G8 Summit + Politics of Fruit and the Secret History of the “Miracle Berry”

Dandelion Salad

Democracy Now!

July 9, 2008

As Global Food Crisis Tops G8 Summit Agenda, World Leaders Enjoy Lavish 18-Course Banquet

Shortly after saying they were “deeply concerned” about soaring global food prices and supply shortages, world leaders attending the G8 summit in Hokkaido sat down to an eighteen-course gastronomic extravaganza, courtesy of the Japanese government. We take a look at the global food crisis, food independence and real democracy with bestselling author, Frances Moore Lappé. [includes rush transcript]

Real Video Stream

Real Audio Stream

MP3 Download

transcript

The Fruit Hunters: Author Adam Leith Gollner on the Politics of Fruit and the Secret History of the “Miracle Berry”

We speak with Montreal-based writer Adam Leith Gollner about his new book, The Fruit Hunters: A Story of Nature, Adventure, Commerce, and Obsession. Gollner traveled around the world in search of what he calls the forgotten histories of fruit. Among his discoveries: the “miracle berry,” a cranberry-like fruit that turns sour into sweet, but for questionable reasons—including possible conflicts with corporate interests—has yet to reach American consumers. [includes rush transcript]

Real Video Stream

Real Audio Stream

MP3 Download

transcript

see

Frost over the World: Frank Luntz & Francis Moore-Lappe

Bill Moyers Journal: Hope in the Congo + 100 Years of Darkness + Bread for the World

Interview with Frances Moore Lappe: Getting a Grip + The Invisible Revolution (must-see videos)

Getting a Grip on Money & Politics, Part II (video; Lappe)

The World According to Monsanto – A documentary that Americans won’t ever see (full video)

Chiquita pays for paramilitary ties + Colombia Outraged Over Chiquita Fine By Joshua Goodman

Citizens for Boycotting Chiquita by Kyle de Beausset

Seek Justice Against Chiquita by Kyle de Beausse

Banana Republic: Chertoff, Chiquita and Right-Wing Death Squads by Chris Floyd

Suicide by Soda: The Dangers of Aspartame By William Mac (+ videos)

Food

I Met the Walrus (an animated film with John Lennon)

Dandelion Salad

ctrlaltshiftvideo on Dec 3, 2009

As part of the Ctrl.Alt.Shift Unmasks Corruption exhibition we collaborated with Onedotzero to bring together a compilation of moving image work including animations and archive material, which explore politics through comic-style work.In 1969, a 14-year-old Beatle fanatic named Jerry Levitan, armed with a reel-to-reel tape deck, snuck into John Lennon’s hotel room in Toronto and convinced John to do an interview. 38 years later, Jerry has produced a film about it. Using the original interview recording as the soundtrack, director Josh Raskin has woven a visual narrative which tenderly romances Lennon’s every word in a cascading flood of multipronged animation.

Continue reading

Mukasey Senate Hearing: Siegelman & Rove; Torture

Dandelion Salad

CSPANJUNKIEdotORG

http://cspanjunkie.org/
July 09, 2008 C-SPAN

Sen Whitehouse to AG Mukasey: Is Waterboarding Torture?

Sen Leahy to AG Mukasey: I Want to See Someone Go To Jail!


Sen Durbin Questions AG Mukasey on Torture & War Crimes Prosecution

Sen Cardin to Mukasey: What are You’re Plans for 2008 Election

Sen Feingold asks AG Mukasey: Politicization Of Justice Dept

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIZUV5Lk0Uc

Sen Whitehouse asks AG Mukasey about Executive Orders

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bd2Qb90TBrE

see

Congresswoman Wasserman on Karl Rove’s Refusal To Appear

Verdict: Bush League Justice: Rove

Rove-Karl

Siegelman-Don

Mukasey-Michael

Dems succumb to FISA compromise bill

Satire

Robert

by R J Shulman
Dandelion Salad
featured writer
Robert’s blog post
July 10, 2008

WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats today echoed the action of their party members in the House by voting passage of a controversial intelligence and surveillance bill that grants retroactive immunity to the telecom companies who illegally spied on the American people at the request of the Bush Administration. “We are happy with this compromise,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, “the compromise being that we vote for the bill and the Bush Administration will not reveal our personal secrets to the press.”

