“Every Time Dick Cheney Smiles, an Angel Gets Water-boarded”

If you are as tired as I am of the idiocy of mainstream news, take a few minutes and watch Jon Stewart’s take on the Larry King/Dick Cheney interview. It’s about 5 minutes – and the best part is at the end when Stewart catches Wolf Blitzer in a whopper!! Apparently, even Wolf doesn’t watch his own crappy show!

Enjoy!

Comedy Central – The Daily Show – click on the video “I Now Pronounce You Dick & Larry.”

Advertisements

  1. illa morales

    Make an urgently
    needed donation today

    You can be one in a million demanding the impeachment of the Bush/Cheney cabal if you act fast. More than 929,000 patriots have voted to Impeach at ImpeachBush.org and more are pouring in by the hour. There are only six weeks left before the major Peace and Impeachment rally on September 15, 2007 in Washington. We intend to reach the first Million by then.

    The following three months, September 15 to December 15, 2007 will probably determine whether Bush escapes the judgment of the American people during his Presidency.

    We can be sure Bush will not back down. Any hint of recognition by him of the enormity of his crimes, the failure of his criminal enterprise, the unbearable human suffering he has wreaked and the hatred and shame he has brought to our country, would shatter his heroic sense of himself. Unfeeling, uncaring, unwilling to listen, he will carry on, whatever the cost to others, assured in the safe, privileged, protected shell he has always lived in. He will insist war is peace, dictatorship is democracy, tyranny is freedom, theft is gift, worse is better. He will abuse all the power of the Presidency, the press, false propaganda and political spin to have his way. And he will increase death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and spread his war to Pakistan and Iran in the face of mounting hostility everywhere. His usurpation and abuse of power, criminal conduct and refusal to face the facts are his responsibility.

    At this late date, after all that Congress has seen of the crimes, corruption and tragic consequences of the Bush Presidency and the little to next to nothing it has done, there is scant reason to believe Congress without huge pressure from the people will find the will to act to impeach and prevent further crimes. It has possessed the power all along to pass laws to stop the criminal course on which the Bush Administration has set the nation. Congress had the constitutional duty from the first High Crime committed by the Bush Administration to proceed to impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate. It has failed to act, or show any promise that it might. This derogation of duty is its responsibility.

    The American people have lived through this tragedy for 6 years, in the main, submissively. We will act in these next six months, or George W. Bush will escape the judgment of the American people during eight years of unrelenting ruination of every principle this nation has proclaimed. His successors will assume they can do the same and may. Guiliani has said “the challenge we face is Islamic terrorism.” Peoples and nations around the world will have to believe Americans are powerless, don’t care, or worse, condone and approve the violence, suffering, corruption and lies the Bush Administration has inflicted with impunity.

    Finally, it is clear that We, the People of the United States, are the only force that can bring Bush, Cheney and their cohorts to account for bleeding Iraq, flaming Afghanistan, the American surge spreading more death, millions fleeing their homeland, arming other countries to the teeth, all brought about by the Bush Administration through falsely stimulated fear and lies to achieve domination and exploit the resources of the region.

    Our clear commitment to unrelenting struggle to awaken the people, arouse their irresistible energies to change this course of human events, to manifest unalterable insistence that the Bush Administration be removed from office is the only remaining honorable action we can take. Then only can we act to establish peace, freedom and security for all.

    The integrity of our Constitution, economic and social justice, the freedom of the American people and peace on earth all now depend on accountability of the Bush Administration and its removal from office. This is our responsibility.

    We must expose constantly the High Crimes and corruption of constitutional government committed by the Bush Presidency and act to end them.

    The many offenses of George III against “the thirteen United States of America” ascribed as cause for our Declaration of Independence pale in comparison to the offenses of George W against the fifty United States and the world at large.

    They then proclaimed “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injustice and usurpation…

    “To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    “He has refused to Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Bush has refused to assent to a plethora of laws from a date to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, and the Geneva Convention to stem cell research.

    After 26 additional grievances, nearly all dealing with Colonial laws and government, the Declaration, with considerable exaggeration for July 1776, claims “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our peoples.” Perhaps not unlike Bush’s claim Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

    The grievances of descendants of American slavery and segregation in the urban rebellions of the 1960’s were far greater in human terms than those of the Colonials in 1776. The painful riots caught the attention of both power and the people, but achieved only partial rectification.

    George W has laid waste to Iraq bringing death to hundreds of thousands, injuring millions, destruction that will require billions to rebuild and decades to do it; driven one in ten of the people, out of their own country to refugees camps, poverty and uncertain futures and 2 million more to homeless exile within Iraq where all who remain live in constant fear of death without essential food, water, electricity, jobs, schools, or future.

