TheDailyBanter.com

Keith Olbermann DESTROYS Bush over Iran lies

By Ben Cohen

We're a big fan of Keith Olbermann here at 'The Daily Banter', as he is represents a breed of journalist rarely seen in the mainstream media. Here he is delivering another one of his fantastic 'Special Comments' on the Bush Administration's brazen lies over Iranian nuclear capabilities. Olbermann does not mince his words:

Bush continues to lie about Iran

By Ben Cohen

The Bush Administration was caught up in another hugely embarrassing scandal this week, when it was revealed by a U.S intelligence report that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Having been through months of escalating rhetoric (World War 3, a nuclear attack on Israel etc), the report poured cold water on the idea that Iran posed an 'imminent threat' to the U.S. The Bush Administration has been caught red handed given it knew about the report when it came out. Not to be dissuaded by the facts, Bush is doing his best to convince everyone that the report actually proves Iran is even more of a threat.   

From the New York Times:

President Bush warned today that Iran remained a threat despite an intelligence assessment that it had halted a covert program to develop nuclear weapons four years ago, as the administration struggled to salvage a diplomatic process now in disarray.

The future is in weapons, not the environment says Naomi Klein

By Ben Cohen

George Bush believes environmental problems can be fixed by the 'free market', as it will cater to changes in consumer demand. However, eclipsing the environmental market is a major emerging market in private security and disaster relief. With the corporate capitalist onslaught against government, private companies are taking over where the state is failing, offering the rich protection from fires, floods, crime and immigrants. This is where venture capitalists are directing much of their money at the expense of the pressing need for environmental technologies to curb global warming.

In her latest article in the Guardian Naomi Klein explains why when markets are left alone, real problems do not get solved. Check it out here.

Good Lord....

By Ben Cohen

Here is George Bush at his brilliant best, butchering the names of Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas at the 'peace' conference in Annapolis. Thankfully, Keith Olbermann is around to make the whole thing more enjoyable:

Democrats hammer Bush on his veto of children’s healthcare

By Ben Cohen

Today, George Bush vetoed an important bill that would provide health care for millions of poor children. If one needed proof that the President's priorities were completely out of sync with the needs of average Americans, this is it. Embarked on a course of self mutilation, the Republicans are removing themselves from the everyday reality of most of the population by their savage neglect of the poor. This is an issue that the Democrats can show their teeth on (as opposed to Iraq, where they have flailed around hopelessly), and they have stuck it to Bush mercilessly (especially Harry Reid, pictured right).

If tax payers can fund multiple foreign wars that yield absolutely nothing in return, spending a fraction of it on expanding poor children's health care should not seem to much to ask. But for the Neo Cons in power, those children do not translate into votes and are therefore an irrelevance. In 2002, Bush defined his political philosophy:

"I call my philosophy and approach compassionate conservatism. It is compassionate to actively help our fellow citizens in need. It is conservative to insist on responsibility and results. And with this hopeful approach, we will make a real difference in people's lives."

His latest veto is neither compassionate or responsible. It is down right horrible.

Full text.

Bush denies children health care

By Ben Cohen

For a president spending $2 billion a week on occupying a foreign country, it seems completely hypocritical that he would not pass a bill to fund health care for poor children at a far smaller cost. But for president Bush, this is part and parcel of 'compassionate conservatism'.

Government, as neo conservatives like to think, should essentially be eradicated when it comes to providing for its people. It's role is to serve the interests of corporate America, giving them huge tax subsidies and contracts to ensure they are kept happy.

The bill at hand is the Children's Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program that subsidising health coverage for low-income families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage.

The proposal would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax.

Apparently, this won't do for Bush, who called the move 'irresponsible'.

"Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point," he continued.

"Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage, not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage".....

This is of course, complete nonsense. In typical fashion, the facts are being distorted, and turned around to fit the ideology of the President. Just as the 'Clear skies' act meant more pollution in the atmosphere, any time the President says his policies helps people, it usually doesn't.

The bill, that many Republicans support, actually provides financial incentives for states to cover the uninsured first, and should extend coverage to millions of uninsured children (although really, it does not go far enough).

Given that most of those children slipped through the net under the Bush presidency, it is absolutely despicable for him to reject this bill, and claim he has the solution to fix the problem. More private insurance has had disastrous results for Americans, with 47 million people uninsured as of this year.

The argument for more private insurance has been lost. It's time for a change, and Bushes view on the subject is increasingly irrelevant.

Americans send Bush his report card. It’s not good.

