Right-wing Freakout......

Just part of the Christmas season, anymore....like decorated trees, houses and such.

O Tannen-Mao? The right-wing's White House Christmas tree freak-out

http://mediamatters.org/items/200912230023

Taking a cue from Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, several conservative media outlets have reported on three ornaments on the White House Christmas tree depicting President Obama's face superimposed on Mount Rushmore, Mao Zedong, and Hedda Lettuce. Despite the suggestion that those three Christmas tree ornaments (out of hundreds) indicated a "political statement" by the White House, according to the first lady's office, the tree was decorated by community groups, and the White House was unaware of those specific ornaments.

Breitbart's BigGovernment.com posts WH Christmas tree "exlcusive"

BigGovernment.com: "Transvestites, Mao And Obama Ornaments Decorate White House Christmas Tree." In a December 22 BigGovernment.com entry, "Capitol Confidential" posted photos of the three ornaments, writing:

Why let a holiday season come between the White House and making some political statements? The White House pegged controversial designer Simon Doonan to oversee the Christmas decorations for the White House. Mr. Doonan, who is creative director of Barney's New York has often caused a stir with his design choices. Like his naughty yuletide window display of Margaret Thatcher as a dowdy dominatrix and Dan Quayle as a ventriloquist's dummy. For this year's White House, he didn't disappoint.

Fox News, conservative blogs pick up the story.......

Fox News' Special Report highlights "interesting ornaments." As documented by Media Matters for America's Jeremy Holden and Jeremy Schulman, the December 22 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier featured a "Political Grapevine" segment on the ornaments, during which Baier reported:

BAIER: They include the communist leader Mao; drag queen -- celebrity queen -- Hedda Lettuce, who boasts on her Web site about her ornament being featured in the White House; and Mount Rushmore with a familiar face [President Obama] added.

Washington Times blog: "Chairman Mao adorns White House Christmas tree..." A December 23 entry to The Washington Times' Water Cooler blog linked to and quoted a December 23 entry on David Horowitz's NewsReal blog attacking the White House for choosing "a lovely ornament featuring China's mass murderer, Chairman Mao, to adorn our national Christmas tree at the White House."

NewsReal: White House "denigrating our Christian traditions." The December 23 NewsReal blog post to which The Washington Times linked further asserted:

Considering Obama's hostility to Christianity, as shown by his celebration of every religion except Christianity, Americans shouldn't be surprised. After all, the first thing any successful dictator must do is banish God from the public square and make fealty to the state primary.

Undoubtedly, Obama and Michelle are just expressing themselves, as is their right. That they choose to do so by denigrating our Christian traditions in such a disrespectful fashion however, is akin to a dog peeing on a Bible. And that's just not very presidential.

Gateway Pundit: "What a complete shock. A real stunner." From a December 22 GatewayPundit.com post, linking to BigGovernment.com's "Exclusive":

Barack Obama's White House Christmas Tree this year includes mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung ornaments.
[...]
You've gotta hand it to the Obamas. At least they're consistent.
Maybe they have yuletide tapes by G-D AmeriKKKa Reverend Wright playing in the background?

Steyn: Ornaments are "the new Democrat Holy Trinity." Guest-hosting Rush Limbaugh's radio show on December 23, Mark Steyn cited BigGovernment.com's story and commented: "I don't know what this is, the new Democrat Holy Trinity. And lo, the angel Gabriel appeared to the drag queen and said, 'Thou shalt conceive a child from Chairman Mao, and his name shall be Barack, and the star -- and he shall shimmer like a star in the west, blotting out Teddy Roosevelt on Mount Rushmore.' "

BigGovernment.com's "exclusive" undermined by facts, common sense

White House: Tree was decorated by community groups. As Media Matters noted, Baier, in his Fox News report highlighting the ornaments, undermined BigGovernment.com's reporting by noting that the "first lady's office says local community groups were asked to decorate hundreds of ornaments but that they are unaware of these specific decorations."

Conservative blogger: "most likely explanation" that "they really didn't know what was on the ornaments." In a December 22 entry, HotAir.com blogger "Allahpundit" dismissed BigGovernment.com's "exclusive" as nonsensical, writing:

Laying aside the fact that spotting a right-wing dictator on ornaments in the Bush White House would have had Media Matters stumbling towards its fainting couch, isn't the most likely explanation here that they really didn't know what was on the ornaments? Why court PR trouble with a deliberate provocation via something this trivial?

Contact: Bret Baier	http://twitter.com/specialreport
Contact: The Washington Times	Washington Times Washington Times 3600 New York Ave NE Washington, DC 20002-1947 (202) 636-3000 http://twitter.com/washtimes
Contact: Special Report with Bret Baier	http://twitter.com/specialreport
Contact: Fox News Channel	FOX News Channel 1-888-369-4762 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 http://twitter.com/foxnews
Contact: Mark Steyn	E-mail: mailbox@steynonline.com

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

A Crying Shame!

In my 61 years on this planet, I never imagined that I would come anywhere near agreeing with an article such as this. I doubt I would have finished the article before I discounted it as anti-Semitic drivel, until recently.

 I hate to say it. It makes me sick to my stomach to write these words, but the events of the last 8 years, on top of all the policies and behavior I have managed to ignore in the so-called holy land and surrounding areas as well as at home for the last 40 or so years, have caused me to question everything. I guess it took something like 9/11 to jar me out of habitual thinking drummed into me as a child.