    He has occupied Iraq with a surging military force he intends to be permanent and demands of the government of Iraq, he installed and supports, that it give long term ownership of 2/3 of all Iraq’s oil to foreign oil companies, a major Bush benchmark of progress in Iraq. This while Iraq loses 14 billion annually in oil revenue from corruption and limited production and imports $2.6 billion in refined fuel products from you know who.

    A senior official of the U.S. Government Accountability office asked if he had ever seen anything like the U.S. failure to end high level corruption in the Iraqi oil sector and bring its oil exports up to target goals, replied “Not in the 25 years I’ve worked for the GAO.” He said smuggling of refined oil out of the country lines the pockets of “all levels” of the Iraqi government.

    If George W succeeds, Iraq will be the only nation in the oil rich Gulf and Middle East to hand over its oil to foreign countries. All the others retain ownership and control over their oil even if they pay excessive fees to foreign companies to help produce their oil. Anyone still wonder why George W invaded Iraq?

    In these times, George W has vastly increased U.S. militarism which already spent more on arms than all other countries, by spending more and more. He has enticed surrogate governments with military dictators like Pakistan and Egypt, with their staggering domestic problems and poverty, to militarize providing them billions of dollars of more sophisticated weapons. President Mubarak speaking at Egypt’s Military Technical Academy in mid July proclaimed “the advancement of the Armed Forces … number one priority to protect the country’s security and interests…”

    George W has accelerated and expanded nuclear weapons programs in flagrant violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty by spending billions on new, mostly tactical nuclear weapons, while upgrading the existing nuclear arsenal and placing Star Wars missile batteries on Russia’s border and simultaneously threatening Iran, North Korea and others for developing nuclear weapons, a psychological necessity for states desiring sovereignty in the face of U.S. aggression, as recognized by the Truman Administration and the basis for the Non Proliferation Treaty. George W insists on the use of land mines and cluster bombs that indiscriminately kill and the use of minors as soldiers in war.

    Waging his wars of aggression, which are devastating not only Iraq, but the whole region, George W is utilizing tens of thousands of civilians in quasi military and police positions, enlisting and deploying tens of thousands of aliens into U.S. military service with money and promises of U.S. citizenship.

    George W has systematically acted to destroy legal barriers to arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, intrusive surveillance of citizens and others, all the basic protection of the U.S. Bill of Rights and international covenants, treaties and laws. As Dick Cheney put it, “old doctrines… do not apply” to George W and his War on Terror.

    He has aggressively pursued taxation, domestic social programs and international policies that further enrich and benefit the rich while impoverishing and harming the poor.

    Each of us can make a difference between now and September 15

    Make an urgently
    needed donation today

    Beginning now we must “let the facts be submitted” to the energies of the American people to impeach the Bush Administration and remove it from office. If we fail, the next administration, seeing what the people will tolerate, will be as bad.

    Each of us must call every relative, friend, neighbor, acquaintance. Provide them the facts for Impeachment. Have every supporter register on ImpeachBush.org. Secure their support and participation in the impeachment movement. Enlist every group, or organization with which you are associated to active roles in the struggle.

    All who can must set up card tables on street corners, at malls and shopping centers, distribute pamphlets and secure registration, door to door, wherever people are, to Impeach Bush.

    Take to the streets where people pass to spread the word and enlist their support to Impeach the Bush Administration.

    Donate now and collect money from others for buses to bring people to September 15th, for impeachment leaflets, information pamphlets, newspaper ads and more. Please click this link now to make a donation.

    Each and every one of us must do all that we can to support the major Peace/Impeachment demonstration in Washington, DC on September 15, 2007 backed by more than a million votes for impeachment, and accelerating. The rally will begin at 12 noon at the White House, followed by a march to the Capitol.

    Then we must buckle down for a three month all-out effort to determine whether the will of the people means anything to power in America. Demonstrations, marches, sit-ins, work stoppage, mass rallies every weekend.

    Organize direct appeals to every member of the House of Representatives in your district offices and in Washington, all 435. Take community leaders and petitions signed by voters in the District and where appropriate promise to field a candidate to oppose a recalcitrant Member in the 2008 elections. Do the same for the two Senators from your state urging them to prepare for impeachment trials in the Senate, starting with Bush and Cheney.

    We salute the scores of City Councils across the country which have passed Impeachment Resolutions. We must enlist their support in organizing impeachment activities.

    We must organize campaigns to persuade every City Council which hasn’t to pass an Impeachment resolution and carry on.

