I answered your question, are you willing to even deal with the Nat Turner terrorism question? Did Turner's terrorism mean we could never admit it was about slavery because that would be "blaming America" and we could never end slavery because that would be "giving in to terrorism"?

"Their argument is that you can’t instill democracy in an unwilling country." You are hearing a VERY limited view, I am certainly not saying that. I am saying what the facts reflect, US policy makers don't intend on allowing true democracy in Iraq. 99% of Iraqis didn't think that the U.S invaded to estalish democracy, you should at least be aware of it. You mock the idea of misunderstandings but your notion about installing democracy is really at odds with the facts. Look at the recent actions of the US officials. After the war International law was again violated when US policy makers imposed business laws in Iraq. The US hand picked the leaders and when the new government leaders were selected they violated the agreed upon procedure involving the UN. The US has placed a CIA asset and murderous thug in the Prime Minister position. We have seen this before, look at the early history with the CIA and Saddam. The current leaders could have been selected by polling the Iraqi people as opposed to the US hand picking them. Did this occur to you? US policy makers don't respect democracy as you assume. Wolfowitz openly lamented that the Turkish military didn't use force against their own government to override the will of 95% of the Turks. Looking at these facts is not "self doubt", in your mind you have positioned certain men, like Wolfowitz, above criticism by acting like they are "America" as opposed to being individuals carrying out certain policies of America.

You can't simply reject everything someone says: "If their people do not wish to be harmed inside their very own countries, they should seek to elect governments that are truly representative of them and that can protect their interests." What are you going to argue, that we DON'T elect leaders that are truly representative of us just to spite bin Laden? "The self-doubt leads down so many roads to defeat and cyclical self-hatred that it does not even bear examining too deeply for fear of falling into that dark and bottomless well." This must be how Americans allowed slaver to continue generation after generation in their very midsts. Was it "anti-American" to be against slavery? You haven't responded to the points I have raised. You ignored the Hitler History Lesson

So do you get my question? It's not, "Why has it failed in the past?" It's, "Human weakness aside, is there anything genuinely wrong with it?" But I think that lack of personal incentive probably holds the answer...

It never really was put into practice. Capitalists push the myth that the Soviet Union was "socialism' or "communism" when the central principle of people holding the power of the state was not a reality. There were concentrations of power, it was run by an elite. If the power had actually rested in the hands of the common man then it would have been ideal.

As far as incentives, there is no reason that people can't be given extra awards for service above and beyond the norm. You raise the standard of living for everyone when a safety net is provided for people when private power fails to provide critical things. This is what current system apologists fail to realize, there is such thing as no jobs or poor paying jobs that simply do not fill the peoples' needs. Meanwhile (and this is what people miss also) the rich have these safety nets for themselves, YES government programs and policies that subsidize them and socialize their risks. The general public is not supposed to understand that public money is used by private power in contradiction to the philosophy they sell the general public.

And what is missed is that Capitalism actually failed decades ago. The Great Depression made it clear where it was headed. Now we have "State-Capitalism" in which massive government spending keeps the economy afloat and massively subsidizes private industry with money for R&D and purchases. It could be called socialism for the rich. The Military Industrial Complex is a massive part of this. In fact military spending is preferred since it hides the socialism from the average person who apparently doesn't put it all together. The fact is from the earliest days of America, spending of this sort kept the economy running. "Public subsidy to high tech industry is masked as "defense spending"". "The public pays the costs and the rich get the benefit--markets for the poor and plenty of state protection for the rich." http://archive.8m.net/chomsky.htm

Hey Bush Supporters, Stop Lying to the American People

Another Bush supporter pushes false informtion: "Good morning, it seems you are still a sleep. Lets talk shop for a minute. Clinton was re-elected in 1996 with 5.6% unemployment, Bush now has during his re-election 5.4%.

That is a lie, the Clinton rate was down to 5.4% at the end of his first term. You know guy, you must have very little respect for your fellow American. Either you are knowingly spreading lies or you are ignorantly spreading falsehoods.

Clinton was reelected in November 1996 with a 5.4% unemployment rate not a 5.6%. So your first point is an outright lie. But the main point is intentionally misleading. When Clinton came into office, the unemployment rate was 7.1%, by the end of his first term it was down to 5.4% and at the end of his second term it was down to 3.9%. When people use these Republican talking points they are deceiving their fellow American and that is a really shitty thing to do. Come on, do you guys believe in "integrity" and "honesty" or not?

This really is unfair to do to people, to ignore the decreasing rate during Clinton's terms and act like it is no different that an increasing rate under Bush is really dishonest. That is intentionally misleading people, tricking them to vote for something that is actually hurting their interests. At some point guys, isn't there a moment of truth where you realize it just isn't cool to trick your fellow citizen about these very important matters?

You throw out these dishonest Republican talking points. This really isn't fair. Those that plow ahead with this support for Bush, please take time to do your own research because the ugly fact is Republicans are lying to you. You may think you know the truth but you have been fooled by people like "Mr. Good Morning" mocking you about "seeming to be asleep." Show these guys that you are awake and you know the facts and you don't want to be lied to.

When Clinton came into office the unemployment rate was 7.1%, you play games when you quote the rate at the end of his first term (and on top of that lie about what the rate actually was!) You ignore that Clinton came into office with a rate of 7.1% and by the end of his first term it was down to 5.4% Is this the level of honesty of Republicans? You really should think why you need to LIE to get your guy back in office. Under Clinton the unemployment rate continued to decrease down to 3.9%.

Under Bush the unemployment rate has INCREASED and the trend is toward increase. During Clinton the trend was toward DECREASE. Look at the chart please. If you really care about America, stop lying to your fellow American. Help spread the facts. Email as many people as you can this link: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_representativepress_archive.html#109639509632022869

Al-Qaeda : The True Story of Radical Islam

Noam Chomsky gives this book a glowing review: "Essential Reading ...The most illuminating study I know ... gives remarkable insight into Islamic Militancy"

I have just started reading the book and it looks good. Here are two examples from the book: "Bin Laden and al-Qaeda are the radical, extremist fringe of the broad movement that is modern Islamic militancy. Their grievances are political but articulated in religious terms and with reference to a religious worldview. The movement is rooted in social, economic and political contingencies." pp xxv-xxvi Jason Burke makes this point about bin Laden, " ... his agenda is a basically political one, though it is couched, of course, in religious language and imagery" Al-Qaeda : The True Story of Radical Islam by Jason Burke

Burke is correct and I have pointed this out for years. In fact my comparison to Nat Turner relates to the "religious language and imagery" too. Turner may have been even more "religious" since he claimed that he saw signs that indicated to him he should go about his terrorist activities targeting white men, women and children.
http://www.youtube.com/representativepress

Are you guys basically agreeing with Rush Limbaugh?!?!