I was raised under the cloud of the, then, recent horror of the Nazi crimes against humanity. My mother, in particular, was extremely impressed by the criminal cruelty to the Jewish people. By impressed, I mean it caused her to be very protective of the Jewish people. She would not countenance “Jew jokes” nor anything else she considered anti-Jewish. I grew up to be like her in that way. A friend of mine once said that she always thought of me when something “god-awful” happened in the place called Palestine by some and Israel by others. (”I know you’ll be looking for a Jew to protect.” LOL!)

I have, at times, been very outspoken in my defense of Jewish people everywhere.

Mother warned me often that I should never think that “it” can’t happen here. Of course, she was talking about the wholesale persecution, even unto death, of any hated minority. (I never knew if she had read C.S. Lewis or had merely come up with the warning on her own. ) It didn’t take much to convince me. I grew up in the deep south. I never doubted that “it” could happen.

Now, I must be equally outspoken in questioning my country’s knee jerk defense of Israel as if it is somehow exceptional in the same way that the Neocons see the U.S. as exceptional; entitled to do any damn thing they want to in the name of something I no longer understand as I once thought I did.

I have one Jewish friend where I live now. (Of course, I still I have others across the country in the many places where I have lived in the past.) Several years ago she said that she might move to Israel where she could feel safe. My jaw hit the floor. This woman is a highly educated professional. I stammered, asking her to listen to what she was saying. “You can’t possibly think that Israel is a safe place to be!”

Sometimes I cannot help but think that some of our fellow citizens are not always rational about the issue of Israel and Jewish Neocons are not alone in their crusade to defend Israel, no matter what it takes or who gets hurt in the process, even when Israeli policies are responsible for the misery, suffering and death of an untold number of Palestinians.

What’s worse, Neocons in both Israel and the U.S. have allied themselves with christian fundamentalist (end-timers, rapture Christians, Dominionists and others of the far-right religious fringe). In my mind, this is an unholy alliance if there ever was one. “Cynical” is the word that comes to mind and cynicism is a state of mind that should be avoided at all costs; it shows a pathological disintegration in the nation of Israel and in her supporters in the U.S..

The ghettos in which the Palestinians live are reminiscent of other ghettos filled with Europe’s Jewish population before and during the terror that was Nazi Germany.

Allow me to make clear that I am aghast at terrorist atrocities by Hamas or any other group or nation, no matter at whom it is directed. Nevertheless, the U.S. has lost all credibility as an honest broker of peace and, of course, social and economic justice that must accompany a lasting peace in a land made unholy by the blood of innocents and the theft of the land itself.

Who are the innocents? The people from all three Abrahamic traditions who can envision true peace, even in this historically war-torn area of the world; those yet too young to hate others simply because it is “tradition” to do so and those who refuse to live a hateful life.

The Allied powers of WWII made a mistake when they took land away from people who had lived in the land known as Palestine for as long as anyone can remember and by giving that land to Eastern and Western European Jews, among others.

What’s done is done in the modern land of Palestine/Israel. I doubt we can ever undo it, at least not in my lifetime. Nevertheless, it is time to find the best of the religious teachings of the three traditions to which this land is of such apparently great importance and apply those teachings to the conflict which has, in may ways, consumed the world for the last 60 some odd years, if not since the beginning of recorded history.

In doing so, we must not ignore the deeply corrupting effects of corporatism, sometimes quite obvious and at other times hidden just beneath the excuse of religion.

And by “we,” I mean the concerned people of the world; those who are sick and tired of the carnage over a city named peace.

Kristol Clear: The Source of America’s Wars

by Maidhc Ó Cathail / December 18th, 2009

One reason neocons have been able to sow so much mischief is that they feed into deeply embedded American beliefs about democratism and ‘chosenness.’
– Paul Gottfried¹

Americans feeling let down by Barack Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan should take careful note of those who welcomed yet another “surge.”² It might help them to identify the source of their seemingly endless wars.


For instance, in a recent Washington Post opinion piece, William Kristol described Obama’s West Point speech as “encouraging.” It was “a good thing,” he said, that Obama was finally speaking as “a war president.”³

 
But if the comments on the Post website are anything to go by, few ordinary Americans take Kristol’s
armchair warmongering seriously anymore. After all, as one poster quizzically asked, “A column by William Kristol the neocon that was wrong about everything from 2000-2008?”



Although Kristol, like the rest of the neocons, “erred” about Iraq’s WMDs and Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda and 9/11, it would be a fatal error indeed to dismiss him as a fool.

In order to understand what motivates Bill Kristol’s professed hyper-patriotism, with its consistently disastrous prescriptions, it’s worth recalling how his father, Irving Kristol, reacted to Vietnam War critic Senator George McGovern. The presidential contender’s proposed cut in U.S. military expenditure would, according to the “godfather” of neoconservatism, “drive a knife in the heart of Israel.”

“Jews don’t like big military budgets,” the elder Kristol explained in a Jewish publication in 1973. “But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States … American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.”⁴

American Greatness

Following his father’s advice, William Kristol has been a fervent supporter of massive U.S. military spending. In 1996, he co-authored with Robert Kagan an influential neocon manifesto titled “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy.” It recommended that “America should pursue a vision of benevolent hegemony as bold as Reagan’s in the 1980s and wield its authority unabashedly.


“The defense budget should be increased dramatically, citizens should be educated to appreciate the military’s vital work abroad, and moral clarity should direct a foreign policy that puts the heat on dictators and
 authoritarian regimes.”


In response, another influential opinion-maker, Charles Krauthammer, hailed Kristol and Kagan as “the main proponents of what you might call the American greatness school.” It is hardly a coincidence, however, that all three advocates of “American greatness” care passionately about what Irving Kristol euphemistically referred to as “the survival of the state of Israel.” Or that many of those “dictators and authoritarian regimes” just happened to stand in the way of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.