    Focus on political and other leaders in your area and persuade as many as possible to speak out for impeachment and sign on ImpeachBush.org. Where appropriate, urge elected state, or local officials, political leaders, or qualified leaders to run for office in 2008 against members of Congress who oppose impeachment.

    Let every candidate for the Presidency, wherever they appear, know that the people on whom their nomination and election depends want an end to the Bush Administration, its wars, aggressions, threats, coercions, torture, militarism, actions to dominate foreign governments and exploit their peoples, its favoritism for the rich and neglect of the poor and its false and criminal methods and means to have its way.

    This is our responsibility. We must meet it.

    Only this way can we do our part. Only if we do our part might the rest of the world again believe, as it usually has, and has always wanted to do, that the American people are their friends, it is their government that is the problem. Only then can we say we did our best knowing we will have to persevere and do better in the future. By meeting this responsibility now we will be better skilled and prepared for the never ending struggle for peace, freedom, the equal dignity of all and the health and well being of the planet, its people and all living things.

    We must also remember that if we prevail this time, it will be only a beginning toward principled self government and preparation for addressing the many crises that confront humanity.

    We can’t do it without your help. Please make an urgently needed donation today by clicking this link.

    Sincerely,

    Ramsey Clark

  2. illa morales

    SPEAKING OF MEDIA GETTING THINGS INCORRECT…

    Daily Howler writer Bob Somerby (among others) describes the media’s relentless fascination with (Democrats’) haircuts and (Democrats’) earth tones and (Democrats’) necklines as a focus on “trivia.” As in, the cost of one of John Edwards’ haircuts is perhaps interesting to some, but quite insignificant — it is the answer to a trivia question, not something that should be considered the defining element of the man.

    But over and over and over again, media treat these trivial matters — what songs are on Hillary Clinton’s iPod? What color shirt is Al Gore wearing? How much was John Edwards’ haircut? What is Barack Obama’s middle name? — as deeply significant revelations about the candidates’ character. We’ve tried — over and over and over again — to explain the problems with this form of campaign journalism. And we’ll likely do so — over and over and over again — in the future.

    But this week, we’re struck by something else: How frequently reporters are wrong not only about the importance of these trivial matters, but about the trivia itself. They aren’t Ken Jennings, racking up win after win on Jeopardy. They’re more like Cliff Clavin, spouting off in the bar about a “little known fact” that is completely false.

    For example: A July 22 New York Times article about candidates’ clothing warned that candidates “risk becoming Al Gore in earth tones, in other words, to cite a famously lampooned misstep the former presidential candidate undertook on the advice of Naomi Wolf, then his image consultant.” That was probably an inevitable line; media just love to snark about Wolf picking Gore’s clothes out for him. This is classic trivia — it couldn’t possibly matter less that Al Gore wore a brown pair of pants, or that he did so on the advice of an image consultant. Indeed, since the media constantly tell us that candidates’ appearances matter — the July 22 Times article is but one of many examples — they arguably should have considered Gore a savvy pol for seeking professional sartorial advice.

    Oh, I almost forgot one little detail: Naomi Wolf didn’t tell Al Gore to wear earth tones, and she wasn’t an “image consultant,” as the Times acknowledged in a correction on July 29.

    Why it took the Times a full week to correct a claim that anybody who cares has known is false for the better part of a decade is anybody’s guess. But perhaps we should just be grateful the correction eventually came. When Times columnist Maureen Dowd made the same bogus claims during the 2000 presidential campaign, her falsehoods went uncorrected. Take, for example, her November 3, 1999, column that declared “Time magazine revealed that Al Gore hired Ms. Wolf, who has written extensively on women and sexual power, as a $15,000-a-month consultant to help him with everything from his shift to earth tones to his efforts to break with Bill Clinton.” Wrong and wrong again — Wolf didn’t have anything to do with “earth tones,” as the Times now acknowledges, and Time magazine didn’t reveal that she did. Dowd was playing trivial pursuit — but she kept getting the answers wrong.

    Now, another presidential campaign brings still more media insistence that trivial observations about candidates’ clothing are somehow deeply revealing matters of great importance. After The Washington Post ran an article about Hillary Clinton purportedly showing some cleavage during a statement on the floor of the Senate, journalists rushed to defend the paper from predictable (and well-deserved) derision.

    CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood, for example, defended the article by suggesting that Clinton’s cleavage was the result of “the calculation that goes into everything that Hillary Clinton does.” Shortly thereafter, he decided he needed to defend himself, and explained his comments by invoking — you guessed it — Al Gore’s earth tones.