The bill will essentially end dozens of active lawsuits brought by private citizens against the telecom companies claiming their Fourth Amendment rights have been violated. Critics have warned that this will effectively sweep under the rug any public airing of the nature of the illegal spying done by Bush on Americans.

“I are pleased the Democrats have come over to the dark side in our valiant fight in the war on terror,” said Vice President Dick Cheney, “even if it means I have to forgo the pleasure of releasing to the press some smokin’ hot pictures of certain Senators.”

“I am happy to vote for this compromise bill,” said Senator Feinstein, “as it balances the need for national security surveillance with the need for privacy, my privacy to be exact.”

“As the candidate of hope and change,” Barack Obama told the Post Times Sun Dispatch, “the only hope I have to be President is for me to change Bush’s mind not to release certain phone calls of mine that would become a 24/7 loop on Fox news. So I voted for the bill.”

I know we had to massage the bill a little to make it palatable for us,” said Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean, “as it is better to massage the legislation than disclose the names of a certain patrons of a massage parlor.”

“I voted for the bill because of the terror alert being raised to red,” said another Democratic Senator, “that is the terror of the disclosure of my dealings in the red light district getting into enemy hands.”

“Senators do the darndest things,” said Karl Rove.

“I sure liked hearing them phone calls and having phone records read to me,” said President Bush, “but the pictures were the best as you know what the Chinese say in Tokyo, a picture is worth a thousand votes.”

see

Countdown: Feingold on the FISA Capitulation + McCain’s Townhall Incident

Nader: Telecoms and Bush Above the Law

Riz Khan: Israel’s Separation Wall

Dandelion Salad

AlJazeeraEnglish

The Israeli separation wall making its way through the West Bank cuts to the heart of the Palestinian-Israeli issue: Will the final settlement between these two peoples be negotiated, or imposed unilaterally by Israel?

Legitimizing the Permanent Occupation of Iraq by Stephen Lendman

Dandelion Salad

by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, July 9, 2008

Washington is currently negotiating two accords with the al-Maliki government to take effect after expiration of the UN’s military mandate on December 31. One agreement is for a long-term “strategic framework” to establish “cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and security fields.” Or according to the administration – to defend Iraq’s “sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, and airspace.”

The other is a so-called “status of forces agreement” (SOFA) to provide legitimacy for the US occupation beginning January 1, 2009. Following the 2003 invasion, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1511. It officially recognized the “Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)” and authorized a multinational force to bring “stability” to the country. Part of the agreement was for the mandate to be reauthorized each year. It’s been done “at the request of the Iraqi government.” By late 2007, al-Maliki asked for a mandate extension “for the last time” to officially end Iraq’s international peace and security threat designation that’s been in place since August 1990.

In November 2007, George Bush and al-Maliki signed a preliminary US – Iraq political, economic, and security agreement. Part of it is for an indefinite US military presence. Final completion was to be by July 31, 2008, but with the date fast approaching and widespread opposition, things may likely change.

For months, US plans generated considerable opposition – within and outside Iraq. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani objected. So has Iran and a majority of Iraqi parliamentarians who vowed to veto any agreement not approved by the country’s Council of Representatives. On May 29, they further said that any US – Iraq bilateral agreement must “obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq.” On May 28, Muqtada al-Sadr went further. He called for protests against the (“forces of darkness”) SOFA and issued orders to:

— raise awareness of its terms;

— unite political opposition against it;

— participate in weekly protests;

— hold a national referendum or if denied gather millions of opposition signatures;

— form political and religious delegations in opposition;

— set a timetable for the occupation’s end;

— inform the Iraqi government it has no right to sign an agreement; and

— to have the Hawza Shiite religious academy become more active and stand against an agreement that’s clearly against the interests of the Iraqi people.

Within the US, some in Congress object that George Bush claims authority as commander-in-chief to constitutionally bypass lawmakers and deal unilaterally with the Iraqi government. Others like Yale Law School Professors Oona Hathaway and Bruce Ackerman concur and believe the agreement “moves far beyond” traditional accords and must be subject to congressional review.