RUSH LIMBAUGH: "The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is reporting that the new Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi has executed six insurgents in front of witnesses, wanting to send a clear message to these people. Good. Hubba-hubba.

Now that's right. Now, you're going to have -- you're going to have -- you're going to have some of the powerless fearful Left in this country saying see, this is what Bush has done. Bush did this, no due process, they just kill them when you find them. We can't -- America's going to be hated in the world, blah blah blah blah. Well, the Iraqis are handling their own affairs."

Rush is an asshole. It was wrong of the US to put this murderous thug into power in Iraq in the first place. If the report from two eyewitnesses is correct then we have horrific proof of the evils of US directed foreign policy. What the **** does it take for people to realize that YES, US foreign policy makers have wronged the Iraqis? This isn't "Iraqis handling their own affairs" this is a hand picked US puppet who murders and a horrible thing to do to the Iraqi people. They didn't pick this guy, we did. And shitheads like Rush wonder why people around the world end up hating the US? It is because of these vicious immoral policies and hand picked murderous thugs that we impose on people. US policy makers don't want real democracy in Iraq, that is why thugs like Allawi are selected to rule over the people. The US could have ran some public opinion polls and used the results to get a very very close approximation of a general election. WHen the poll shoed the most popular choices, the people who the Iraqis themselves wanted could have been placed in the Iraqi government positions, instead the US policy makers selected their CIA backed thug as Prime Minister.

What part of that don't you understand? When the **** are people going to wake up. These actions shit on the efforts of all the American men and women who dies to "bring democracy to Iraq". It turns out to be a sick lie, wake the **** up people. Rush says, "Good. Hubba-hubba."?!? How the hell can anyone make an excuse for a **** Nazi like Rush Limbaugh? When the **** are people going to demand that their representatives stop our government from spreading misery around the world?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407190006

For God Sakes, don't vote for Bush!



What they fail to mention and what is obvious from the graph is that under Clinton the unemployment rate decreased from 7.1% to 3.9%, while under Bush it increased from 4.2% to 6.4%

An explanation for those thinking of voting for Bush: a lower unemployment rate is better. So when you see the graph with the blue section dipping down under Clinton., that is a good thing.

The media is not making this clear to the public. I have seen far to many talking heads talking BS about unemployment rates under Bush and what they were under Clinton. There are dishonest bastard Republicans that have the balls to insist that the media is biased against Bush!!
Lott media bias update

Hitler History Lesson
Banagor complains, "You claim every trend in history towards your own end, but you ignore the reality of the lessons of history. If it were up to you, I imagine, we wouldn’t have done anything about Hitler ... Why? Because you’re selfish."

What should we have done about Hitler? Not support him. But the US government actually supported him. Selfish? You really need to take a look at the lessons of history. You want to talk about selfish, look at the fact that U.S. corporations increased investment in Nazi Germany enormously while at the same time decreasing investment sharply everywhere else in continental Europe.

See endnote 19 of Understanding Power. The U.S. government and business community supported Hitler and Mussolini before World War II.
From endnote 19 of Chapter 5:

See for example, Christopher Simpson, The Splendid Blond Beast: Money, Law, and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, Monroe, ME: Common Courage, 1995, especially pp. 46-64;

David F. Schmitz, Thank God They're on Our Side: The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1921-1965, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999, chs. 1 and 3; David F. Schmitz, The United States and Fascist Italy, 1922-1940, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988; John P. Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism: the View from America, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972.

The reasons for the warm American response to Fascism and Nazism that are detailed in these books are explained quite openly in the internal U.S. government planning record. For instance, a 1937 Report of the State Department's European Division described the rise of Fascism 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." The Report also noted that "if Fascism cannot succeed by persuasion [in Germany], it must succeed by force." It concluded that "economic appeasement should prove the surest route to world peace," a conclusion based on the belief that Fascism as a system was compatible with U.S. interests.

See Schmitz, The United States and Fascist Italy, 1922-1940, p. 140; see also, Daniel Yergin, Shattered Peace: The Origins of the Cold War and the National Security State (this is the updated edition), Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1977, p. 26 (U.S. Ambassador to Russia William Bullitt "believed that only Nazi Germany could stay the advance of Soviet Bolshevism in Europe").

At the same time, Britain's special emissary to Germany, Lord Halifax, praised Hitler for blocking the spread of Communism, an achievement that brought England to "a much greater degree of understanding of all his [i.e. Hitler's] work" than heretofore, as Halifax recorded his words to the German Chancellor while Hitler was conducting his reign of terror in the late 1930s. See Lloyd Gardner, Spheres of Influence: The Great Powers Partition Europe, From Munich to Yalta, Chicago: Ivan Dee, 1993, p. 13. See also, Clement Leibovitz, The Chamberlain-Hitler Deal, Edmonton, Canada: Les Éditions Duval, 1993 (fascinating 533-page study reproducing vast documentation, largely from recently-declassified British government sources, of the secret British deal allowing Hitler free rein to expand in Eastern Europe; this deal was "motivated by anti-communism" and was "not a sudden policy quirk but was the crowning of incessant efforts to encourage Japan and Germany 'to take their fill' of the Soviet Union" [p. 6]. Leibovitz's study also establishes conclusively, from a wide variety of sources, that there was great sympathy for Hitler's and Mussolini's policies among the British establishment).

Furthermore, although Hitler's rhetorical commitments and actions were completely public, internal U.S. government documents from the 1930s refer to him as a "moderate." For example, the American chargé d'affaires in Berlin wrote to 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. "From the standpoint of stable political conditions, it is perhaps well that Hitler is now in a position to wield unprecedented power," noted the American Ambassador, Frederic Sackett. See Schmitz, The United States and Fascist Italy, 1922-1940, pp. 140, 174, 133, and ch. 9; Foreign Relations of the United States, 1933, Vol. II ("British Commonwealth, Europe, Near East and Africa"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949, pp. 329, 209.

The U.S. reaction to Fascist Italy before the war was similar. A high-level inquiry of the Wilson administration determined in December 1917 that with rising labor militancy, Italy posed "the obvious danger of social revolution and disorganization." A State Department official noted privately that "If we are not careful we will have a second Russia on our hands," adding: "The Italians are like children" and "must be [led] and assisted more than almost any other nation." Mussolini's Blackshirts solved the problem by violence. They carried out "a fine young revolution," the American Ambassador to Italy observed approvingly, referring to Mussolini's March on Rome in October 1922, which brought Italian democracy to an end. Racist goons effectively ended labor agitation with government help, and the democratic deviation was terminated; the United States watched with approval. The Fascists are "perhaps the most potent factor in the suppression of Bolshevism in Italy" and have much improved the situation generally, the Embassy reported to Washington, while voicing some residual anxiety about the "enthusiastic and violent young men" who have brought about these developments. The Embassy continued to report the appeal of Fascism to "all patriotic Italians," simple-minded folk who "hunger for strong leadership and enjoy . . . being dramatically governed." See Schmitz, The United States and Fascist Italy, 1922-1940, pp. 14, 36, 44, 52; Foreign Relations of the United States, 1919, Vol. I ("Paris Peace Conference"), Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1942, p. 47.