The following year, Kristol and Kagan co-founded the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a pressure group which sought to advance their “neo-Reaganite” vision. In the late 1990s, they did this mainly by writing letters to Bill Clinton, urging him to oust Saddam Hussein.


In September 2000, PNAC published “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” in which they famously acknowledged that “the process of transformation … is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”


One year later, they got their wished for “new Pearl Harbor” on September 11. The mass murder of almost 3,000 Americans was, as Benjamin Netanyahu indelicately put it, “very good” for Israel.⁵


Kristol’s War


Immediately, Kristol’s Weekly Standard began linking Iraq to the attacks. Writing in The American Conservative, Scott McConnell explained the strategy: “Their rhetoric – which laid down a line from which the magazine would not waver over the next 18 months – was to link Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in virtually every paragraph, to join them at the hip in the minds of readers.”⁶


The “Saddam must go” campaign, begun in a Kristol and Kagan editorial as far back as 1997, became so relentless that Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen dubbed it “Kristol’s War.”⁷
The Iraq War has, of course, also been called “Wolfowitz’s War.” But it could just as aptly have been named after Perle, Feith, Libby, Zelikow, Lieberman, or any of the other pro-Israeli insiders who took America to war by way of deception.⁸


In “Irving Kristol, RIP,” Antiwar.com editor Justin Raimondo described Kristol’s legacy as “war, war, and yet more war, as far as the eye can see.”⁹


Unless Americans soon realize that they’ve been deceived by those for whom “American greatness” is merely a means to advance “the survival of the state of Israel,” that legacy promises to be an enduring one.

1.  Paul Gottfried, “The Transparent Cabal,” Taki’s Magazine, September 17, 2008. [↩]
2. Frederick W. Kagan, “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq,” AEI Online, January 5, 2007. [↩]
3. William Kristol, “A War President,” Washington Post, December 1, 2009. [↩]
4. Philip Weiss, “30 Years Ago, Neocons Were More Candid About Their Israel-Centered Views,” Mondoweiss, May 23, 2007. [↩]
5. James Bennet, “Spilled Blood Is Seen as Bond That Draws 2 Nations Closer,” New York Times, September 12, 2001. [↩]
6. Scott McConnell, “The Weekly Standard’s War,” American Conservative, November 21, 2005. [↩]
7. Richard H. Curtiss, “Rupert Murdoch and William Kristol: Using the Press to Advance Israel’s Interests,” Washington Report, June 2003. [↩]
8. Jeff Gates, Guilt By Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War, 2008. [↩]
9. Justin Raimondo, “Irving Kristol, RIP,” Antiwar.com, September 21, 2009. [↩]

Maidhc Ó Cathail is a freelance writer. His work has been published by Al Jazeera Magazine, Antiwar.com, Dissident Voice, Khaleej Times, Palestine Chronicle and many other publications. Read other articles by Maidhc.

This article was posted on Friday, December 18th, 2009 at 9:00am and is filed under General, Israel/Palestine.



IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Old Dick The Vice Calls Obama A Traitor

Saw Matthews' head damned near explode about this last night. Discussing the topic were Ron Reagan and Ron Christie. Reagan almost took Christie's head off when he alluded to Ron's father and torture in the same breath. Good on you, Ron Jr! 


In case the name doesn't ring a bell (or cause nausea), Christie is a very odd-looking, strange-thinking man who regularly shows up regularly on Cable Opinion TeeVee to defend "all-things-Cheney." I imagine he would defend murder if Cheney had a hand in it. Actually, I think he may have defended murder, since the torture policy which was and is defended, ad nauseum, by Cheney has, in fact, killed several people. 


By saying that Obama was giving aid and comfort to "the enemy" by allowing the current DOJ to prosecute KSM in New York, Cheney is clearly accusing Obama of treason. According to the constitution, which barely defines treason, aiding and abetting is treasonous.  


 http://www.newshounds.us/2009/12/09/dick_cheney_on_hannity_sudden_respect_for_the_constitution.php


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Cheney slams Obama for projecting 'weakness'

Damn! Ain't this rich coming from Mr. Deferment, himself? What really did have untold consequences is the BuCheney administration's decision to let Osama go, cut and run like hell for Iraq where Rummy thought their were more buildings to blow up, or some such stupidness. Of course everyone knows that it was all about O.I.L......Oil, Israel and Logistics. (For the NeoCon wet dream of re-ordering the middle east....again.)  When I say oil, I do not mean cheap oil. Surely we all understand that by now. Certainly not with two oilmen in the White House will the objective ever be cheap oil. By: Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei  December 1, 2009 12:22 AM EST

MCLEAN, Va. — On the eve of the unveiling of the nation’s new Afghanistan policy, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Barack Obama for projecting “weakness” to adversaries and warned that more workaday Afghans will side with the Taliban if they think the United States is heading for the exits. In a 90-minute interview at his suburban Washington house, Cheney said the president’s “agonizing” about Afghanistan strategy “has consequences for your forces in the field.” “I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p’ political reasons, where he’s trying to balance off different competing groups in society,” Cheney said. “Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they’ve been asked to do?” Obama administration officials have complained ever since taking office that they face a series of unpalatable — if not impossible — national security decisions in Afghanistan and Pakistan because of the Bush administration’s unwavering insistence on focusing on Iraq. But Cheney rejected any suggestion that Obama had to decide on a new strategy for Afghanistan because the one employed by the previous administration failed. Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. “I basically don’t,” he replied without elaborating. Obama will announce a troop buildup in Afghanistan in a speech Tuesday at West Point, and he’s expected to send at least 30,000 more U.S. troops to the country. The White House also has said that Obama will outline a general time frame for the United States to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan. But Cheney said the average Afghan citizen “sees talk about exit strategies and how soon we can get out, instead of talk about how we win. “Those folks ... begin to look for ways to accommodate their enemies,” Cheney said. “They’re worried the United States isn’t going to be there much longer and the bad guys are.” During the interview, Cheney laced his concerns with a broader critique of Obama’s foreign and national security policy, saying Obama’s nuanced and at times cerebral approach projects “weakness” and that the president is looking “far more radical than I expected.” “Here’s a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing,” Cheney said. “I think our adversaries — especially when that’s preceded by a deep bow ... — see that as a sign of weakness.” Specifically, Cheney said the Justice Department decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, in New York City is “great” for Al Qaeda. “One of their top people will be given the opportunity — courtesy of the United States government and the Obama administration — to have a platform from which they can espouse this hateful ideology that they adhere to,” he said. “I think it’s likely to give encouragement — aid and comfort — to the enemy.” The former vice president is splitting his time among his houses in Virginia, in Wyoming and on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, with a place at each for working on his memoir, to be published in the spring of 2011. His eldest daughter, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Liz Cheney, is collaborating on the writing and overseeing research. During the campaign, Cheney recalled, he saw Obama as “sort of a mainline, traditional Democrat — liberal, from the liberal wing of the party.” But Cheney said he is increasingly persuaded by the notion that Obama “doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism — the idea that the United States is a special nation, that we are the greatest, freest nation mankind has ever known.” “When I see the way he operates, I am increasingly convinced that he’s not as committed to or as wedded to that concept as most of the presidents I’ve known, Republican or Democrat,” he said. “I am worried. And I find as I get out around the country, a lot of other people are worried, too.” Cheney said his worries extend to Obama’s domestic agenda: “He obviously has a very robust agenda of change — health care system, cap and trade, redistribution of wealth. I rarely hear him talk about the private sector.” Cheney charged that Obama’s plans for Afghanistan are based on political calculations by “a guy who campaigned from one end of the country to the other, saying Afghanistan was the good war ... so that he could come across as somebody who’s not against all wars.” “Now, things have changed. Iraq’s going significantly better because of the decisions we made in the Bush administration — the surge and so forth,” the former vice president added. “And he’s having to deal, sort of up close and personal, with the Afghanistan situation. And it’s tough — it’s hard. ... Sometimes I have the feeling that they’re just figuring that out.” Looking ahead to 2012, Cheney said the likely midterm congressional losses for Democrats next year “point in the direction of a very competitive situation in 2012 — a very respectable shot for the Republicans of taking back the presidency.” “There’s a lot of churning and a lot of ferment out there in the party today, and that’s basically a healthy thing,” he said. “Our adversaries — our Democratic adversaries — like to be able to portray the Republican Party as a bunch of wingnuts — narrow based, always have some agenda that’s not attractive to the public. ... That’s easier for them, and more fun, than dealing with their own problems. And I think their problems are significant.” Cheney said “it’s far too soon to be handicapping” his party’s presidential nominee. “We’ve got a lot of folks, I’m sure, who will want to pursue it. I haven’t committed and don’t expect to anytime soon,” he said. “I think we’ve got a lot of interesting people in the Republican Party.” Cheney at first declined to make any comment about Sarah Palin, but finally said: “I like her, personally. ... She’s charming, engaging. She’s got as much right to be out there as anybody else. Will she be a candidate at some point? How would she do as a candidate? Those are all questions that only time will tell.” And what does he think about the movement to draft him to seek the top job himself? Cheney says he sees no such scenario. “Why would I want to do that?” he replied. “It’s been a hell of a tour. I’ve loved it. I have no aspirations for further office.” Join the debate on this story in The Arena.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.



"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Senate report: Bin Laden was 'within our grasp'

By CALVIN WOODWARD
The Associated Press
Saturday, November 28, 2009 11:33 PM



WASHINGTON -- Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.

The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.
Staff members for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democratic majority prepared the report at the request of the chairman, Sen. John Kerry, as President Barack Obama prepares to boost U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate has long argued the Bush administration missed a chance to get the al-Qaida leader and top deputies when they were holed up in the forbidding mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan only three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Although limited to a review of military operations eight years old, the report could also be read as a cautionary note for those resisting an increased troop presence there now.

More pointedly, it seeks to affix a measure of blame for the state of the war today on military leaders under former president George W. Bush, specifically Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary and his top military commander, Tommy Franks.

"Removing the al-Qaida leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat," the report says. "But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide. The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism."

The report states categorically that bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora when the U.S. had the means to mount a rapid assault with several thousand troops at least. It says that a review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants "removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora."

On or about Dec. 16, 2001, bin Laden and bodyguards "walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area," where he is still believed to be based, the report says.
Instead of a massive attack, fewer than 100 U.S. commandos, working with Afghan militias, tried to capitalize on air strikes and track down their prey.

"The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines," the report said.

At the time, Rumsfeld expressed concern that a large U.S. troop presence might fuel a backlash and he and some others said the evidence was not conclusive about bin Laden's location.

He Lied, he lied and don't be letting W and Vice off the hook so easily, either. It almost caused me whiplash, the speed with which we changed enemies from Osama bin Laden, whom we are told attacked us on our own soil, to Saddam Hussein who could not have caused an traffic accident in Manhattan.
---
On the Net:
The report:http://foreign.senate.gov/





IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Bush Intentionally Lost bin Laden

I've been saying this for a very long time, for many of the same reasons. Iraq was certainly one of the reasons, but it can't have been the only one. Read the PNAC Document. Certainly, it had been a Neocon wet-dream for decades to re-order the middle east to better suit U.S. interests, as they saw them. 