In a February 15, 2008 Washington Post.com op-ed, they state “The Bush administration is so intent on securing its legacy in Iraq that it is once again ignoring the Constitution….it is well on its way toward (deepening America’s) commitment without the congressional support the Constitution requires.”

They cite examples:

— exempting civilian contractors from prosecution under Iraqi laws; it assures their immunity elsewhere as well; current federal law “only subjects contractors working in support of the Defense Department to prosecution in American courts for felonies in Iraq;” civilian security forces (like Blackwater Worldwide), the State Department, CIA and others will be in a “no-law” status, subject only to the will of the president; civilians may thus commit murders, rapes, robberies, other lawless acts and get away with them; “no (known) existing status of forces agreement….contains anything like this wide-ranging exemption;”

— exempting military personnel as well who can be court-martialed but rarely are;

— allowing the president to exceed his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief; he’s only in charge of the military, “not all Americans working overseas;”

— even worse, most administration plans are secret and what’s learned comes out in leaks; more on that below; and

— Congress held hearings on January 23 and February 8 – “on the legitimate scope of the Iraqi agreement;” the administration refused to testify.

Hathaway and Ackerman conclude by calling for a congressional resolution “declaring invalid any military agreement (going) beyond the traditional (SOFA) limits.” No president may unilaterally bypass Congress. It’s “especially wrong for a lame-duck (one) to make such a (controversial) commitment (that’s) at the very center of the debate among the candidates vying to succeed him.”

On July 4, Imam Sadreddin al-Kabandji (an aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani) issued a statement. It pressed the Baghdad government to hold a national referendum regarding US forces remaining in the country. Speaking for Iraq’s supreme Shiite leader, he stated: “The Iraqi nation regards with concern the Iraqi-American treaty whose contents are not exactly known….The treaty (must be made public and) presented to the people and the clergy.” It’s unacceptable that the government is negotiating with the Americans “behind closed doors.”

Status of Forces Agreements – An Explanation

The DOD’s Defense Technical Information Center web site explains a SOFA as follows:

— “an agreement that defines the legal position of a ‘visiting’ military force deployed in the territory of a friendly state.” It delineates “the status of visiting military forces (and) may be bilateral or multilateral. Provisions pertaining to the status of visiting forces may be set forth in a separate agreement, or they may form a part of a more comprehensive agreement. These provisions describe how the authorities of a visiting force may control members of that force and the amenability of the force or its member to the local law or to the authority of local officials. To the extent that agreements delineate matters affecting the relations between a military force and civilian authorities and population, they may be considered as civil affairs agreements.”

In his 2004 book, The Sorrows of Empire, Chalmers Johnson said this about SOFAs:

“America’s foreign military enclaves, though structurally, legally, and conceptually different from colonies, are themselves something like microcolonies in that they are completely beyond the jurisdiction of the occupied nation. The US virtually always negotiates a ‘status of forces agreement’ (SOFA) with the ostensibly independent ‘host’ nation” – a modern day version of 19th century China’s “extraterritoriality” granting foreigners charged with crimes the “right” to be tried by his (or her) own government under his (or her) own national law.

SOFA experts Rachel Cornwell and Andrew Wells added:

“Most SOFAs are written so that national courts cannot exercise legal jurisdiction over US military personnel who commit crimes against local people, except in special cases where US military authorities agree to transfer jurisdiction.” As a result, when crimes occur, the military can simply whisk offenders out of the country before local authorities can react or at least before they’re arrested.

As of September 2001, the Pentagon acknowledged SOFA agreements with only 93 countries. The total number is unknown but much higher. Some are too embarrassing to reveal, and many or most are kept secret. Overseas military bases aren’t colonial outposts in the traditional sense. They’re run by the DOD, CIA, NSA, DIA, and other official or secret state agencies. In September 2001, the Pentagon acknowledged the existence of 725 foreign bases. Today the number likely tops 1000. Further, DOD’s (2001) Manpower Report indicated that over one-quarter of a million military personnel were deployed in 153 countries. Those numbers also are higher with Iraq and Afghanistan forces approaching 200,000 and no imminent signs of a pullback.

Depending on their location, families may or may not accompany their military spouses, and as Johnson explains: “except in Muslim countries (at least so far) these bases normally attract impressive arrays of bars, brothels, and the criminal elements that operate them near their main gates.” As a result, bases “unavoidably usurp, distort, or subvert whatever institutions of democratic government may exist with the host society.” It’s a “recipe for the endless series of ‘incidents’ that plague (SOFA) nations (and easy to understand why) local residents get very tired of sexual assaults, drunken driving” and more serious crimes and abuses over which they have no control or chance for redress.

Reverse things and imagine how outraged US citizens would be if another country garrisoned troops close by with all the resultant fallout: besides murder, rape and other crimes, there’s unacceptable noise, pollution, environmental destruction, appropriation of valued public real estate, and unaccountable soldiers getting drunk, causing damage, ignoring local customs, speeding and accosting local women when they’re not raping or killing them.

It’s one reason why we don’t generally grant other nations basing rights here. So except for when foreign ships berth in our ports for short periods, US citizens never interact with another country’s military or experience the fallout from it.

In his newest book, Nemesis, Johnson explains how SOFAs work. They’re legal contractual “alliances” with other countries implementing mutually agreed on arrangements. They let us garrison US troops and civilian personnel – either on a new or existing facility. They’re based on “common objectives” and “international threats to peace.” In final form, they put US personnel as far as possible outside domestic law and spell out host country obligations to us. Except for our reciprocal NATO agreements, they also give our military and civilian personnel special privileges unavailable to ordinary citizens of host nations. Unlike western European countries with clout, most others are small, weak or occupied and have little muscle against our type bullying.

Then there are the above-cited SOFA problems. Is it surprising then that South Koreans, for example, object to our presence and a great deal more. A recent article reported tens of thousands on Seoul streets against President Lee Myung-bak in defiance of state repression threats. Their complaints are many and were triggered by the government’s decision to allow potentially tainted US beef imports.

An earlier article relates to this one. It explained how angry South Koreans are about US military unaccountability for nearly six decades. Americans “defame our national sovereignty and commit many crimes, but we can’t do anything about it except watch because of the unfair (SOFA).” Korean authorities have asked for remediating provisions. DOD granted virtually nothing. The same is true most elsewhere. Our reputation as a world-class bully is well deserved.

The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan – A SOFA Example

It was signed on January 19, 1960 with language intended to be reassuring. For example:

— to settle international disputes peacefully;

— work for international peace and security;

— “refrain….from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (or do anything) inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations;” in the 1960s and 1970s, Southeast Asians were apparently exempted; today it’s Iraqis, Afghans and others;

— strengthen free institutions and promote stability and well-being;

— eliminate conflict;

— to protect Japan’s security and international peace in the Far East, America “is granted the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan” – to be governed by a “separate agreement” replacing the one signed in February 1952 and thereafter amended; and

— many other reassurances in 10 articles about which the people of Okinawa object.

It’s Japan’s poorest and most southerly prefecture – a sort of equivalent of America’s Puerto Rico. It’s also a battleground pitting Okinawans against Washington and their own government in Tokyo. An expert on the region, Chalmers Johnson, puts it this way: “the Japanese-American SOFA….shield(s) (US) military felons from the application of Japanese law.” It’s the same type “unequal treaty” imposed on Japan after Commodore Perry’s 1853 armed incursion.

But it didn’t deter Donald Rumsfeld in 2003. In meeting with Japanese officials, he “press(ed) anew for the Japanese government to relent on a long-standing US demand for fuller legal protections (for our forces) accused of crimes while serving in Japan.” Most often, it means committing them against Okinawans where the majority of them are based – plus their families and civilian DOD employees.

Okinawa is an extreme example because it’s small and America uses 19% of its choicest real estate. Yet it’s typical of what happens everywhere US forces are based in varying degrees. Johnson calls it “American military imperialism….easily reproduced in Germany, Italy, Kosovo, Kuwait, Qatar, Diego Garcia, and elsewhere, and more recently Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Iraq.”

It augurs ill for the continued occupation of Iraq as a war zone. Since August 1990, the 1991 Gulf war, 12 years of sanctions, and the current Iraq war, America has disdained Iraqi interests, its welfare, culture, religion and lives. The country is occupied against the will of its people. Resistance has been continuous and fierce; human suffering immense; the death, injury, displacement and illness tolls unimaginable. Reassuring Iraqis of our benign intentions henceforth is impossible. Continued conflict is guaranteed plus all the resultant fallout Okinawans and other host nations face.

Take what outrages Okinawans most after decades of occupation – the SOFA-related article 17 covering criminal justice. It states: “The custody of an accused member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component (shall) remain with the United States until he is charged.” It hamstrings Japanese investigators and denies them exclusive access until or unless suspects are indicted in court. As a result, prosecutors are reluctant to press charges because they can’t get evidence for trial.

Examples on the island are frequent, but one was particularly grievous. In September 1995, two marines abducted a 12-year old girl, beat and raped her, left her on a beach, and returned to their base in a rented car. In October, 85,000 Okinawans protested. They demanded redress after the US military refused to let local police take custody.

Imagine the situation in Iraq where US military, Blackwater, and other security forces are unaccountable. In the case of Blackwater, it’s “the world’s most powerful mercenary army,” has friends in high places, and employs “some of the most feared professional killers” anywhere. It operates outside the law, is protected by the Pentagon, and freely practices street violence. A SOFA will legalize it taking any possibility for redress off the table.

US – Iraq SOFA – Leaked Information

In late June, the Arabic newpaper, Awan, leaked 20 pages of the draft proposal. The web site roadstoiraq.com highlighted parts of it and noted a color-coded way of citing what’s agreed on, not yet agreed on, and major differences. Below is a brief account of what it says:

— attacking other countries from Iraq ‘isn’t’ prohibited;

— provisions governing the presence and activities of US forces, private contractors and US employees are identified;

— activities agreed on include: “operations and training, transit, support and related activities, aerial refueling, maintenance of vehicles, ships and airplanes, providing suitable residences for employees and their workplaces, mobilizing forces and materials storage, and other goals and activities” to be later agreed on;

— the US and Iraq “desire” for provisions to be “temporary;”

— the agreement will support security and defense relations between the two countries “after the end of the transitional period….and peace will exist;”

— unnamed provisions “postponed for now until later development;”

— “detained members of the (US military) and civilian (contractors and employees shall be) delivered to the American forces;” the US military may also detain Iraqis;

— “the Iraqi government authorizes the civilian elements to use force against others in case of self-defense; there will be no issue of juridical prosecutions;”

— Iraq won’t “invite a third country or international organization for logistic-support, training or (to aid) Iraqi security forces;” the Iraqi negotiator wants this provision removed;

— “both sides seek regular consultation” at the political and military levels on defense and security cooperation;

— issues of concern: Iraq’s ability to secure its borders; training, supplying, establishing and developing Iraqi security forces’ logistics, administration, and infrastructure; strengthening them as well; improving joint military cooperation, training, and exchange of expertise, academics, information and other military activities; and

— the US ambassador commented obliquely that the “executive agreement is under the president’s authorization; any pledge (involving US forces) and spending American money requires an agreement authorized by Congress; in the current US internal political situation, Congress unlikely will agree with this (so) the executive agreement will establish a suitable situation that can be developed in the future;” he’s saying the president will act unilaterally and do as he pleases; Congress and Iraqis will be powerless;

The above information is very sketchy, but the issues are clear. Iraq is occupied, and a state of war exists. The Iraqi president and parliament are impotent. The Bush administration will pressure or bypass Congress and implement what it wishes. Another possibility is getting the Security Council to extend the current mandate. Either way, a new president in 2009 will enforce it. The Iraqi people are entirely left out. Iraqi officials may insist on their rights, and Washington may nominally agree in principle. But past agreements show how this one will be managed. Language will be vague and deceptive so, in the end, it’ll be business as usual. Whatever Washington wants it will get. The Iraq government provides only fig leaf cover. The security accords are to provide international legitimacy once the UN mandate expires on December 31.

