by Deb Cupples | CNN reports:
"I will go to the United Nations and will invite Obama to negotiations," Ahmadinejad said, adding that such talks would be "in front of the international media, not a sit-down behind closed doors in order to talk about matters."
"The Obama administration has sought dialogue with Iran but also criticized the government for its handling of unrest after disputed presidential elections.
"Last week, Obama said Iran's government must justify itself not in the eyes of the United States, but in the opinion of its own people."
I have no opinion on Iran's recent election, having been thousands of miles away when it occurred. But given the irregularities during Elections 2000 and 2004, are U.S. officials the best folks to criticize other people's elections? CNN continues:
"A sizable percentage of the Iranian people themselves ... consider this election illegitimate," he said at a White House news conference. "It is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and prosperity."
"Initially, Obama was criticized by Republicans such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina for taking a "timid and passive" tone in speaking out against the growing wave of arrests, violence and deaths of pro-democracy activists.
"Ahmadinejad said he wants others to stop 'meddling' in the internal affairs of Iran."
See the rest of CNN's story here.
These days, I have such trouble feeling well informed about the goings on in my own nation -- let alone other nations. Seriously.
It wasn't that long ago that Bush Administration officials persuaded our nation to support the Iraq invasion based on false "facts." Despite a duty to thoroughly question such things, most national-level, U.S. media either led the cheers or silently refused to question Bush officials' highly questionable statements (until after the invasion occurred and irreversible damage was done).
Yes, we have a new president, a new administration, and seemingly more aggressive and scrutinizing media. Unfortunately, the new administration seems to hit the ground engaging in serious double-talk.
Back in January 2009, for example, President-elect Obama said this to ABC News:
"'We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. And obviously we're going to be looking at past practices and I don't believe that anybody is above the law.' Obama said. 'But my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation's going to be to move forward.'" (ABC)
Obviously, the blue and red statements seem to conflict: either the Obama Administration had planned to hold past lawbreakers accountable or not. Which is it?
Then there's the Telecom Amnesty issue: a law that retroactively immunized from lawsuits those telecom companies that helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on ordinary Americans (yes, retroactively immunizing telecoms is like retroactively immunizing bank robbers).
Back in late 2007, then-candidate Obama publicly said that he would stand by Sen. Chris Dodd's filibustering of the FISA bill that included Telecom Amnesty. He was too busy on the campaign trail to actually show up and vote against cloture.
The double talk only got better over time. Fast forward to June 2008: the day that then-candidate Barack Obama publicly expressed support for the FISA House bill that included Telecom Amnesty. on July 9, 2008, then-Sen. Obama actually voted for passage of the FISA bill that included Telecom Amnesty provisions.
Making matters worse for those who truly want to be informed about issues of national importance, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann constructed a rickety, implausible defense of the-candidate Obama's flip-flop on Telecom Amnesty. Note that, only six months earlier, Mr. Olberman had passionately opposed Telecom Amnesty, denouncing it as a fascistic tactic.
Yet another example: in March of 2009, the Obama Administration made headlines for proposing sweeping reforms -- including executive pay caps -- targeting the folks running our nation's financial institutions ( into the ground, in many cases).
Fast forward to June 2009, when the Obama Administration decided to drop the salary caps and instead hire a "pay czar" who would instead enforce rules regarding bonus caps. How effective is that likely to be -- given that if only bonuses are limited, execs need only raise their salaries?
Incidentally, the executive-pay issue should concern all Americans who have a 401-k or stock portfolio -- because salaries, bonuses, and perks are the usual means for executives to loot the shareholders' money pot.
I could go on with tangential examples, but I'll get back to my point: double-talk and flip-flopping on our politicians' part -- coupled with general media failure to point out such things -- has left me feeling very uninformed about what's actually going on in our nation.
That said, how can I -- or any American, for that matter -- feel well informed about what's really going on in other nations?
Memeorandum has commentary.
Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:
* Floridians: Please Support Fair Redistricting
* Reforms Proposed re: Executive Pay and Corporate Accountability
* Real Bonuses Based on Fake Profits
* Execs Made Millions While Driving Companies into Ditch
* Health Care Reforms Not as Costly as First Thought
More & more people know that blog are good for every one where we get lots of information any topics !!!
Posted by: Increase Penis Size | July 05, 2009 at 02:39 PM