One must also factor in the Bush family ties to the bin Laden family; financial ties that go way back. W, himself, was bailed out, financially, by Salim bin Laden, Osama's eldest brother. 


It would be very difficult to create another boogie man quite like Osama; super-wealthy, religious fanatic and madman who declared war on the U.S. for purposes of scaring the American people apparently witless.

By: Andy Barr  November 30, 2009 07:29 PM EST

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) on Monday accused former President George W. Bush of “intentionally” letting Osama bin Laden escape during the American invasion of Afghanistan.  “Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away,” Hinchey said during an interview on MSNBC. “That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that if they would capture al Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq,” the Democratic congressman continued. “There’s no question that the leader of the military operations of the U.S. called back our military, called them back from going after the head of al Qaeda.” When host David Shuster followed up to ask if Hinchey really thought Bush “deliberately let Osama bin Laden get away,” the congressman responded: “Yes, I do.”  “I don’t think it will strike a lot of people as crazy. I think it’ll strike a lot of people as being very accurate,” Hinchey said. “All you have to do is look at the exact circumstances and see that’s exactly what happened.”  “When our military went in there, we could have captured [the Taliban],” he insisted. “But we didn’t. And we didn’t because of the need felt by the previous administration, and the previous head of the military, that need to attack Iraq.”

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

What Happened to American Intelligentsia?

This article by Sirota is ever so right on.  

It seems that in this particular moment in our history, the last thing we want is a president, any president, to do is act without considered contemplation of all the facts he can attain when it comes to decisions about war;  deployment and possible deaths of troops and the spending of treasure we don't even have.

We have been in Afghanistan, as far as the public is concerned, for 8 years. During that time, no one in the Bush White House seemed to be able to articulate a policy at all. We all assumed that the policy was to capture or kill as many Al Qaeda members as possible and pour out tons of wrath on their protectors, the Taliban. Can't be so sure now, because when they had the chance to capture the guy who had declared war on the U.S. at least a year before, Osama bin Laden, central command called our troops off. Yes, that is what it amounted to to pull U.S. troops out of the hunt.   

 Intelligentsia Against Intelligence

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/intelligentsia_against_intelligence_20091119/

Posted on Nov 20, 2009

By David Sirota

In the parlance of our times, the term idiocracy means a nation run by idiots—and the term idiot is defined by the dictionary as “an utterly foolish or senseless person” who exhibits “a mental age of less than three years old.”

There are obvious reasons to believe America is becoming an idiocracy—a series of horrendous government and business decisions strongly suggests that we’ve seen the ascension of utterly foolish, senseless people, many with the mental age of infants (yes, W., I’m looking at you). And if there remained any flicker of hope that we aren’t turning into a full-on slobbering idiocracy, that hope was snuffed out last week by two of the Washington intelligentsia’s most respected voices.

First came a now-famous column about Afghanistan by The Washington Post’s David Broder. The “dean” of the press corps attacked President Barack Obama not for choosing any particular policy, but for simply taking time to meticulously consider his options in the Central Asian quagmire. “The urgent necessity,” Broder asserted, “is to make a decision—whether or not it is right.”

This was followed by Jackson Diehl, the Post’s foreign policy “expert.” He wrote that the White House’s assiduous Afghanistan deliberations are not a sign of reassuring prudence after the bring-it-on Bush years, but instead a “compelling cause for unease about this president.” Diehl’s rationale for such an incendiary statement? He alleged (without proof, of course) that “there is unanimity in the Pentagon and considerable agreement in Congress and among the NATO allies” that a military escalation has to happen—and therefore Obama “knows [the pro-escalation] course he must take” but “can’t bring himself to embrace it.”

Let’s set aside the nauseating spectacle of two well-heeled journalists, comfortably protected far away from the front lines, demanding a president immediately send thousands of soldiers to their potential deaths without regard for blood-and-guts consequences. Let’s just, if we can, put that grotesque immorality in a corner and pretend it’s not important—and let’s go to the deeper, even more disturbing message.

As leading opinion makers, Broder and Diehl are paid to carefully ponder issues and then offer their considered thoughts. That’s not part of what they’re supposed to do—it’s what they are singularly employed to do. It’s how they earn their living and credibility—indeed, it’s their entire raison d’etre. And yet, these leading lights of the intelligentsia are overtly preaching anti-intelligence, insisting the president must avoid taking time to think through his actions.

This isn’t interpretation—it’s what these Beltway sages are literally saying. Broder is explicitly demanding Obama make a knee-jerk decision—any decision—even if it has catastrophic consequences. Likewise, Diehl is calling for Obama to immediately risk thousands of American lives simply because that’s what Diehl believes the Establishment wants.

Let’s be clear—these are just two of many similar examples. Today, screeds calling for leaders to prioritize lightning-fast decisions over measured deliberations are increasingly commonplace in the Washington intelligentsia, even after an Iraq debacle brought on by the same ideological know-nothingism.

The trend is deeply disturbing. It’s one thing for talk-show-host wannabe Sarah Palin or carnival-barking provocateur Glenn Beck to glamorize willful ignorance—that’s been the narcissistic act of celebrity court jesters since the dawn of history. But it’s an entirely different thing when hostility to intelligence and to the basic process of thinking itself emanates from the very professional thinkers who lead the nation’s intelligentsia.

When that happens—when the supposed guardians of political cognition and empiricism begin publicly flaying leaders for taking time to fully evaluate potential decisions—it’s a sign our country is becoming the ignorance-deifying idiocracy we should all fear.