    Washington Post reporter Amy Argetsinger took to MSNBC to defend her paper’s article. In doing so, she claimed the article was “very complimentary” toward Clinton and that it was “not critical of the cleavage display.” In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, the article described Clinton’s appearance as “unnerving,” adding “it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!”

    Argetsinger went on to make a more telling false statement. Describing the article’s genesis, Argetsinger said that the writer, Robin Givhan, “took note of the fact that Hillary Clinton was showing a bit of cleavage because she had been watching Hillary Clinton over the years and had noticed that she had never shown cleavage.” Givhan’s piece also indicated the cleavage display was a new development — it was headlined “Hillary Clinton’s Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory,” and made much of how “surprising” it was to see “coming from Clinton.”

    The notion that this — utterly trivial — display of a little cleavage is a new and out-of-character development for Clinton is presumably the basis for the obsession many journalists have with the topic — and for Harwood’s insistence that it is the result of political calculation. It is also false. More than a year ago, for example, the National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez noted, “Senator Clinton’s blazer is a bit lowcut today” and predicted a Washington Post Style section article about the topic. She even posted a screen-capture of Clinton on the Senate floor, showing just as much (which is to say, very little) cleavage as that which inspired the current media obsession with Clinton’s “calculated” neckline.

    More Clinton trivia appeared in The Washington Post’s coverage of the most recent Democratic presidential debate, during which Clinton said that she and her husband sent their daughter Chelsea to private school upon arriving in Washington because the Clintons had been advised that if Chelsea went to public school, “the press would never leave her alone.”

    The Post’s Peter Baker wrote up Clinton’s comments under the headline “CHELSEA’S SCHOOLING Blame the Media? Once It Wasn’t So.” Baker’s three-paragraph report was full of snarky observations: Beginning “Ah, it was the media’s fault,” the report went on “Funny thing — that’s not what the Clintons said in January 1993 when they announced the decision. … Nothing about reporters — who, by the way, aren’t exactly allowed to waltz into public schools any more than they are private schools. And who over eight years pretty much left Chelsea alone, regardless of school.”

    Now, the Clintons’ reasons for sending Chelsea to private school are basically trivia. Neither the Clintons nor any other progressive I know of thinks private schools should be banned, so there isn’t any hypocrisy at play here (though, of course, you can’t expect reporters to understand that.) But whatever substantive merit there may be to exploring the Clinton’s reasons, the question of what the Clintons said in January 1993 is purely trivia. Regardless of what they said when, it’s hard to imagine that anybody really doubts that concern for Chelsea’s privacy was a factor in the decision. That was perfectly clear to observers at the time – a January 1993 Newsweek report, for example, noted “Chelsea’s privacy could be one factor” in the decision.

    But Baker focused on the trivia of what the Clintons announced in January, 1993 — according to Baker, a White House spokesman said “They chose Sidwell Friends because it’s a good school.” His Post colleague John Solomon declared it an “insightful catch of Sen. Clinton changing her story. … Hillary Clinton may have had privacy in mind back in 1993 when she and her husband made the choice for Chelsea, but they didn’t tell us that then, so noting it now is useful.”

    Well, no, it isn’t particularly useful, or insightful. And it’s also false to say that the Clinton’s “didn’t tell us” about privacy concerns “back in 1993.” It’s trivia, and it’s wrong. In May 1993, the Associated Press reported:

    Sending his daughter to a pricey private school gave her a chance to “be a normal kid,” President Clinton said today. He insisted that the decision was not a rejection of public schools.

    “My daughter is not a public figure. She does not want to be a public figure. She does not like getting a lot of publicity, and frankly she has more privacy and more control over her destiny where she is than she would if she were at public school,” Clinton said in a two-hour “Town Meeting” broadcast on CBS.

    “Back in 1993,” President Clinton told a national television audience that concern for Chelsea Clinton’s privacy — her dislike of “publicity” — was a factor in the decision to send her to Sidwell Friends. This is little more than trivia — but it is trivia Baker and Solomon get wrong.

    The defining characteristics of the 2000 presidential campaign were the media’s focus on trivia over weighty matters — Al Gore’s purported fib about dog medicine received far more scrutiny than George W. Bush’s lies about taxes and Social Security — and its tendency to get even the trivia wrong. Al Gore didn’t claim to have invented the Internet, he didn’t claim to have discovered Love Canal, he didn’t wear earth tones at Naomi Wolf’s insistence.

    If we’re going have another presidential campaign dominated by media focus on this kind of trivia — and, for the love of all that is good, let’s not — reporters should at least make an effort to get the answers right.

    Then again, if they had the facts right about these things, there wouldn’t be any reason to talk about them.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: