Friday, May 16, 2008

Keith Olbermann...

Takes the words right out of my mouth.

I just had to share this with all of you.

Big thanks to my friend Zach for sharing this with me.

Please take 12 min out of your day and watch this
great commentary by someone in the media who
still has the courage to speak the truth.

Part One:

And Part Two

How can people still support him?
Its amazing how fear and ignorance can control so many people.
Good luck everybody. I really hope you watch these.



Anonymous said...

wow. RAW. this is REAL AND RAW.
intense. incredible.

and thank you for sharing this. for being courageous and in your integrity. beautiful.


Lulu (Mila)

Anonymous said...

Wow Anthony...that was intense. I am not sure how I feel about it because there was so much negativity being projected I had to cut it short. Focusing so much anger to one person does not seem right to me. Pres. Bush is one part of a largely corrupt political system. "Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot cole with the intent of throwing it at someone else, you are the one that gets burned". -Sidharta Gautama (Buddha)
I like when you focus on the good...let's attract more of that, what we are GREATFULL for!! :)

Cassie in Cali

Anthony said...

Cassie...I know what you mean about the negativity...but lets not be all "sunshine and rainbows" while the world falls apart. Its good to still be knowledgeable about some thing...despite how negative they are.

I know Bush is just a puppet of the overall system that means to poison and control us...I think Olbermann knows this, but he still directs most of his speech towards Bush himself.

I believe that Bush has little control over what goes on. He is just the "religious cowboy" used to attract the masses and gain support.

Lots of positive stuff to come, I promise. But lets be realistic.


Anonymous said...

I totally hear ya and don't want to see the world through foggy, rose colored glasses. I just felt this particular mode of communicating a message ( on Olberman's part, not yours) was maybe not the best. Just my humble opinion, as I love your site and the message and information you are giving to the world. :) All the best.


Aaron said...

Well said Tony....we can be positive all we want but the truth is there are innocent people in other parts of the world that are literally dying and the US has a hand in it. JMO.....I will put myself in their shoes so I DO NOT forget about the truth. If we dont speak of it and talk about it it doesnt mean it isnt happening. Bush has more control in things then you think. He had the power to make 1 huge mistake that has had dyer consequences...literally.

Charles said...

Everything he's saying about Bush is true, of course, but what bothers me about Olbermann is that he singles out the Republicans without ever targeting the Democrats, as if they're completely innocent with respect to the war. Quiz time: whom do you think said the following?

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Are you thinking it was George W. Bush? How about Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld? No, try President Bill Clinton back in 1998.

Here are a few more quotes from prominent "liberals":

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

Sorry for the long posting, but it just aggravates me no end when people point fingers at Republicans while the Democrats get off scott free. Bush could not have gone to war without the approval of Congress. The war continues because Congress continues to fund it, essentially handing Bush a blank check to do whatever he wants. This includes Barack Obama, who said at the one of the debates (when asked if troops will be removed in four year's time if he's president): "I think it's hard to project four years from now."

I used to be a big fan of Olbermann's, but I lost a lot of respect for him when he didn't criticize his own network for uninviting Dennis Kucinich (one of the few progressives who was running for president) to its debate. But if a blowhard like Bill O'Reilly sneezes, Olbermann will refer to him as the worst person in the world.

There are a lot of people who think things would have been different if Al Gore had won the presidency, but based on his quote that I listed above, I think it's unlikely. America would probably still be in Iraq.

I leave you with a quote from one of my favorite authors, Mickey Z:

"It will be a giant step toward change when more people realize that our two-party (sic) system is like an airplane. It has a right wing and a left wing... but only one pilot.

The pilot, and this is crucial, is not any individual or political party. The "pilot" is institutional. Call it "corporate America" if you like, but we're talking about an entrenched global financial system unburdened by national borders or allegiances. Bush may be the public face of this predatory paradigm, but he is as interchangeable as any corporate CEO.

When the board of a massive transnational corporation meets to plot ways to maximize profit, it's not a conspiracy. Multiply that times thousands and you have the "power elite." They don't need secret societies... just enough people with a vested interest in maintaining the economic status quo."

Thanks for reading, man, and thanks for bringing a political consciousness to this forum. Love and light as always. Vote Nader '08.

Natasha said...

Hi Anthony, thanks for sharing. I completely agree with you. Keith was brave enough to speak the truth and I pray that people will open their eyes and make choices for the highest good of this country come November.

Anonymous said...

whoa Charles - this is way overboard. Actions speak louder than words. You're missing the entire point of these great video clips. Making a 3 sentence statement about wmd's and making the decision to go to war are 2 very different things. Yes, it takes Congress' vote to go to war, but at that time, congress was Republican dominated.

I feel sick to my stomach when someone says "vote Nader '08." You may as well just vote for McCain and another 5 years of war. I think it's foolish and irresponsible to vote for someone who very clearly has zero chance of winning, regardless of whether or not you believe in his politics. If Ralph Nader had any concern for the future of this country, he would put his ego aside, and not run. This has turned into a game for him. Really, this is something a naive, young college student would do who is voting for the first time, because he/she thinks it's cool.'s not.

You're basing what you think Al Gore would have been like as president based on 2 sentences????????????????? Really?


Charles said...

Anna, all I'll say is this:

1) Dems have had control of Congress since 2006. The war has continued unabated. In fact, we've had a surge during that time.

2) The idea that Ralph Nader has an ego implies that everyone else running for President does not. They all have egos, every single one of them. Hillary Clinton has almost no chance of winning the nomination. Why hasn't she dropped out yet?

3) Saying Nader has no shot of winning is playing right into the corporate machine's hands. Nader's name will be on the ballot. Will it be hidden off to the side somewhere? Perhaps printed on the ceiling? No, it will be right there, in black and white, next to the other candidates. There's no reason he can't win if we spread the message of who he is and what he represents. It's no different than telling people about the raw food diet and the evils of GM, highly processed food. We can make a difference if enough people become educated about his platform. We have more people who vote for American Idol contestants than vote in national elections. There are a lot of disenfranchised people out we can reach.

4) Again, neither Clinton nor Obama have pledged to pull the troops out of Iraq. I invite you to read this page regarding their stance on their Iraq withdrawal plans.

Maybe things would have been different under Al Gore. Who knows? But let's take his stance on the environment, which garnered him a Nobel prize. Under the Clinton/Gore watch, we saw the following things happen: the passage of the salvage logging rider, the signing of the Panama Declaration, the continuation of the use of methyl bromide, the weakening of the Endangered Species Act, the lowering of grazing fees on land, the subsidizing of Florida's sugar industry, the weakening of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the reversing of the ban on the production and importation of PCBs, and the allowance of the export of Alaskan oil.

I'm not voting for Nader to be anti-establishment. I'm voting for him because I sincerely believe in his stance on the issues:

If you would like to engage with me further about this, my email address is

Anonymous said...

I love your blog! You are an inspiration to me as I begin my raw journey. It's so uplifting to stop by your site...

Thank you also for sharing this video. I wish we (the collective "we" including the media) all had been this angry 6 years ago when we invaded a country that did nothing to us - killed many hundreds of thousands of innocent people - all so that defense contractor/oil friends of Bush could get rich (just my opinion!).

I generally focus on the positive only. However, there is value to anger - it causes us to become clear on what it is we really want. Just as being very unhealthy can motivate us towards a raw food lifestyle. Contrast can provide the inspiration to what it is we TRULY want and who we truly want to be.

I want peace in the world. Keith Olbermann - God Bless him - is nothing near the anger/horror that any one (just like us) would feel living in a situation of being bombed/killed. We are all ONE - when someone is unjustly killed we SHOULD be angry. And when a president is cavelier and sees the world as good/evil - instead of the holy, connected place it really is... well that seems like one thing worth getting angry about!

Again - love your blog - you are an inspiration!!

Alexandra said...

Even though General Electric owns MSNBC this is still great -THANK YOU!

Anonymous said...

Just to add one point to the "GE owns MSNBC" discussion:

This is from the Washington Post 5/19/08:

"Under growing criticism from the public and its own shareholders, GE announced in 2005 that it would accept no new business in Iran and would wind down existing contracts, which mostly involved sales of oil, gas and energy and health-care equipment. The remaining work, valued at less than $50 million, amounts to less than .01 percent of GE's income, and the company says the final four contracts will expire within weeks."

Anonymous said...

Hey Charles,

I don't have much else to say.... I'm not into political bantering as much as it may seem. All I know, and I think we can both agree, is that this country needs some serious change.


Anonymous said...

I don't know if this matters at all to anyone and I don't blame people for having to have a job to pay the bills. But talk of corrupt polititians is getting a little old. There are execs in Halleburtan, Raytheon, SAIC just to name a few weapons corps who devise ideas on how to sell more weapons in the world. They make money in war.
It blows my mind how people define reality. Yeah I can understand corrupt politics and deep pockets but I don't understand why someone would want to work for these companies. And please don't call me judgemental but some of these employees that I have observed act like zombies and automotons. Just go to Crystal City, Virginia and you'll know what I mean. Its all about the military industrial complex that drives a beautiful soul to paranioa not to mention to tears.