David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books “Hostile Takeover” and “The Uprising.” He hosts the morning show on AM 760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com. 

© 2009 Creators.com
U.S. Marine Corps / Sgt. Mark Fayloga
Members of a rifle detail perform a 21-gun salute during a memorial service.


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

My Head May Well Explode!

Which Temple, Robert? These people are all worshipers of the Golden calf and always have been. Where your heart is, there will be your treasure. Wall Streeters are heathens. Treat them as such.

Throw The Money-Changers Out of The Temple

Posted on Nov 19, 2009
Wall Street profits are an obscene affront to Scripture, as Robert Scheer details in an interview with Amy Goodman on “Democracy Now!”
Democracy Now!:

Partial rush transcript from Democracy Now!:

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to the latest on the economy. A pair of new government reports released this week paint a startling picture of where the country is, more than a year after the economic meltdown. On Tuesday, the New York Comptroller’s Office said Wall Street profits are set to exceed the record set three years ago. The four largest firms—Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase—took in $22.5 billion in profits through September. The top six banks set aside $112 billion for salaries and bonuses over the same period. In a recent interview, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, defended the bank’s massive profits, saying Goldman is, quote, “doing God’s work."


Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture has revealed that far more people are going hungry in the United States than previously the ought. The Department estimates 50 million Americans, including a quarter of all children, struggled to get enough to eat last year. The number of children who live in households in which food at times was scarce last year stands at 17 million, an increase of four million children in just a year. 


Our next guest has been closely following the impact and causes of the economic meltdown. Robert Scheer, editor at Truthdig.com, author of many books, including The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America. His latest column is called “Where Is the Community Organizer We Elected?” He joins me here in Burbank, California. 


Welcome to Democracy Now!, Robert Scheer. OK, just talk about these figures, from hunger to Goldman Sachs. 


ROBERT SCHEER: Well, first of all, I mean, the whole thing about the profit of Wall Street that makes it particularly obscene is that we gave them that money. Your previous guest talked about how China is carrying $800 billion of our debt. We’re running up a $1.4 trillion deficit. And what happened was, we threw a lot of money at Wall Street. In particular, in relation to Goldman, we had this buyout of AIG, $180 billion. We’ve guaranteed the toxic assets of these enterprises. And that money, in a really truly shameful way, was passed on directly to the very companies that you mentioned that are giving themselves profits. So there’s something—yes, I’ll use the word “obscene.” 


It’s also interesting that he should say he’s “doing God’s work,” Blankfein, the head of Goldman Sachs. And my goodness, if Scripture is clear on anything, it’s condemnation of those who take advantage of the poor. 

You know, after all, Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple. Scripture is devastating in its condemnation of usury, the immorality of usury. And yet, in your promo, you mentioned Chris Dodd is trying to get a bill passed that would cap interest rates. You know, where is the Christian right? Where are the Christians? Where are the Jews, for that matter? Or the Muslims? At least the Muslims, in their religious practice, don’t believe in interest as a principle, but the idea that we’re jacking up credit cards to 30, 35—this is loan sharking. And we can’t even get a bill passed through Congress that would cap interest payments. 


The other thing is, their rationalization is they’re somehow saving the economy. It’s the old blackmail thing. 
They ruined the economy; they got the legislation, the radical deregulation they wanted, that permitted them to become too big to fail—Citigroup and these companies; and then they turn around and say, “If you don’t throw all this money at us, the economy is going to go into the Great Depression.” But they haven’t solved the main problems. Mortgage foreclosures this month are higher than they’ve been in ten months. We have the commercial housing market exploding, you know, apartment building rentals exploding, going into mortgages. And so, you know, they are not dealing with the fundamentals. What has happened is an incredibly expensive band-aid was put on this. And these people don’t even have—they’re not even embarrassed. 


And the reason I wrote that column is they’ve also captured the President. And, you know, I voted for this president. I even contributed money that I didn’t have to his campaign. You know, I still feel great that he’s the President. You know, I’m biased. I like the guy, you know. I like everything about him.


AMY GOODMAN: Yet you ask, where’s the community-organizer-in-chief?


ROBERT SCHEER: I am appalled. This is not a minor criticism. I think the guy is betraying—betraying—his own presidency, the promise of his presidency, because he has taken these thieves—and I use the word advisedly. You know, I think people like Lawrence Summers, who pay themselves—you know, maybe he’s not legally a thief, but, you know, a guy who pays himself, or gets paid from hedge funds and other people, $15 million in ’08, while he’s advising Obama about the economy. And he’s the guy who, more than anyone else, when he was Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration, pushed through the radical deregulation that allowed these businesses to get in all this trouble and refused to regulate derivatives and all that sort of thing. And then these guys are made the head of the—what? They’re going to save us now? 
 

Continue reading

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Thankful Progressives

With some of my reasons for thankfulness added in dark red....

THANKSGIVING

27 Reasons To Give Thanks

We're thankful President Obama is thinking long and hard about committing more troops and money to Afghanistan.

(and I will whole-heartedly support a huge increase in troops under the following conditions: 1) There is a policy regarding our involvement in Afghanistan and what victory would look like; how does Obama and his war team define it. Part of that policy had better say whether or not we have (or ever had, for that matter) a policy to capture or kill the people whom, we are told, are responsible for the worst attacks on American soil since the war of 1812 and I'm not talking about KSM. OBL and the crazy Egyptian corn-ball who speaks for him these days. The policy must also include an exit strategy and a time-line created in conjunction with our allies. The attacks on 9/11/01 affected the whole world, not just Americans. However, what we would beg Obama not to do is to commit just enough troops to keep the war going so the Goopers won't call him a wimp but not enough to accomplish the only goals ever articulated to the American people and "our" Congress; to get the guys who conspired to hit us on 9/11, the elimination of Al Qaeda, world wide.)