Indefinite occupation is planned and to be enforced by dozens of permanent military bases, including at least five mega-ones. On June 5, Patrick Cockburn reported in the London Independent that “Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors.” Regardless of the November election, US personnel are currently immune under Paul Bremer’s CPA Order 17, and a secret deal is being negotiated to make US occupation indefinite on Washington’s terms.

Besides permanent bases and immunity from Iraqi law (largely written by Washington), the deal gives US military forces a free hand. It lets them carry out operations inside Iraq, presumably anywhere in the region as well, and grants the right to arrest Iraqis. Cockburn states: this “will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.” Deal or no deal, that’s assured as long as Iraq is occupied against the will of its people.

So far it continues because the country’s most influential (Shiite) religious leader hasn’t intervened. Should Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani choose to, all bets are off. Iraq is largely Shia and al-Sistani greatly revered. In 2003, he forced US authorities to allow a referendum on a new constitution and a parliamentary election. He publicly opposes the SOFA unless four conditions are met according to a June 7 Iran Radio report cited on University of Michigan professor Juan Cole’s Informed Comment web site – “transparency, defending national governance, national consensus, and approving the agreement by the Iraqi parliament.”

The report (without attribution) also claimed Washington pledged $3 billion in bribes to win over Iraqi lawmakers – or around $11 million per parliamentarian and a tough offer to refuse if true. If they balk, the alternative may sway them – squeezing the country and officials in multiple ways, including blocking release of $50 billion in Iraqi oil revenue assets. They’re from the earlier sanctions period and now on deposit at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

Consider the latest, however, on a saga taking many twists and turns and no clear resolution in sight. In a July 7 news conference, al-Maliki surprised attendees. He said chances for a security pact are practically nil given the amount of internal opposition to it. Instead, he’ll seek a limited (“memorandum of understanding”) extension of the current mandate. And with no suggestion of numbers, he’ll also link it to a US force withdrawal timetable.

On July 8, al-Maliki’s National Security Advisor, Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, said Iraq is waiting “impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves” the country and wants firm dates for withdrawal. Getting them is another matter and statements mean little without actions. From the G-8 summit, George Bush’s response means plenty, and it shows what Iraqis are up against: “It is important to understand that these are not talks on a hard date for a withdrawal.”

Then there’s al-Sistani to be reckoned with, a man even Bush takes seriously. If he gets more vocal and means it, the coming months will prove interesting. Yet he’s caught on the horns of a dilemma. US support let Shias win majority control of parliament. On the other hand, Washington runs everything so control is only nominal. It remains to be seen if al-Sistani comes around to that view and draws the line on the SOFA and other security measures. Maybe on the oil giveaway as well, a topic for a separate article.

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

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

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9506

© Copyright Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2008

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9540

see

Sistani Opposes Iraq-US Security Deal

Closing the School of the Americas (video)

Dandelion Salad

talkingsticktv

Talk by Father Roy Bourgeois founder of the School of the Americas Watch (www.soaw.org). The SOA is also known as the School of Assassins as it has been linked in training many of the worst torturers and human rights violators in Central and South America.

see

Kucinich protests Army training school By Harry R. Weber (SOA) + 20,000 Protest at Fort Benning

Dennis Kucinich at the School of the Americas Protest (video)

A little info about the School of the Americas (SOA) (video; over 18 only)

www.soaw.org

Countdown: Feingold on the FISA Capitulation + McCain’s Townhall Incident

Dandelion Salad

July 09, 2008

videocafeblog

McLame Humor on Iran

Rachel reports on the latest dust up between the McCain and Obama campaigns over the Iranian’s testing long range missled and the votes on Kyl-Lieberman and McCain joking about exports of cigarettes to Iran. Richard Wolffe weighs in.

Russ Feingold on the FISA Capitulation

Rachel reports on today’s vote on FISA and talks to Russ Feingold about what happened today and how pathetic it is that the Democrats caved into Mr. 28%.

Bushed!

Tonight’s: I Can Make A Hat, A Broach, A Pterodactyl-Gate, Enemirs At the Gate-Gate and Katrina Trailers-Gate.