As time went on, the American Embassy was well aware of Mussolini's totalitarian measures. Fascism had "effectively stifled hostile elements in restricting the right of free assembly, in abolishing freedom of the press and in having at its command a large military organization," the Embassy reported in a message of February 1925, after a major Fascist crackdown. But Mussolini remained a "moderate," manfully confronting the fearsome Bolsheviks while fending off the extremist fringe on the right. His qualifications as a moderate were implicit in the judgment expressed by Ambassador Henry Fletcher: the choice in Italy is "between Mussolini and Fascism and Giolitti and Socialism, between strong methods of internal peace and prosperity and a return to free speech, loose administration and general disorganization. Peace and Prosperity were preferred." (Giolitti was the liberal Prime Minister, who had collaborated with Mussolini in the repression of labor but now found himself a target as well.) See Schmitz, The United States and Fascist Italy, 1922-1940, pp. 76-77f.

On the views of U.S. corporations towards Fascism, including details of participation in the plunder of Jewish assets under Hitler's Aryanization programs -- notably, the Ford Motor Company -- see for example, Christopher Simpson, The Splendid Blond Beast: Money, Law, and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, Monroe, ME: Common Courage, 1995, especially ch. 5 (on Ford's role in Aryanization of Jewish property, see pp. 62-63). An excerpt (p. 64):

Many U.S. companies bought substantial interests in established German companies, which in turn plowed that new money into Aryanizations or into arms production banned under the Versailles Treaty. According to a 1936 report from Ambassador William Dodd to President Roosevelt, a half-dozen key U.S. companies -- International Harvester, Ford, General Motors, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and du Pont -- had become deeply involved in German weapons production. . . .

U.S. investment in Germany accelerated rapidly after Hitler came to power, despite the Depression and Germany's default on virtually all of its government and commercial loans. Commerce Department reports show that U.S. investment in Germany increased some 48.5 percent between 1929 and 1940, while declining sharply everywhere else in continental Europe. U.S. investment in Great Britain . . . barely held steady over the decade, increasing only 2.6 percent.

Calling me a "moron" in his post "Moron On The Loose", Banagor writes, "While I agree with Tom – I know, a real shocker – that we should do something about the Saudis, what exactly is it that we should do? Overthrow that despicable regime and put Bin Laden in the House of Saud? Is that what Saudis really want? Perhaps it is."

No, it isn’t want they want Banagor. This “moron” happens to know the answer to your question. An OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Saudis don’t want bin Laden to rule Saudi Arabia, 95% don’t want that according to a recent poll. See what you can learn if you make an effort to learn the facts? Instead of calling people morons, why not make an effort to educate yourself? That way you wouldn’t be so ignorant.

Banagor ignorantly replies, "Where on earth do you get that crap from? Official Saudi newspapers or something? Did you know that there are Aliens in Area 51? Why don’t you go and “investigate” that as well?"

"Where on earth do you get that crap from?"
Banagor, you don't strike me as a "thinker". I asked you to make an effort. Unlike you, I am not pulling this stuff out of my ass: The poll I mentioned found "fewer than 5 percent thought it was a good idea for bin Laden to rule the Arabian Peninsula."

Poll of Saudis shows wide support for bin Laden's views Almost half of all Saudis said in a poll conducted last year that they have a favorable view of Osama bin Laden's sermons and rhetoric, but fewer than 5 percent thought it was a good idea for bin Laden to rule the Arabian Peninsula. What are the views they support? Popular things like no troops in Saudi Arabia etc.

9/11 Motives and the 9/11 Commission Report

Chapter Two, Section Two of the 9/11 Commission Report is called "Bin Ladin's Appeal in the Islamic World" The report claims, "Bin Ladin's grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper." When I read this I wondered why they thought that bin Ladin's grievance "became" something more than what he had been stating for years. The report correctly reports that "al Qaeda's answer was that America should abandon the Middle East" but then it includes the notion that America should "convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture"

When I read that I knew the source for asserting that bin Laden had suddenly decided to add this as a grievance he has with the US. It could be no other source but the purported "letter to the American people". The report itself acknowledges that this purported grievance is new and sure enough, if you check the source they use it is and only is the purported "'Letter to America' which first appeared on the Internet in Arabic with the claim that it was written by bin Laden. When did bin Laden's grievance supposedly "become far deeper"? When this letter popped up on the Internet a year after 9/11, this is the only source for this claim. That letter popped up on the Internet a year after 9/11. Taking a good look at the facts we can see that this particular letter is not actually from bin Laden. The newspaper that printed the English translation of the letter reported, "Al-Massari's email and bin Laden's letter show ideological similarities."

Bin Laden has given interviews and made video tapes and audio tapes for years and the message has been consistent. U.S. Investigators have nearly a decade of statements directly from bin Laden that state the motives for the attacks on the US and US interests. Bin Laden has been interviewed by western journalists and has for several years repeatedly broadcast a common list of grievances, which he cites as the reason for his jihad. Most of these statements have been confirmed as those from bin Laden but at least one hasn't, that letter purporting to be written by bin Laden, which appeared on the Internet in Arabic. The letter was reported in a November 24, 2002 article in The Observer, in an article that cites no intelligence-agency estimates about its authenticity, only using journalists' beliefs that it is really a letter from bin Laden explaining the motivations for the attacks. Reasons to question the authenticity of this particular letter include:
* A style different from all the interviews
* A strange intro to the letter that acts like the motives have not been stated before.
* Lack of any other source that includes as motives either "debauchery of Western Civilization" or a "call for conversion to Islam of the infidels."

The letter popped up on the Internet and the Observer published an English translation just 12 days after bin Laden had issued an audio tape

The transcript of bin Laden's audio tape of is consistent with what he had been saying for years. He points out that the attacks were "are only reactions and reciprocal actions."
He said, "Why should fear, killing, destruction, displacement, orphaning and widowing continue to be our lot, while security, stability and happiness be your lot? This is unfair. It is time that we get even" he says, "You will be killed just as you kill, and will be bombed just as you bomb." He makes all this clear in the tape. Then suddenly a letter is posted and it has several things in it not said in all the years before or after?

