access to Israeli officials and spokespersons; stations none of its correspondents in Occupied Palestine; has them all inside Israel; results in a huge disparity in reports favoring Israel while disparaging Palestinians;

— misportrayed Israelis as peace-seeking and Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims as aggressors;

— stressed Israeli victimhood, the importance of Israeli deaths and injuries, and relative unimportance of a disproportionate number of Palestinian ones;

— responded to criticism defensively; continued to repeat past errors cited; showed deference to Israeli issues and the pro-Israeli Lobby;

— ignored its own established editorial standards, including on terminology; as a result, consistently showed bias, a lack of clarity and precision and did little to improve comprehension and understanding;

— overall – BBC falls far short of fair and impartial reporting and has done little to redress pointed out deficiencies; one positive note – the analysis found no evidence linking anti-Semitic behavior to BBC reports; it also found none dispelling it.

Glasgow University Media Group Study of Middle East News Coverage – It’s “Bad News from Israel” and BBC

Researchers Greg Philo and Mike Berry conducted the study between 2000 and 2002, and their above quoted 2004 book title discusses it. Little has changed from then to now, BBC’s reporting highlights it, and it’s “bad news” for kept-in-the-dark viewers of major UK news and current affairs coverage.

Former BBC Middle East correspondent Tim Llewellyn agrees and explained in his unsparing comments about his former employer. He called it “dishonest – in concept, approach and execution….(it) favours the occupying soldiers over the occupied Arabs, depicting the latter, essentially, as alien tribes threatening the survival of Israel, rather than vice versa.” It depicts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “as a battle of two (equal) forces (with equally) right and wrong responsibility. It is the tyranny of spurious equivalence.” As the UK and world’s leading broadcaster, BBC is justifiably blamed.

“Bad News from Israel” explains how – by consistently showing pro-Israel bias in virtually all its reporting and at times in the extreme. Beyond the book’s timeline, correspondent Chris Morris’ January 2004 “Lost hope in Mid-East conflict” report is a case in point. It’s about an expectant Palestinian woman confronted at a checkpoint. Prevented from passing, she gives birth and miscarries.

Morris is sympathetic but sides with the soldiers. “You can’t blame (them, he says) for being jumpy at checkpoints….because there are Israeli victims too, children among them, killed by snipers and suicide bombers from the West Bank. What would you have done? Would you have taken the risk? Or would you have played it safe, fearful of a trap? And so it goes on – another week in the Middle East.”

Even worse, the greater issue is ignored – an instance reflecting daily life in Occupied Palestine plus regular killings and abuse. Morris turns a blind eye. He highlights suicide bombings instead – “A Palestinian mother in her early 20s blows herself to bits and takes the lives of four young Israelis, after tricking them into believing she was ill.” He continues – “A Jewish settler is killed on the West Bank, leaving five children without a father, including triplets just three months old.” Reports like his are commonplace on BBC. Israeli lives matter. Palestinian ones don’t. Philo and Berry document the evidence.

Their study covers what media should report, a content analysis of their coverage, and how focus group interviews show how viewers are ill-served and left uninformed. Below are some results that apply to today:

— little or no historical context was provided; origins of the conflict were omitted; in the 2000 timeframe covered, BBC (and ITN) devoted 3500 lines of text to the Intifada, but a scant 17 to context or history;

— reporting consistently was pro-Israel and justified the most extreme actions and lawlessness; at the same time, Palestinian resistance was highlighted and condemned as terrorism;

— in the authors’ words: “There (was) no evidence from our analysis to suggest that Palestinian views were given preferential treatment on the BBC. The opposite (was) in reality the case;”

— BBC justified Israeli violence as “response” or “retaliation;” in contrast, Palestinian resistance was called “horrific,” an “atrocity,” “terrorism,” or even “mass murder;”

— some BBC reports were rife with errors whether intentionally or from ignorance;

— reports focused on Israeli security and right to exist; comparable Palestinian rights got little mention; nor did their impoverishment, deplorable daily existence, or a brutish four-decade military occupation;

— Israeli deaths were highlighted; Palestinian ones played down or ignored; regular Israeli incursions got little mention or weren’t reported;

