From then uintil now the deal is the same. US polciy makers facing the "aganizing problem" of how to reconcile a formal commitment to democracy and freedom with the overriding fact that "the US may often need to do terrible things to get what it wanted"

The "US" being dominate wealth's policy makers.

<< MediaReform do you know any versions of history that Chomsky didn't explain? You can't even say how World War 2 started without getting your filters on first. You don't know how the US enetered WW2 without researching it? Come on.
>>

Is this really too complicated for you?
the question was not how the US entered WWII. The question was when did the US policy makers decided that Hitler had threatened US interests.
the context is that it wasn't the minute that Germany declared war on us. are you following this at all?
the point is what wrongs business elites are willing to commite in the name of profit. we are talking about how US policiy makers supported Hitler and specifically how they saw Hitler's fascsim as a way to penetrate economically Europe and to undermine much feared labor movements and the left.
"The rise of facism in the interwar period elicited concern, but was generally regarded reather favorably by the US and British governments, the busines world, and a good deal of elite opinion.

Hitler was chosen as the representative of the moderates who promised "social order, anti-Bolshevik laws, and protection for foreign capital," Schmitz observes. The American chargé d'affaires in Berlin wrote Washington in 1933 that the hope for Germany lay in "the more moderate section of the [Nazi] party, headed by Hitler himself...which appeal[s] to all civilized and reasonable people," and seems to have "the upper hand" over the violent fringe. In 1937, the State Department saw Fascism as compatible with U.S. economic interests. A report of the European Division explained its rise as the natural reaction of "the rich and middle classes, in self-defense" when the "dissatisfied masses, with the example of the Russian revolution before them, swing to the Left." Fascism therefore "must succeed or the masses, this time reinforced by the disillusioned middle classes, will again turn to the left." Not until European Fascism attacked U.S. interests directly did it become an avowed enemy.

and that includeds Italian fascism. State Department roving Ambassador Norman Davis praised the successes of Italy in remarks before the Council on Foreign Relations in 1933, speaking after the Italian ambassador had drawn applause from his distinguished audience for his description of how Italy had put its “own house in order . . . A class war was put down.” 

George Keenan wrote in April 1941 that German leaders have no wish to see other people suffer and that they are "most anxious that their new subjects should be happy in their care".

This is about what rich and powerful men are willing to do for profit. Engand was even more supportive of Hitler becasue of industrail, commercial and financial reasons and "a policy of self-preservation for the British establishment".

people screaming liberal are ignorant. I noticed that many people LIKE the idea that the media is "liberal" and by that they mean politiaclly and in relation to US policies. YET I don't think these people have ever made the efort to check their assumtions. The LA times is often given as an example. yet here is another reality check:

Yahoo! News - L.A. Times Bans 'Resistance Fighters' in Iraq News
L.A. Times Bans 'Resistance Fighters' in Iraq News
Wed Nov 5, 9:20 PM ET
Add Entertainment - Reuters Industry to My Yahoo!

By Dan Whitcomb

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Los Angeles Times has ordered its reporters to stop describing anti-American forces in Iraq (news - web sites) as "resistance fighters," saying the term romanticizes them and evokes World War II-era heroism.

The ban was issued by Melissa McCoy, a Times assistant managing editor, who told the staff in an e-mail circulated on Monday night that the phrase conveyed unintended meaning and asked them to instead use the terms "insurgents" or "guerrillas."

McCoy told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday that the memo followed a discussion among top editors at the paper and was not sparked by reader complaints. The memo first surfaced on the Web site L.A. Observed (www.laobserved.com)

"(Times Managing Editor) Dean Baquet and I both individually had the same reaction when we saw the term used in the newspaper," McCoy said. "Both of us felt the phrase evoked a certain feeling, that there was a certain romanticism or heroism to the resistance."

McCoy said she considered "resistance fighters" an accurate description of Iraqis battling American troops, but it also evoked World War II -- specifically the French Resistance or Jews who fought against Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto.

"Really, it was something that just stopped us when we saw it, and it was really about the way most Americans have come to view the words," McCoy said.

McCoy said she was confident that the Times reporters who used the term had no intention of romanticizing the Iraqis who have killed more than 100 U.S. soldiers since Washington declared major combat over in May, and that the paper's Baghdad bureau had no objection to the policy change.

NOT COOL OR NEUTRAL

The policy change reflects the highly politicized atmosphere surrounding the war in Iraq, which has brought charges of biased reporting from all sides of the political spectrum.

McCoy said she did not know how many readers had made complaints about the use of the term.

"We are loath to proscribe the use of just about any word," she said. "But sometimes certain combinations of words send an unintended signal. You combine these two seemingly innocuous words and suddenly they have this unintended meaning."

Allan Siegal, assistant managing editor of the New York Times, told Reuters that he agreed with the decision made by his West Coast rivals.

"We don't have a policy but when you mentioned the phrase it sounded like romanticizing to me," Siegal said. "I don't think it's the kind of cool, neutral language we like to see."

But David Hoffman, foreign editor of the Washington Post, said his paper had used the phrase "resistance fighters" to describe Iraqi forces and had no objection to the term.

"They are resisting an American occupation so it's not inaccurate," Hoffman said. "We try to be as precise as possible and distinguish whether they are former Baath party, Fedayeen, outsiders, insiders. But that's not always possible."

According to a search of the Lexis-Nexis database, The Los Angeles Times has employed the term "resistance fighters" dozens of times in the past six months, including three references on Monday.

On Tuesday, the day after McCoy issued her memo, the paper used it in an editorial, which criticized the Bush administration for a lack of humility and candor over Iraq.

Al-qeada's motive remains the same and they are still carrying out attacks.
Bush lied about why we were attacked. Bush lied about 9/11 terrorists' motives. For those that can't get it into their heads: al-qeada's motives are not that the "hate freedom". Are we supposed to believe that al-qeada attacked Saudi Arabia because they "hate freedom"? The latest al-qeada attacks, are a continuation of attacks that included attacks within Saudi Arabia before 9/11. The lie that Bush told has been exposed by the actual words of Mohammed Atta and Osama bin Laden. Objection to specific foreign policies has been listed by the FBI as the motives for 9/11. The latest attacks against Saudi Arabia are just more evidence of the fact that is specific polices and political objectives that are the motives for al-qeada's attacks. Bush lied to America in order to serve special interests that don't want the specific foreign polices to be changed. We don't owe Bush or these special interest a damn thing. For God sakes, Bush lied to the nation about why we were attacked. I know there are many people who condemn Presidents for lying. Can there be anything lower than lying to the nation about why we are in harm's way?

Seems that people come on here desperately trying to defend the foreign policies and actions of the US. Seems they are ignorant of what agendas the US foreign policy makers serve. And it also seems that these people swallow every lie fed to them by our government.

Now the thing that gets me is fine someone may be wrong BUT when it is pointed out and proven you should have the integrity to admit it.

Here is just the latest example:

Someone here can't get it into their head that the "no fly zones" were illegal. At some point they quote a spokesman for the US Central Command who claims that UN Resolution 949 (15 Oct 1994) reinforced the legality of these no fly zones and that it bared Iraq from moving SAMs into the southern no-fly zone. http://www.dawn.com/2001/01/30/int1.htm

This person asks me "Why would the UN pass this resolution if the No Fly Zones were not condoned by them?"

OK fine, this person believes the spokesman YET the point is when I point out that UN Resolution 949 (15 Oct 1994) DOESN'T reinforce the "legality" of the no fly zones, that the resolution makes no mention of the no fly zones that the spokesman plainly lied - the person asking me disappears.

point after point is proven to these people and then they run away (and presumable continue repeating the same lies somewhere else)

It is one thing to have a wrong idea BUT is something else entirely to continue these dishonest tactics. When it is PROVEN to you that what you thought is indeed wrong, have the integrity to admit it will you please?

We need to stop generalizations like "the Saudis" do this or that.
Lets not start making excuses for another war of aggression al-qeada's goal is to overthrow the Saudi Kingdom. The Saudis are not attempting to aid al-qeda in attacking itself or its business partner the US. I would be very careful about this "go after the Saudis" talk. The involvement looks to be in the violent elements about the same as the US's involvement. So lets not distort things because I don't hear you saying lets "go after the Americans." In many respects this makes about as much sense. The Saudi Kingdom is intimately linked economically with the US and the Saudi Kingdom does not want to end the business relationship. The Saudi government does not have a reason to attack the US. The issues that bin Laden has are not an issues for the very fact that the Saudi kingdom decides to do the things bin Laden objects to. So bin Laden's complaint is that the US is backing the Saudi government. The American public has such a poor grasp of the issues that irresponsible talk like "going after the Saudis" is dangerous.
Just think a minute, bin Laden attacks the US because of the US support of Saudi Arabia in implementing polices of troops in Saudi Arabia. Also bin Laden doesn't think the kingdom is religious enough according to his tastes. If the Saudi government agreed with these bin Laden grievances then they simply would implement these polices. It is totally illogical to think that they would have to attack the main country that supports them in keeping their current polices. If they didn't want the polices they could end them. (talk as loose and vague as your is dangerous because the American public is dangerously ignorant. A freighting number of Americans don't even know why we were targeted by al-qeda. it is irrational and wrong to insinuate that the Saudi government has a goal of helping al-qeda attack the US) the issue of what individual people did what and what was happening in the interactions is something that has to be looked at fairly. I hear too many loose cannons like Michael Moore in effect giving excuses for more aggression with such a vague and unclear message. The US helped these fundamentalists too and at times with the Saudis and others. So lets not distort and selectively pick issues since that creates a false impression. What I see is talk like this as the early propaganda to lay the groundwork for more wars of imperialism.