We're thankful President Bush feels liberated now.


(I'm not so sure I feel that way. Heaven only knows what kind of nightmarish crimes the next administration will feel comfortable committing since nothing happened to Bush or to Cheney or to any of their brother trolls and murderers! Trust me, the failure to bring to justice the war criminals who committed crimes against the constitution and, therefore, against the people of the U.S., will lead to an even worse nightmare for many more of us in the not too distant future.)

We're (not) thankful Dick Cheney has elected to move from his undisclosed location to the media spotlight.
 

I find that having Old Dick out of his hidey hole is a good thing. He is a constant reminder to many of us old, moderate independents why we went screaming to the left of center early in the BuCheney administration. The man is terrifying on so many levels it just ain't funny, but here's what it all boils down to: Either Vice is still trying to scare the crap out of the American people for purely political reasons, if not personal financial reasons as well, or the old fool really believes the psychotic babble he keeps spewing and he really needs the rest of us to be scared witless with him. The latter is certainly understandable in a setting other than on TeeVee news where he is labeled the "former vice president of the U.S." So far as it goes, the label is correct, but if that's as far as it goes, then the label in incorrect. "Former vice president of the U.S., thank God," would be as correct as one could get.

Some knotheads in this country actually believe that God,  no matter what  it's called, should be thanked that Dick The-extremely-paranoid Cheney was our v.p. on 9/11.  I'm not here to argue that point one way or the other, though I fail to see how it mattered one way or the other since there is no official record of Cheney having done anything to prevent any of attacks that happened nor none that might have happened on that day.

I would, however, state my strong belief that having him as v.p from inauguration day, 2001 until he and George walked out of the Capital Building, free as birds, on inauguration day, 2009 is probably the most god-awful thing we've had inflicted on us as a people, a nation, since the civil war. 

Let Cheney speak!!! Please allow it to be obvious to all that Cheney is still wanting to have that fight again. No matter what they tell you, Kidos, the civil war in the late 1800s was about slavery. The current civil war is as well. What's changed is the ease with which one can be identified as a slave. It was easy telling black people from white people back in the day.

Not so much anymore, as slaves come in all colors. In these days, un-free people come in all colors and exist across several socioeconomic levels. What's worse is that corporate America has learned ways to enslave the peoples' money. Take, for example. all of the retirement "schemes" which have left soon-to-be-retirees looking at working for as  far into the future as the eye can see and people who were retired on a modest income having to try to return to the work force. All we need now is for the slaves with their "slave/ very insecure" money to wake the hell up to their own identity. Then, I will be thankful.

We're thankful Al Franken has gone from playing self-help guru Stuart Smalley on Saturday Night Live to helping rape victims receive justice from their employers.

(Damn time someone did!!)

We're thankful for the healing power of beer.


(And wine and coffee in Amsterdam.)

We're thankful there are some on the right who think Glenn Beck is "incoherent," "mindless," "erratic," "bizarre," and "harmful to the conservative movement."


(Not enough people, unfortunately. We are playing seriously loose and free with our sanity, these days. I would be thankful if more Americans demanded that all news media be more honest and do their damn jobs for a change.)

We're thankful for long hikes on the Appalachian Trail.




(Not me. I will never think of the Appalachian trail again that I won't have to also think about that goofy governor and his goofy affair. )

We're thankful Michael Steele understands that he can't "do policy" and that no one has any reason to trust his "words or actions."



(Hey, what up with dat? Steele has yet to figure our that he is just another GOP lawn jockie. A man I actually did admire, Colin Powell, found out the hard way.)

We're (not) thankful for "birthers," "deathers," "tenthers," or "tea baggers."

(Yep, I am of two minds on the a fore mentioned nutcases. TeeVee news seems to want us to believe that these people are having a positive affect, in that more independents are moving to the right. I would disagree with that. Those people make me want to move to Cuba. Not really. Exaggeration for effect. )

We're (not) thankful conservatives believe they love America so much that they can root for our President to fail and for our nation to lose out on hosting the Olympics.


These people have proven that they are not Americans but Rethugs.

We're thankful NFL players refused to "bend over and grab the ankles" for Rush Limbaugh.

Me to!

We're thankful six companies have resigned from the Chamber of Commerce due to its denial of climate change science.

(Me to, but only six? Geese!)

We're thankful Falcon "Balloon boy" Heene wasn't actually in the balloon.

(I wish the entire family and all the anchors who breathlessly reported the story for hours had been in the balloon. We have become Rome.)

We're thankful Lt. Dan Choi and Lt. Col Victor Fehrenbach bravely spoke out against Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

(Me too. Hope it matters.)

We're thankful Shep Smith doesn't always drink the Fox News kool-aid.
  
Me too. Can't watch him because I don't watch Fox anymore. Haven't since December 2001. I did tune in for the Beck experience just to see what all the fuss was about. Scared me so bad I have almost given up TeeVee altogether or watch SyFy. Sy Fy can't top the on-going saga of a man who has, for some reason, been given a big old microphone in the form of his own TeeVee show while he has a mental meltdown on live bers of people who tune in to watch this?TeeVee. We have become Rome! Look at the numbers of people who tune in to watch this? 

We're thankful more than 80 companies refused to lend their sponsorship to Glenn Beck's hateful rants.