— as a result, only 4% of focus group respondents knew Palestinians were driven from their homeland; only 10% that Israel occupied Palestine; some believed Palestinians were the occupiers; some viewed the conflict as a border dispute; 80% didn’t know the origin of Palestinian refugees or that they were dispossessed; two-thirds didn’t know Palestinian casualties exceeded Israeli ones; more knowledgeable respondents had access to books and other material that dispel BBC bias and inaccuracies;

— senior BBC journalists interviewed told researchers that they were instructed not to give explanations; to dumb-down the news for easy listening and do it in “20-second attention span” segments; researchers believe BBC has it backwards; this type reporting alienates viewers; accuracy and more context enhances viewership; under heavy Israeli Lobby pressure, BBC and other major media report propaganda; truth is the first casualty, and viewers remain uninformed; today it’s worse than ever.

BBC’s Coverage of Gaza Under Siege

BBC reports little about Gaza under siege and the humanitarian crisis it caused. Instead, accounts like its January 2008 one are common. It’s headlined “Gaza’s rocket threat to Israel” and highlights homemade Qassams “fired by Hamas and other Palestinian militants at Israeli population centres near the Gaza Strip.” They’ve “killed 13 people inside Israel, including three children. In some months, more than 100 launches have been recorded by the Israelis.”

No mention is made of Israeli incursions, their frequency, the use of F-16 air-to-surface missiles, their accuracy and destructive power, high-tech battle tanks in civilian neighborhoods, and other sophisticated weapons freely used, including illegal ones. Nor is there mention of hundreds of Palestinian deaths, injuries, inflicted Israeli destruction, and use of Palestinians as human shields. Instead, the Israeli town of Sderot is highlighted because it’s “the only large Israeli population centre within the original Qassam’s range.” BBC describes them in detail to over-hype their destructive potential. In fact, they’re crude, inaccurate and limited in range. They hardly compare to Israel’s high-tech weapons that when unleashed against a civilian population are devastating.

Later in BBC’s report, it admits “Qassams are very primitive missiles and their main effect on Israelis in the area is psychological torment (and that) Israeli casualties have been relatively light.” In contrast, Israeli attacks on Palestinians kill and injure many hundreds and inflict immense psychological terror against a civilian population. It’s gone on for six decades, shows no signs of ebbing, but BBC won’t explain it.

Nor does it report on Gaza under siege, the collective punishment of its people, the humanitarian crisis it caused, and Israel’s lawless act that BBC should expose and denounce. Instead it features reports like a May 10 one about a “Gaza mortar attack kill(ing an) Israeli.” Israeli air strikes followed, five Hamas members were killed and four others injured. BBC featured an Israeli government spokesperson saying “We hold (Hamas) accountable for today’s attack and the murder of civilians.” No Palestinian response was aired, and BBC merely ended saying that “The Gaza Strip has been controlled by Hamas since last June when they ousted their rivals from the Fatah movement.” No context, no background, no fair and impartial reporting, no truth, and no possible way for viewers to understand.

BBC suggests that Palestinians are responsible for their own condition, that a humanitarian catastrophe is their fault, and that Israel has every right to terrorize and starve them to submission for its own security and self-interest. By BBC’s standards, Israel may rightfully lock down 1.5 million people, collectively punish them, continue a repressive occupation, and refuse to negotiate in good faith, or at all. BBC is dismissive. Palestinian suffering is inconsequential, yet consider its outrage from a single Israeli death. It’s also contemptuous of Hamas, ignored its months-long unilateral ceasefire, and refuses to report its willingness to recognize Israel in return for a Palestinian state inside pre-1967 borders.

BBC views the conflict from an Israeli perspective. It features government officials to explain it, and reports whatever they say as fact. This turns reality on its head, makes lawless actions justifiable, results in double standard journalism, and lets Palestinians suffer the consequences. Why not and who cares. They’re just Arab Muslims in the land of Israel where Jews alone matter and not a hint of even-handed reporting exists. Now more than ever in the conflict’s seventh decade, and BBC’s reporting exacerbates it.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at

Also visit his blog site at and listen to The Global Research News Hour on Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

© Copyright Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2008

The url address of this article is:

Kucinich Vows to Continue Impeachment Effort Against Bush

Dandelion Salad

Democracy Now!
June 13, 2008

Despite Opposition from His Own Party, Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich Vows to Continue Impeachment Effort Against Bush

We speak to Ohio Congress member and former Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich about his impeachment effort against President Bush. On Wednesday, Congress voted to send Kucinich’s bill to the House Judiciary Committee, where it’s unlikely to be considered before Bush leaves office. Kucinich spent four hours on the House floor Monday reading out thirty-five articles of impeachment against the President.

Real Video Stream

Real Audio Stream

MP3 Download


Continue reading

Bugliosi Seeks “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder”

Dandelion Salad

Add me on View my page on The Stop Fascism Action Network ~ Lo

Democracy Now!

June 13, 2008

Citing Iraq War, Renowned Attorney Vincent Bugliosi Seeks “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder”

Vincent Bugliosi is one of the most successful prosecutors in this country, with a record including twenty-one murder convictions without a single loss. With a new book, he outlines his case for the prosecution of George W. Bush for murder.

Real Video Stream

Real Audio Stream

MP3 Download



President George W. Bush Wanted for Murder!


Go to and join the Stop Fascism Action Network.

Parts 1-3 Interview on Democracy Now with renown Lawyer and Author Vincent Bugliosi regarding his latest book “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder”.


The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

Things Heating Up In Europe Around U.S. Radar Base by Bruce Gagnon


by Bruce Gagnon
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Bruce’s blog post

June 13, 2008

We heard from Jan Tamas (one of the original hunger strikers) this morning as he was returning to Prague from meetings at the European Union in Brussels. In his email Jan reported, “During the past three days we’ve met with a number of Members European Parliament (MEPs) including the vice-chairman of the EU Parliament Luisa Morgantini. Things are under way for a meeting of MEPs on July 9 in Strassbourg where I will also participate. It looks like there will be tens of MEPs participating! On this occasion we will deliver them the printed version of our online petition against the radar, which currently has more than 119,000 signatures. We would like this number to reach 200,000 signatures by that time, so please help us spread the word and let people sign the petition at”

“But don’t let this success fool you, our opponents are going ahead with their plan. They have just announced last night that Condoleezza Rice will come to Prague to sign the treaty between the Czech and U.S. governments on July 10. So we should do all we can before that day!”

In another recent development from the Czech Republic, Greenpeace activists who have been occupying the site of the planned U.S. Star Wars radar base were detained on June 9 when military police cleared the area of their encampment. Five demonstrators, who had been sitting in tree platforms since April 28, were taken to the police station in Příbram. This action by the police indicates that the U.S. and Czech government wanted them gone from the base site before Condoleezza Rice returns to Prague on July 10.

Here in Maine, Mary Beth Sullivan is now on her 7th day of her solidarity hunger strike and we are continuing to promote the June 22 worldwide day of fasting to stop Star Wars. At this moment we have 44 people in Maine who have pledged to fast on June 22 and more are signing on every day. Just yesterday Mary Beth sent an Op-Ed to our local newspaper that will carry the names of our local fasters explaining our reasons for joining the fast on June 22. (Let me know ASAP if you would like to be on the June 22 fast list.)

I can’t express strongly enough the need for maximum participation on June 22 and beyond as the U.S. presses hard to deploy so-called “missile defense” systems worldwide before the opposition builds to prevent this new arms race from becoming institutionalized. The aerospace industry for years has been encouraging the U.S. government to block negotiations at the United Nations on a new international treaty called PAROS – Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. The Pentagon has long boasted that Star Wars will be the largest industrial project in the history of the planet Earth. All across the world we get reports that U.S. “allies” are being dragged into weapons in space technology programs and the result is that health care, education, and other human needs programs are being cut to enable these governments to afford joining the U.S. space weapons program.

As each of you join the June 22 fast please remember that this is a day of political activity. Be sure to take some kind of action on or before that day to let people in your community know why you are fasting. We’ve heard from folks in New York City that will hold an event at a public park; activists in Albuquerque will hold a day-long protest at an Air Force Base in their city; people in Maine will be holding actions in at least two different cities; and the list goes on. Even if you just write a letter to the editor or send an email to friends and family asking them to sign the on-line petition at at least do that.