McCain’s Townhall Incident With Vietnam Vet

Well it looks like my video made it’s way onto Countdown. Good for you Rachel for finally reporting this. I’m glad at least one place in the MSM did. Rachel reports on McCain’s dust up with the Vietnam vet at his town hall meeting in Denver. Paul Rieckhoff from IAVA weighs in on McCain’s voting record for veterens and that he was warned how dangerous it would be for him politically to go against Webb’s GI Bill before he did it.

***

C-SPAN

John McCain Gets Testy With Vet Over GI Bill

During his town hall meeting at the Denver Center for the Performing arts, John McCain gets testy with a vet when questioned on his lack of support for Jim Webb’s GI Bill and other bills that he’s voted against which would support veterans. Gee I wonder why the media decided not to cover this today and show the crazy lady screaming about taxes instead?

John McCain Thinks How Social Security Works Is Disgraceful

John McCain apparently thinks that how Social Security works, which has always been the current generation is paying for the ones receiving benefits, is disgraceful. He also says he’s going to change it but doesn’t say how. We all know how well things worked out for Dubya with his Social Security tour where his approval ratings went completely in the tank the more he talked about all of his great Republican “ideas” which are nothing less than privatizing it, and busting it so the bankers can get rich off of it instead of taking care of citizens as a social safety net. The way to fix it is not to have it be a fair tax rather than a regressive one where the rich pay a small part of their income toward it, and those making under the cap pay a very large portion.

see

Nader: Telecoms and Bush Above the Law

Countdown: Iraq Flip Flops + FISA Capitulation + Ad Wars + Protest & Free Speech

Countdown: Special Comment Obama FISA Bill

Keith Olbermann: Then and now + Olbermann’s reply & Obama’s Secret Plan to Protect the Rule of Law

Ralph Nader says no to wire tapping

AT&T Whistleblower: Spy Bill Creates ‘Infrastructure for a Police State’

Iran Test Long Range Missiles! + Obama Responds

Kucinich to Hold Press Conference to Discuss Article of Impeachment of President George W. Bush

Dandelion Salad

Here are some newer posts on this topic:

Draft Version of New Article of Impeachment

Pelosi Says House Judiciary May Hold Hearings On Kucinich Impeachment Resolution

***

by Dennis Kucinich
July 9, 2008

Washington, Jul 9 – Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will hold a news conference tomorrow afternoon to discuss his introduction of a single article of impeachment of President George W. Bush. Kucinich sent a letter to colleagues today addressing the article. The text of the letter is below.

Where: Cannon Terrace (intersection of Independence Avenue and New Jersey Avenue)
When: Thursday, July 10, 2008
Time: 2 p.m.

July 9, 2008

Dear Colleague:

At President Bush’s request, Congress passed an authorization for the use of military force against Iraq on October 16, 2002. At least a dozen key material representations made to Congress by the President in that authorization, in furtherance of Congressional action, were false at the time they were made. The breadth and depth of the President’s misrepresentations do not argue for incompetency as a defense, but for deceit as an impeachable offense.

We have arrived at a teachable moment in our Constitutional history. Congress must insist on accountability. We must regain our rightful role as a co-equal branch of government charged with providing a check and balance to Executive abuse of power. In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, our Founders placed the war power in the hands of the House of Representatives. This separation of powers was expressly intended to prevent a President from unilaterally summoning troops to war in the manner of a king.

Are we willing to respect our institution, our Constitution and ourselves? Will this President, at last, be held accountable for lying to Congress to gain authorization for the use of force against Iraq? Will we allow future Presidents to take office knowing they can commit the same acts with impunity?

Tomorrow I will bring forth a single article of impeachment which reviews the factual misrepresentations the President made to Congress to induce a favorable vote for the authorization for war.

The only question that remains is – – will we do anything about it?

The text of the Article will be available later today.

Thank You,
/s/
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress

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.

***

Will Congress listen? IMPEACH NOW! Bush is a Threat to Peace

representativepress

see

Kucinich: You’ve spoken. Will Congress listen?

What gives Bush the right to destabilize Iran by covert military operations?

Kucinich: Independence Day: Let Us Remember Who We Are + Impeach Bush

Impeach Now!!!

Impeach