(Damn, only 80? Who the hell supports this guy? They must be punished in the only way they understand. $$$$$$)

We're thankful there are progressive organizations in D.C. lobbying for a two-state solution in the Middle East.


(They might want to think about a two state solution for us. )

We're (not) thankful for the filibuster.

(But we will be when we are in the minority again. In the meanwhile, I want the entire debate televised live so the less informed among us can see what a filibuster is and how much we are paying for our senators to read the phone book. )

We're thankful that more than 20,000 of you stood up to Bill O'Reilly's harassment machine and called for impeachment hearings against torture advocate Jay Bybee.

Me Too!!!

We're thankful that Iran's authoritarian rulers live in fear of their own population.


Me Too. Just wish the authoritarians over here were as afraid as the ones in Iran.When the government actually fears the public, Democracy is arriving.

We're thankful we'll no longer have to listen to nativist rhetoric on CNN and global warming skepticism on ABC News.


Didn't listen to it to begin with?.

We're (not) thankful for bailed out CEOs who think they're doing "God's work" by doling out billions in bonuses.


(Me either. Actually, I won't be thankful until said CEOs are working their butts off for minimum wage, living in a run down trailer park, with no healthcare.)

We're thankful for the legacy of the Liberal Lion.


ME TOO. Still sad at his passing.

We're thankful Bill O'Reilly won't be following us home for Thanksgiving.
 
He had better not be anywhere aroud me. I consider him armed and dangeorus.


We're thankful a "wise Latina" sits on the Supreme Court.

I'll reserve judgement. I want to watch her for a few sessions before I say I.m grateful for that.

We're thankful our boss helped rescue imprisoned American journalists in North Korea.


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Stewert Rips Faux Noise A New One

 But never fear, all will be forgotten in the next 5 minutes because they all apologized and everything will get back to normal, forthwith. We all know what "normal" means at Fox.

As much as we all might value BuzzFlash, a picture, or in this case a videotape, is worth a thousand words.

BuzzFlash has launched "a get America to Turn Off FOX" campaign -- and other online sites have gathered tens of thousands of names opposed to FOX. And several sites, including Media Matters, have regularly documented FOX's deceitful and dishonest coverage.

But, as we all know,  it takes Jon Stewart, with his visual images proving his case, to really erode FOX's credibility and undercut the influence of the FOX brand, which we all know is unfair and unbalanced but for some reason the corporate mainstream media defends.  In fact, the MSM scurried to FOX's defense when the White House correctly noted that the very same corporate "journalists" in D.C. and NY often take their cues from phony FOX coverage.

So, it was with hearfelt thanks that we saw Stewart bring FOX to their knees, actually forcing them to admit that they had used footage from a spring Teabagger rally to make Michele Bachmann's latest freak show gathering in D.C. appear much, much larger than it was.

What allows Stewart to be so devastating to FOX is that he assembles clips that would be damning in court, as they are in the court of public opinion. And these are reports aired on FOX, so how can they accuse their own reporting of being manipulative, incendiary and false?

So it was that after Stewart aired the kind of old Soviet Union style FOX propaganda "news" clip to pump up Bachmann and the Teabaggers, Hannity was forced into the rarest of FOX admissions: Stewart was right -- he had caught them in the act that they so often commit and rolled the tape to prove it.

According to a late November 11th New York Times Internet story, Hannity confessed on Wednesday night to “an inadvertent mistake":

On his show on the Fox News Channel Wednesday night, Sean Hannity admitted to using scenes from a different rally to illustrate a report on a health care protest last week....

Wednesday night Mr. Hannity admitted that “we screwed up” in using the “incorrect video.” He called it “an inadvertent mistake.”

Mr. Hannity did not address specifically how the mistake came to be made but he said somewhat ruefully: “It pains me to say: Jon Stewart was right.”

The cumulative, well-documented charges of FOX's manipulation and creation of partisan stories -- even promoting, sponsoring, and covering Teabagger events as if FOX were one and the same with the barbarians at the gates -- has started to take a toll on the FOX brand.

I've never seen them this defensive before. Even right wing media baron Rupert Murdoch found himself condoning Glenn Beck calling President Obama a racist, while denying that anyone on FOX News compared Obama to Stalin, which they are documented as doing. That ended up with a Murdoch spokesperson forced to "clarify" that Murdoch really didn't say what he said. Got it?

American corporations depend on what is called "brand identity." FOX has -- by being ubiquitous, using flashy television techology and graphics, and reinforcing a warped world view to a small segment of the American population -- has managed to get the mainstream media to regard it as a legitimate news channel.

Time will tell, but it appears the cumulative exposures of the fraud that is FOX News are starting to impact the "brand identity" of "fair and balanced." And if it loses its luster of credibility among corporate news networks, its influence will be considerably diminished.

And while others have laid the groundwork (don't forget to join the BuzzFlash "Get America to Turn Off FOX Brigade") Jon Stewart has the most impact because he airs the video proof, and some 70% of Americans get their news from television.

Jon Stewart, as Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News notes, is doing the investigating and exposing that the corporate media should be doing. And you have to add that Stewart has growing stature as a debunker of media charlatans -- and the mainstream media watches him.

FOX will no doubt be hiring Lou Dobbs, now departing CNN for a more compatible venue.

If that's the case, Dobbs may be the right wing nut job tonnage that tips FOX "News" irreversibly into a tarnished "brand name," with its credibility sinking ever lower.

Whatever happens with Dobbs, the growing defensiveness and tarnishing of FOX will be in no small part due to the visual -- and witty -- evidence aired by Jon Stewart -- backed by an army of Internet researchers and campaigns.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Technorati Tags: EditorBlog Jon Stewart FOX Murdoch Hannity

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......