Working together our voices become a global call for sanity and peace. Thanks for helping us make that happen.

Bush Executive Order Expands Data Collection – Will Share Data with “Foreign Partners”

Dandelion Salad
By Matthew Rothschild
06/12/08 “The Progressive

Big Brother wants your irises.

George Bush just issued a directive to expand the acquisition of biometric information, and to ensure that agencies across the executive branch share it.

And the Bush Administration may give it to foreign governments, too.

All this according to National Security Presidential Directive Number 59, also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number 24, which George W. Bush signed on June 5.

The directive is aimed at “known and suspected terrorists,” as well as “other persons who may pose a threat to national security.”

The directive does not say how these other persons who “may pose a threat” are to be defined.

And the directive is so broadly worded that it appears to cover anyone the government has biometric or other personal data on.


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 Brother” Presidential Directive: “Biometrics for Identification & Screening to Enhance National Security”

Bush pushes biometrics for national security + NSPD-59 & HSPD-24

Canadian MP Libby Davies reads 9/11 petition in Parliament

Dandelion Salad


June 11, 2008

New Democratic Party Deputy House Leader Libby Davies delivers a Parliamentary Petition signed by over 500 Canadians demanding a new 9/11 investigation, in Canada’s House of Commons during Routine Proceedings at 1:10 pm on June 10, 2008

Here is the full text of the petition, available to sign at…


We, the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following:

THAT, scientific and eyewitness evidence shows that the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraudulent document and that those behind the report are consciously or unconsciously guilty of covering up what happened on 9/11/2001. This evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by demolition explosives and that the official theory of the towers collapsing from the airplanes and the ensuing fires is irrefutably false.

We further believe that elements within the US government were complicit in the murder of thousands of people on 9/11/2001. This event brought Canada into the so-called “War on Terror,” it changed our domestic and foreign policies for the worse, and it will continue to have negative consequences for us all if we refuse to look at the facts.

THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to:

(1) Immediately launch its own investigation into the events of 9/11/2001 on behalf of the 24 Canadian citizens murdered in New York City.

(2) Act lawfully on the findings of its own investigation by helping to pursue the guilty parties in the international courts.

Committed to truth and accountability,

Vodpod videos no longer available.

h/t: Bunkie


9/11, Deep State Violence and the Hope of Internet Politics

Response to a Financial Times Report regarding 9/11: “fails to deal with the evidence”

INN WORLD REPORT: David Ray Griffin

INN World Report: Greg Palast (Iraqi Oil & 9/11)

Mosaic News – 6/12/08: World News from the Middle East

Dandelion Salad



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


For more:
“Karzai Pleads for $50 Billion in Aid,” Al Jazeera English, Qatar
“France-Syria Rapprochement,” Abu Dhabi TV, UAE
“Faluja’s Ambulance Crisis,” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
“Egypt intensifies Efforts to Reach Ceasefire in Gaza,” Nile TV, Egypt
“Gaza’s Truce is Uncertain,” Dubai TV, UAE
“Hamas Leader’s Home Explodes Killing Four,” IBA TV, Israel
“No Terrorists in Ain El Helwa,” New TV, Lebanon
Produced for Link TV by Jamal Dajani.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

MSNBC: Tim Russert Dies at Age 58

Dandelion Salad


Tom Brokaw making the announcement that Tim Russert has died of a heart attack, June 13, 2008.

Vodpod videos no longer available.


NBC’s Chuck Todd Mourns The Death of Tim Russert


Chuck Todd, June 13, 2008


Some of what made Tim Russert Great


June 13, 2008 BBC World


Tim Russert Will be Missed (By His Owners)

Ron Paul’s Campaign for liberty announcement + Interview

Dandelion Salad


June 13, 2008

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Ron Paul’s Not Quiting! Liberty Campaign Interview 6-12-08

Before Thursdays Rally in Texas Ron Paul states he is not quiting but moving forward with more flexibility!


Remembering Ron Paul

Vodpod videos no longer available.

h/t: ♠JÀ€Ǿβ♠