By Ben Cohen


The six years of war, tax beaks for the rich, no rise in minimum wage, collapsing health care, and crumbling infrastructure has finally taken its toll on the American people. According to The American Research Group, Bush has now hit a record low in approval rating.

Stunningly, only 25% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing, while 71% disapprove.
Even worse for the Administration is the publics perception of their handling of the economy. A pathetic 23% of Americans think Bush has done a good job handling the economy while 73% disapprove.

Forget the multiple war crimes, torture, wire tapping and firings of federal prosecutors, shouldn't this man be impeached for sheer incompetence?

From Right to Left

By Peter Bauer

My change from conservative to liberal was not an abrupt instant of outrage, but rather a gradual conclusion. The more I started to really understand the world around me, the more I felt like I had been systematically ripped off by crooks who have been rigging our “democracy” since the Nixon Administration. 

Like many teenagers, I parroted the politics I heard at home, which in my case was a conservative Christian household. My parents came from a specific cultural subgroup that shaped the way they viewed the world, and therefore, the way they raised me. While they always taught me to respect people regardless of their race or creed, I was set on guard against any political candidate that supported gay rights or abortion (the two most stinging liberal platforms). This meant that we supported politicians who were seen as morally right, regardless of the fact that they waged war, discriminated against women, and served the benefit of the richest people in the country. The high school I went to was populated by the children of working class conservatives, so my political views were reinforced at school.

When I got to college, I began to question the world around me. Without my parents recycled rhetoric, I was forced to look at issues on my own and decide for myself. That spring, “Operation Iraqi Freedom” was launched and I was torn between my conservative upbringing, and the agitation I witnessed on campus. The president was a good guy, I assumed, and I believed that he was doing what was in our nation’s best interest. I was wrong.

As I continued my education, I took some political science and women’s study classes that really broadened my perspective of the world around me. In the spring of my sophomore year, I took a class that blew the doors off my conservatism. It was an African American studies class taught by an instructor who I felt was balanced and trustworthy. One day we watched a film called “The Best Democracy Money Can By” based on the book by investigatory journalist Greg Palast. This film single handedly changed my mind about the events surrounding the 2000 election, and I realized that our country had been hijacked. I could no longer trust the Republican Party because they were the perpetrators in what I believed to be the tampering of our most sacred institution: free elections.

The more I educated myself, the more I realized that these fear mongers would stop at nothing. They exploit hot-button “moral” issues for political gain. They overstep their constitutional separation of powers. They lied about the 2000 election, Saddam, WMD’s, and invasion. Their inability to speak the truth makes me seriously reconsider their account of 9/11. Who’s gained the most from that deplorable event? How many more civil liberties will I have to give up before I'm safe? How many more countries do we need to invade before we’ve defeated terrorism?

The events of the last seven years have totally eroded any faith I had in my government, specifically the Republican Party. I grew up believing that my leaders had my best interest in mind, and led with moral certainty. Now I realize that I live in a corrupt country that is trudging closer and closer to outright fascism. If there is a future for this country, it will come from citizens standing up for truth and justice. These two traits, for me, are no longer synonymous with conservatism.

                  

      

House Votes to Pull Troops Out

From the BBC:

US House votes for troop pullout

Some Republicans have broken ranks with the President on Iraq

The United States House of Representatives has voted in favour of pulling most combat troops out of Iraq by April next year.

The legislation calls for the Pentagon to begin withdrawing combat troops within four months.

The vote comes despite President George W Bush's threat to veto any timetable.

Correspondents say the House of Representatives, controlled by the Democrats, is hoping to pressure the Senate to approve a similar timeline.

It is the third time this year the House has voted to end US military involvement in Iraq.

Two previous efforts either failed in the Senate or were vetoed by President Bush.

Limited progress

The latest attempt would allow some US forces to stay in Iraq to train the Iraqi army and carry out counter-terrorism operations.

"It is time for the president to listen to the American people and do what is necessary to protect this nation," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat.

"That means admitting his Iraq policy has failed, working with the Democrats and Republicans in Congress on crafting a new way forward in Iraq and refocusing our collective efforts on defeating al-Qaeda."

Earlier, President Bush presented an interim report on the situation in Iraq which said there had been only limited military and political progress following his decision to reinforce US troop levels in the country.

But Mr Bush rejected calls for a withdrawal of US forces, saying it would be disastrous.

"The report makes clear that not even the White House can conclude there has been significant progress," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat. "We have already waited too long."

The BBC's Matt Lantos in Washington says the most eagerly-awaited reaction is yet to come - that of those wavering Republicans who could determine whether or not Congress will try and force the president's hand.