In another audio tape sent months after in the year 2003, bin Laden is once again stating the same message and even pointing out that the Bush Administration lies about the motives: "... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries. Upon seeing this, the Mujahideen decided teach them a lesson and to take the war to their heartland. "

Everything in audio and video has been consistant yet this "letter" pops up on the Internet a year after 9/11 and acts like the motives have never been said before and has in it weird stuff like this: "Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?"

Whoever actually did write the letter really laid it on thick: "Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?"

Anyone is free to believe that Clinton's BJ is the "kind of event" that will make our name "go down in history and remembered by nations" but to think bin Laden suddenly became concerned about Clinton's sex life is silly. It looms large in some people's minds here in American and may point to the real origin of the letter but that is really hard to tell. That Internet letter is bogus. Osama bin Laden has made his case clear and has addressed the American people directly: "The Western regimes and the government of the US bear the blame for what might happen. If their people do not wish to be harmed inside their very own countries, they should seek to elect governments that are truly representative of them and that can protect their interests."-bin Laden, May 1998
" America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel." -bin Laden, Oct. 2001 whylie.html

Doug Harper writes, "The fixation with "corrupt rulers" is an immediate response to the anger of Arabs and Muslims who want a better life for themselves and their children. It is a legitimate grievance, and ought to be a source of shame to the United States, though many of the most brutish secular regimes -- Syria, Libya, Saddam's Iraq -- came to power without our intention and often persisted in spite of our opposition."

All three of those countries were hurt by Western powers who undermined progress when the severely manipulated their internal affairs. The amount of evil that US policy makers have inflicted upon the Middle East is perhaps more than you want to deal with.

Take Iraq. The US supported Saddam the murderous thug starting with using him as an assassin to try to kill the Iraqi Prime Minister. The CIA even provided Saddam with an apartment in Baghdad according to a former senior State Department official. The US helped Saddam from as early as the late 50s even though it was know that he was "a thug-- a cutthroat" with "no class". The CIA plotted to install the Ba'ath party and Saddam one of the party members colluding with the CIA at that time. This fact was revealed in testimony and documents produced during the hearings of the Congressional Select Committee on Intelligence in 1975 also known as the Pike Committee. The CIA actively supported the 1963 coup that brought the Ba'ath party to power and the CIA made lists of people it labeled as communists and gave these lists to "the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen". The people on these CIA lists were "jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions." The usual "we had to" crap is offered as an excuse for these crimes. UPI Pro-Nasser Arab nationalists were able to remove the Ba'ath party from power and to jail Saddam only to have the US once again back another coup and instal the Ba'ath party back in power over Iraq in 1968. Ever step of the way there were opportunities not to help Saddam or even to undermine his power. In the early 70s the US backed the Kurdish Rebellion but cruelly dropped them when the Shah and Saddam worked out a deal. Dropping the Kurds was cruel and Another opportunity to counter Ba'athist power was lost when the US abandoned the Kurds. When questioned by the Pike Committee about the US abandonment of the Kurds in 1975, Kissenger's cynical and amoral response was, "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work"

Believe what you like.

so you can't address any of the points I raised? It isn't a question of "believing what I want", I am looking at the facts, are you unwilling to do so? You have blind faith that US policy makers are acting decently and morally. Look at the facts and we see this is not the case.
It is a very extreme thing to disregard 60 years of history and claim that suddenly now the US will act the way it claims.

For YEARS US foreign policy apologists have been insisting that the US does stand up for democracy and doesn't undermine democracy in the world.

For YEARS US foreign policy critics have been trying to explain that the polices did not live up to the claims about being a defender of democracy around the world.

For YEARS these critics have been shouted down as "anti-American" and "blame America firsters".

NOW suddenly with a simple comment the President admits that the last 60 years have been a sham: "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East"

And you think we shouldn't stop for a minute and think critically about what these guys say?!? 60 years of hypocrisy of actions. Those actions which all those years was denied.

So they have been deceiving the American people and actually undermining democracy in the Middle East, suddenly they admit it and that is OK with you? You are ready to give them more blind trust? I guess we go back to the pattern of labeling critics as "anti-American" again while never admitting they were actually right all these years?

and with out skipping a beat you accept the "change of course"? That is incredible. Bush's insist that we shouldn't be "dwelling on past wrongs and blaming others", and you accept that?

The direction being taken is the closest to the ideal we can muster.
no it isn't. you didn't explain why the US didn't abide by International LAe and abide by the Hauge Convention (which the US has signed). You didn't deal with the fact that the media hasn't explained this to the public. Being a good American doesn't mean swallowing any story that US politicians say.

You and I certainly lack facts.

You can search for them. The US media is not presenting them but you can find out about many things:
"They clearly violate the international convention governing the behavior of occupying forces, the Hague regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the United States), as well as the US army's own code of war."
I'm banking on GB & the Iraqi's to do the right thing. Give the Iraqi's at least an opportunity to self govern. It may take some time. I'll give then time. They've been in the stone-age since the stone-age. Let's give them an opportunity. Sometimes people surprise us.
I'm banking on GB & the Iraqi's to do the right thing.
! we already know that they can't be trusted, there is nothing to wait and see for. They have already proven themselves crooked. There is a point where you can't just play along. This is beyond naive, the facts already pointed out show that the US policy makers are not on the level.

"The trap is the doctrine that I sometimes call the doctrine of change of course. It's a doctrine that's invoked every two or three years in the United States. The content of the doctrine is yes, in the past, we did some wrong things because of our innocence or out of inadvertence, but now that's all over, so we can't not waste any more time on this boring, stale stuff, which incidentally we suppressed and denied while it was happening, but must now be effaced from history as we march forward to a glorious future" zmag

Shadroui should have learned some history before he wrote that article about Chomsky

George Shadroui wrote an article called, "Dissecting Chomsky and Anti-Americanism".

Shadroui writes, "Chomsky (and many on the left) tries to implicate the United States in the behavior of Saddam Hussein because we gave him minimal support during the 1980s and the Iraq/Iran war. To read Chomsky, you would think the United States brought Saddam into power and kept him there, which is itself a falsehood."

Shadroui should try to learn some history before writing such statements. The US hand a VERY big role in bringing Saddam to power. First of all, the CIA was willing to work with this murderous thug in the late 50's and early 60's and the Ba'ath party "was essentially installed by the CIA in 1963" See The CIA and Saddam Hussein and Saddam Hussein: Taking Out the CIA's Trash
And the support we gave Saddam was not "minimal", it was decisive support in the war of aggression against Iran. The US "removed Iraq from the official list of terrorist states in 1982 so that the US could freely provide the tyrant with aid." (see pp 111-112 Hegemony or Survival ) In fact the US partnered with him in war crimes. It is an understatement to say that Scott Ritter and Richard Butler don't agree on everything, but on this they both agree: U.S. advisers were helping Iraq carry out gas attacks against Iran. The U.S. and Saddam Hussein were partners in war crimes
Notice the piss poor job the mainstream media has done informing the American people about these facts? Basically, mainstream media did not report to the American people the involvement of the US in the early history of Saddam, the early history of the Ba'ath party, and the dramatic fact that the US participated in war crimes with Saddam's government.
Since Shadroui refuses to understand Chomsky's criticism of mainstream media, he assumes that mainstream media would tell him bout these things. The fact that the media basically suppressed these facts fits into the propaganda model that Chomsky talks about.
Eric S. Piotrowski deals with Shadroui's article too

The US has committed horrific wrongs in the Middle East.
To take one dramatic example (which has been admitted to in 2000), the US overthrew a democratically elected leader and installed a king in 1953.

We are a nation that fought to free ourselves from a king and this is the kind of thing the CIA does! Do you have any idea of the misery all the Iranians had to suffer under during the years of the Shah?

And when some of them reacted and took hostages, the US media kept MANY Americans in the dark as to why Iran took our people hostage in 1979!!! I have actually talked with people that don't know why the hostages were taken! Many Americans don't know why the hostages were taken. This is a discrace in a free society.

The pattern of suppression of motive continues with the terrorists attacks such as in 1993 and 2001. The media manages to dupe millions of Americans about what the motives were.
Many Americans don't know why the terrorists attacked. This is a discrace in a free society.
It is sad situation when Americans don't even know why they are targeted. Powerful interests do have power. (seems many are so indoctrinated that they blurt out "conspiracy" at the very idea that powerful people do exert power)

There powerful people don't want the public to understand why they are are being targeted. You can't fool all the people but millions of Americans are fooled

Bush said we were attacked because of our freedoms and there are actually AMericans that believe this!

Not only that, Many Americans(40%), actaully think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11!! MAinstream meida has violated the rights of the AMerican people. If you don't have a clue as to what the truth is then you are not really frree. Many Americans don't know that Saddam and 9/11 were not linked. This is a discrace in a free society.

"The latest Newsweek poll, released this week, revealed that 42% of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein's regime was "directly involved" in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, despite all the evidence to the contrary."
That is a God damn disgrace in a country that is supposed to be free. If you don't know the truth then freedom isn't real. You can't be ignorant and free. Three Years After 9/11: More than 40% of Americans Still Think Saddam Did It
And we are allowing this media system continue as if this is business as usual? We are in a crisis and the mainstream media is skipping along like everything is OK.

Mainstream Media 's real bias is to serve power and shit on the American people: Hide the fact that we are being attacked because of specific foreign policies

You want real bias? How about the fact that the mainstream media plays along with the lie that we are attacked because of our freedoms and not because of what we do?
HERE is a real example of chopping a sentence in half (in order to avoid stating the motives): Tenet refers to the February 1998 fatwa and chops off the part of the sentence that mentions the MOTIVES.

Tim Russert is another one that has the audacity to hide the motives. On "Meet the Press", Russert claims that simply stating the motives is "quite controversial" and he has the balls to ask Pat Buchanan, "Are you suggesting that our alliance with Israel is one of the reasons that we were attacked on September 11?"

"Is he suggesting"!?!?!? It is the main motive, it is a fact! The 9/11 Commission just recently confirmed that for God Sakes!
Nearly all of the media suppressed that fact, here is a RARE exception:
U.S. policy on Israel key motive "Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission."

A note about this: When Terry McDermott's Jul 23, 2004 article was published in the LA Times, it didn't have the headline "U.S. policy on Israel key motive". Seems only the Lexington Herald-Leader dared go with a headline that reflected the main point: the motive for the crime. The headline in the LA Times was instead, "New Plot Details Emerge; Khalid Shaikh Mohammed lacked the resources, so he took his plan to Bin Laden." This is a case of burying the lede. The lede from the LA Times article (the first paragraph) was: "Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, according to the final report of the Sept. 11 commission." Tharwa Net-Watch

You want to talk about bias, how about the media's game of trying to deceive the American people about why their lives are in harms' way? Why not talk about that bias?

This blogger noticed Russert's game too. "Tim was aghast at Pat’s clear, concise and, god forbid, factual assessment. ... Well, you can’t argue facts, can you? Oh, if you’re a pundit, you can. Russert turned to the aptly-named Newt Gingrich to comment on this “THEORY.”" It Takes A Hurricane…

Here is the key part of "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS." Transcript for September 5:

MR. RUSSERT:  Pat Buchanan, let me just jump in here, because you...

MR. BUCHANAN:  Sure.

MR. RUSSERT:  ...have written something in your book that I think is going to be quite controversial and I want to put it on the screen and share it...

MR. BUCHANAN:  Sure.

MR. RUSSERT:  ...with you and our viewers and give a chance for our group to respond to it.  "U.S. dominance of the Middle East is not the corrective to terror.  It is a cause of terror.  Were were not over there, the 9/11 terrorists would not have been over here.  And while their acts were murderous and despicable, behind their atrocities lay a political motive.  We were attacked because of our imperial presence on the sacred soil of the land of Mecca and Medina, because of our enemies' perception that we were strangling the Iraqi people with sanctions and preparing to attack a second time, and because of our uncritical support of the Likud regime of Ariel Sharon" in Israel.

Are you suggesting that our alliance with Israel is one of the reasons that we were attacked on September 11?

MR. BUCHANAN:  Sure.  That's one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden.  In his fatwa of 1998, he wrote that there are three causes of the problems and three causes for a declaration of war by all Arabs and good Muslims against the United States.  One, America's imperial presence on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia.  Secondly, the sanctions policy against Iraq which was persecuting and basically starving, he said, the Iraqi people, and we were planning another invasion.  Third is the United States' uncritical support of the Ariel Sharon regime in Israel, which he argued is persecuting the Palestinian people.


In my judgment, Chris, this one-sided support for Sharon, the refusal to condemn that wall snaking through the West Bank, the agreement to support Sharon's claim to virtually half of the West Bank, this has caused enormous hostility and animosity and hatred for this country in that part of the world, not just among the Palestinians.  And if we want to drain off some of this hatred, this venom against us, we have got to adopt a more evenhanded policy here.  We have got to stand up for the same rights for the Palestinian people, a homeland, a nation, a state of their own, a viable one, on the land their forefathers farmed for a thousand years, because those are first our principles and secondly, that is in the national interest of the United States of America.  I don't care what Ariel Sharon believes.

MR. RUSSERT:  They are not attacking us because they hate us and hate our culture?

MR. BUCHANAN:  This is the fundamental point.  Are they attacking us because of who we are and what they believe or are they attacking us because of what we do?  I believe it is our policies, not our principles that are causing these attacks.  Osama bin Laden wasn't sitting in some cave in Afghanistan and stumble on the Bill of Rights and go bananas.  It is because of what we are doing.  Most fundamentally, it wasn't Israel number one.  Number one, Saudi Arabia, female soldiers, American soldiers sitting there on the land of Mecca and Medina.

MR. RUSSERT:  Senator Graham, you buy that theory?

SEN. GRAHAM:  I think that our policies have been the key to the terrorist motivation.  In the book, you'll see several discussions with leaders in Egypt and Syria and Lebanon, and they all point to the urgency of the United States being fully engaged with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to try to bring it to a resolution and a concern that President Bush has not been significantly committed to achieving that goal.

MR. RUSSERT:  Mr. Speaker, what do you think of the theory?

Damn it Russert! The cat is out of the bag and you are still holding water for certain special interests. How dare this asshole act like these facts are shocking, how dare he act so surprised. "Theory"? Listen Russert, others have already stuck their necks out by telling the truth about the 9/11 motives, how about acting like a man? Terry McDermott of the LOS ANGELES TIMES stuck his neck out and published the facts. The facts have been known for quit some time, why the **** is Russert acting like this is so increadible?

See the posts from June 22, 2005: We were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific US Foreign Polices and The man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel

See the suppression: The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel.

See: "If you ask anybody," Murad said later, "even if you ask children, they will tell you that the U.S. is supporting Israel and Israel is killing our Muslim brothers in Palestine."

Suppressing the Motives for the 9/11 Attack is Disgraceful. We need funds to promote the truth. Please Click on the Link and Donate so We Can Free Ourselves from this Hell. Please Donate to Representative Press with Amazon.

US reporters are not reporting these things, there were reporters in the room, I haven't seen any reports about this question being raised. Please Donate and give us the power to fight for the truth.

Bush is Fucked (but the media has to REPORT IT)

"Each of these actions by any member of the National Guard should have generated the creation of many documents that have yet to be produced," AP lawyer David Schulz wrote the Justice Department on Aug. 26.

Bush National Guard records missing
Documents that should have been written to explain gaps in President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service are missing from the military records released about his service in 1972 and 1973, an Associated Press inquiry shows.

Bravo to AP for doing the bare minimum of what we should expect from the media. The reat need to stop playing dumb and look into things. Contact the media and tell them you want to see more about this!! FAIR's Media Contact List

Someone writes, "it's ok for reporters to assasinate the character of a man with forged documents "

whoa, I knew you guys didn't understand the story. You don't understand that Bush has already assasinated his own character with his lack of duty and his lying about the service he should have done. These facts have been established, the media doesn't report it. No one can say they served with him for the time he should have served in Alabama! How is THAT possible? You probably don't know about this either: Documents that should have been written to explain gaps in President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service are missing from the military records released about his service in 1972 and 1973, an Associated Press inquiry shows.

T.M.K. writes, "I see, I see now... we all know Bush lied, so this proves the memos are real in spirit, and since the memos are real, Bush is a liar. But the only reason there are no records that hurt Bush is because Bush destroyed them all and CBS was forced to recreate them without telling us for our own good. Wow. Why didn't I see that before? This is some damn fine kool-aid mister!"

T.M.K., Bush skipped out on doing what he was his duty at the time. No one can say they served with him for the time he should have served in Alabama! How is THAT possible?

And it is a fact that AP has learned that documents should automatically be generated when someone misses a pilot's physical and doesn't show up for 5 months of training. Bush managed to get himself into the Guard BUT he didn't even honor his commitments! The taxpayers paid to train this guy but he made himself ineligible to serve his country because he disobeyed orders. What part of that don't you understand? Right wing pundits are claiming that the public doesn't care, but clearly the case is you don't even understand the facts in order to know enough to care! The media really has managed to make sure millions of Americans don't understand what it is Bush pulled. Clearly you don't understand the basic facts T.M.K.

"Challenging the government's declaration that no more documents exist, the AP identified five categories of records that should have been generated after Bush skipped his pilot's physical and missed five months of training."
records

Guys you can't see that the Media obsesses over CBS documents, as it ignores uncontested evidence that Bush didn't meet his Guard obligation

Bush never made up five months of missed drills: According to the U.S. News article, Bush "apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had 'served honorably.'"

Yes he got away with it by getting an "honorable discharge', that doesn't mean he deserved it, he jsut got away with it! He didn't show up as he was expected to. what part of that don't you understand?

The issue isn't the fact that he got into the Guard, the issue is he didn't obey orders adn that he skipped out for MONTHS at a time. He didn't honor the commitment he swore he would. He twice violated that oath! Again, the media isn't making that clear to you are you guys are being dishonest in what you focus on. The media really is helping Bush, they are not making the facts clear to the public.

The crowd that insists that the media is "liberal" gets it wrong again.

The right wing spinners are working overtime to make excuses for Cheney's remark.
First they want to change the punctuation of the sentence, but lets even say that the period after the "we'll get hit again" could be a comma. Then it would read:

"Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States"

They then want to act like what Cheney said about the REACTION to the next attack is somehow just what Cheney wanted to say: "and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that, in fact, these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war."
Spin, spin, spin. it really is ridiculous how har the guys at the "Oh that Liberal media" blog try.

This is what I posted over there:

If we make the wrong choice the danger is we will be hit again and in a devastating way.
The context is that if we make the "right choice", we won't have a danger of getting hit again with a devastating attack.
Regardless of how you want to focus on how Kerry would respond to the next attack, Cheney is clearly saying that a vote for Kerry puts us in danger of another attack and one that will be devastating.
Guys if you can't understand that, no wonder you think mainstream media is "liberal"!

-----

"and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set"
Meaning AFTER the attack we suffer because we made the "wrong choice". that is what "and that" refers to.
IF the Cheney quote was close to what you argue then the sentence would have read: "If we make the wrong choice we could fall back into pre-9/11 mind set and risk getting hit again"
Or it would read "if we make the wrong choice ...then the danger is ... we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set which could lead to another attack."

But the "and that" clearly means that another attack happens because of our "wrong choice" and the mind set comes AFTER the attack.

THAT is the context, the AP did not distort a single thing. You guys are working way to hard to spin Cheney's ugly comments. The "and that" part of Cheney's quote clearly shows that the first part is taken in context by the AP, Cheney continued to say what would happen AFTER the attack. (an attack we risked by our "wrong choice".)

I am wondering if you guys ever admit the simple truth in front of you or is this "liberal media" claim a trash talk thing where you never concede the facts.

UPDATE: THE WHite House alterned the Cheney quote in order to trick the public

"Yesterday, the transcript on the White House Web site was altered to make Cheney's remarks one sentence. " Washington Post

This is what I suspected by the way. The interpretation the AP reported was in fact the way it was on the White House web site at first. The White House then ALTERED IT. So the way it was heard by reasonable people AND the way it was put on the White House web site was with the period.

Is the media going to make sure the average American knows about the alteration dirty trick? No. You guys really don't understand the nature of the media. It is not the "liberal media" you assume.

The media has often suppressed outragous stuff. Look at this about Bush! Bush clueless blunder also see:

he said it two times!

Hegemony or Survival : America's Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project) (The American Empire Project)

The "anti-Semitic" and "Nazi" canard, AGAIN. Another fan weighs in ...

He writes, "What a load of revisionist crapola!!!!! If this was not a stupid on line posting site I might take the time to tear this shithead apart."

more threats of violence from the Zionist camp, not the first time.

He writes, " Somebody is paying this guy to spend this extreme amount of time and energy recreating history. He will say that I didnt dispute his point so they must be true ... "

You didn't dispute it because you can't. You use threats and here it comes ...

Goebells lives again (the great lie retold becomes the truth)
well anyway .. it matters not ... Israel is here to stay you antisemitic nazi bastard!!

The "anti-Semitic" and "Nazi" canard. Typical.
You sure gave a very poor attempt at hasbara didn't you?

It speaks volumes that you deny basic facts of history. At some point shouldn't the outragous lies told by Zionists tell people something? The lies started with The Myth of a 'Land Without People for a People Without Land"

Guys like the one I quote above and the rest of the Zionists get away with this because people in the media don't have backbones. Is it any surprise? You think an employer is even going to deal with this? Having a reporter labeled as an "anti-Semitic"? No, it is easier to cut them loose and reporters know it. That is why we have dramatic examples of bald faced lies that get spread and go unchallenged.

In his book, The Gun and the Olive Branch, David Hirst has done a great job exposing these games, he gives examples of reporters being intimidated. "Behind closed doors some news types will admit they firmly adhere to the pro-Israeli line because it is editorial policy. This issue has long ceased having anything to do with right and wrong, it has simply become policy" Hirst explains "Many journalists privately admit that they fear the retribution of pro-Israel publishers and editors and 'generally understand critical words about Israel to be hazardous to careers'." Mark Schneider said that before he took up political activism on the Palestinians' behalf he wasn't sure the censorship or self-censorship over Israel existed. But Schneider now says, "I used to be skeptical about ... allegations of censorship and self-censorship in the American media, but now I've seen it first-hand." Schneider recounts how he witnessed the Rev. Bob Kinsey being asked by a reporter in the studio what the main reasons for troubles in the Middle East were. "Rev Kinsey spoke of the massive US military aid to Israel and the resulting instability it caused. The reporter's stunning reply: 'While I agree with you, if I say anything about US geopolitical interests with Israel, I might as well clean off my desk. ' Of course, the interview was never aired."

David Hirst's book is a must have. It is an updated edition and it is increadible.

David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Nation Books; 2nd edition 2003 p57

The point is thanks to people like the guy screaming "nazi" and "anti-semite" and the cowardly press, the American public doesn't understand the basics about Israel. The above threats are nothing new, Zionists have even killed other Jews who dared speak out against the racist agenda in the 1920s. More recently the violence agaisnt Jews who displease radical Zionist Jews is still evident, an Israeli even killed their own leader Rabin because he couldn't stand a miniscule move towards some agreement with the Palestinians.

Thomas Friedman and the NYT are notorious for outright lying and distorting the historical record in order to serve the Zionist agenda. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE HOW EXTREME THE LYING AND MANIPULATION THEY ARE SUBJECTED TO REALLY IS!! Chomsky has documented many lies the NYT and Friedman tell in order to serve Israel:

"As the newspaper of Record, the New York Times has had to be more careful than most to safeguard the preferred version of history. To cite a few additional (and typical) examples, one priority has been to preserve the image of the United States and Israel as moderates seeking peace, faced with the terror and unremitting rejectionism of their Arab adversaries, particularly the unspeakable Palestinians. Accordingly, public PLO support in 1976 for Israel's "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" and its "right to live in peace within secure and recognize boundaries" is down the memory hole, even more deeply than Sadat's "famous milestone" of 1971. Similarly, when Yasser Arafat issued several calls for negotiations leading to mutual recognition in April-May 1984, the Times refused to print not only the facts but even letters referring to them. When its Jerusalem correspondent Thomas Friedman reviewed "Two Decades of Seeking Peace in the Middle East" a few months later, the major Arab(including PLO) initiatives of these two decades were excluded, and discussion was restricted to the official "peace process": various U.S. rejectionist proposals." p241 World Orders Old and New

One of the most insulting things is the way Friedman and others slap treat the victims of 9/11 and every other American whose life is in harm's way largely because of Israel. They lie to the American people about why the terrorists attack us. In fact they lie about many of the basic facts surrounding the issue of the 9/11 motives.

Here is a lie that I discovered that Thomas Friedman wrote in order to serve his favorite country (and this guy gets away with this): Friedman writes, "the fact is that bin Laden never focused on this issue. He only started talking about "Palestine" after September 11, when he sensed that he might be losing the support of the Arab street." (p311 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) and "Osama bin Laden never mentioned the Palestinian cause as motivating his actions until he felt he was losing support in the Arab world." (p361-362 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) What Friedman has written is a flat out lie. To give just one example that disproves what Friedman wrote: "Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998

Friedman deceives Americans about the facts so he can serve the Israeli agenda (there is a pattern of him writting lies in order to do so.) It is absolutely off the wall how many lies are told to the American people in order to serve the Zionist agenda. “It is still difficult for many to believe that a deception of such magnitude is possible. Deceptions and false declarations have been the standard in the politics of the powerful, and certainly are in Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians from the start.” - Tanya Reinhart There is a very ugly history to the whole thing.

"The Balfour Declaration, made in November 1917 by the British Government...was made a) by a European power, b) about a non-European territory, c) in flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority resident in that territory...[As Balfour himself wrote in 1919], "The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant (the Anglo French Declaration of 1918 promising the Arabs of the former Ottoman colonies that as a reward for supporting the Allies they could have their independence) is even more flagrant in the case of the independent nation of Palestine than in that of the independent nation of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country...The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land,'" http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/Palestine/conflict2.html

October Surprise: bin Laden Captured

If US officials suddenly announce that they have captured bin Laden in the next two months, anyone that votes for Bush must be retarded. If they have the audacity to try to pull an October surprise like that, it shows contempt for the American people and an underhanded, cynical and manipualtive political game that should make anyone with any brains turn away with disgust.

U.S. Official Says Close to Catching Bin Laden
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - The United States and its allies have put Osama bin Laden on the defensive, increasing chances of his capture soon, a U.S. counter-terrorism official said in remarks published in Pakistani media on Sunday.

Cofer Black, State Department coordinator for counter-terrorism, said in Islamabad the entire "infrastructure" was in place to capture bin Laden and his close lieutenants, Pakistan's English language Daily Times reported.

Bin Laden 'will be caught' - US official
"If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught," Joseph Cofer Black, the US State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told private Geo television network."

Osama bin Laden - What makes US counter-terrorism so confident? (9/5/04)
"There seems to be a lot of confidence out there and his "capture" could very well be announced in October?

Our earlier article reported that Osama bin Laden had already been caught (4 weeks ago, according to our sources) and that this was going to be officially announced in October (see below).

The report, which can not be confirmed, made no reference as to who might conceal such information (if anyone) and we can only make guesses as to who and why.

There is no doubt at all that George Bush would benefit from the announcement of his "capture", if it was made just a few weeks before the election and the timing would be a remarkable coincidence. Especially as the US have been looking for him for almost 3 years."

"This election campaign (no matter who wins) will be remembered as been very "dirty" and some of the tactics that have been employed do not belong in a country like America. But perhaps the saddest part is the inability of some to see it and the eager acceptance of others who can."

Mainstream Media has kept the American Public in the Dark

The mainstream media has really wronged the American people horribly (on top of the things I have just pointed out about Vietnam). The mainstream media has kept these things from the public. Those that ignorantly repeat the phrase "the liberal media" need to do some serious rethinking. The media serves state power enormously, not a thing that one would assume the "liberal" media would do. (from what I gather the average person's opinion of what "liberal" means. By the way, not everyone agrees with the "liberal media" myth, there are people that realize how extreme the mainstream media really is) As far as Vietnam, mainstream media hasn't educated the public about the basics concerning US actions against Vietnam.

The 1954 Geneva agreements did not "partition" Vietnam but separated two military zones by a temporary demarcation line that "should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary," pending the unification elections of 1956 that were the heart of the accords. Elections were supposed to be held, unifying the country. The Geneva agreement divided into two zones, not two countries; our government lied about this. The US backed Diem who refused to go through with the 1954 provision calling for nationwide elections in 1956. This is going against democracy! Why did Diem refuse? Because he knew as did others that he would lose the election, President Eisenhower said that Ho Chi Minh would win 80% of the vote in a free election. The CIA supported the repressive Vietnamese ruling the South--who were not only repressive but were also greedy. WE HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THIS! (The Vietnamese have a right to govern themselves and vote for the system they wanted!) We blocked elections in Vietnam because it was obvious Ho Chi Minh was going to win there. The Kennedy administration escalated the attack against South Vietnam from massive state terror to outright aggression in 1961-1962. We were not 'defending' South Vietnam. As Chomsky says, "I have never seen in thirty years that I have been looking carefully, one phrase even suggesting that we were not defending South Vietnam. Now, we weren't: we were attacking South Vietnam. We were attacking South Vietnam as clearly as any aggression in history. But try to find one phrase anywhere in any American newspaper, outside of real marginal publications, just stating that elementary fact. It's unstable." footnote #10 Understanding Power Chapter 2 Footnotes

Kerry testified back in 1971 about things that even today the media is reluctant to report:
WHAT WAS FOUND AND LEARNED IN VIETNAM
"We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from."

Denying Facts and Embracing Myths: Vietnam War Crimes and Tales about "Vietnam Vets Getting Spit On"
Doug Harper, David Duff, Ralph Peters and others hellbent on getting it wrong

Ralph Peters is either extremely ignorant or a total asshole because he writes, "John Kerry made his most disgraceful speech since he lied about atrocities to Congress three decades ago."
Ralph! Kerry did not lie, the atrocities happened, they were admitted to by Vietnam vets and some have even been documented by the US Army. What kind of asshole denies these facts? Ralph is a clown, you can't take what he writes seriously. He writes that Kerry was "making promises he doesn't mean", what the hell is this based on? Is it hard to believe a Vietnam vet is willing to push for their rights? Ralph ignores the fact that Kerry has shown concern for Vietnam vets in the past too.

Ralph Peters first question is outrageous, he asks "Sen. Kerry, will you admit that you lied to Congress and the American people when you stated that our troops routinely committed atrocities, and that rape, torture and murder were sanctioned by our military chain of command?"
No Ralph, because he didn't lie in his testimony and he didn't say "routinely." in fact he said "at times." Ralph ignores Kerry's testimony. He ignores Kerry's concern for his fellow soldiers, "We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies."

Ralph Peters is a shameless denier. He denies what the US Army themselves have documented. He denies what other Vietnam vets have stated. He denies what Vietnam vets like former US Army journalist Dennis Stout and former US medic Rion Causey have had the courage to say. And mainstream media has created an environment where deniers like Ralph Peters thrive. The Toledo Blade's report should have gotten more coverage and the recent military inestigation should have gotten more coverage:
Report: Army to Interview Vietnam Platoon
TOLEDO, Ohio, Feb. 15, 2004 (AP) — Military investigators will interview former members of an elite Army platoon accused of killing unarmed Vietnamese civilians in 1967, according to a newspaper report. Investigators are expected to take statements from a former Army journalist, Dennis Stout, and a former Tiger Force medic, Rion Causey, both witnesses to the reported atrocities, The Blade said.

Mr. Stout and Mr. Causey told the newspaper they were surprised when they were contacted last week by an Army investigator. "I've waited years to talk to them," Mr. Stout, 58, said. "I saw people killed who didn't deserve to die." Mr. Causey, 56, said he was prepared to talk about attacks on villagers.

Are people like Doug Harper, David Duff and Ralph Peters ignorant about the Vietnam war crimes because the mainstream media has done an extremely poor job reporting the facts? I think that must be part of the problem, it is crazy how people deny that crimes took place by insisting that Kerry "lied". It is shameful how the media has refused to deal with the facts. US journalists have been noticeably reluctant to report about war crimes when they are committed by US troops. See: Press Watch

Many vets have stated that they witnessed atrocities committed by US troops in Vietnam. The Toledo Blade reported witnesses include former Army journalist Dennis Stout who has stated that he witnessed US troops killing unarmed civilians in Vietnam. Former medic Rion Causey said officers systematically ordered the platoon to kill all males in part of Quang Nam province. Also see: Massacre story needs to be told
Toledo Blade Report on Vietnam War "Tiger Force" Atrocity Is Only the Beginning
On October 19, 2003, the Ohio-based newspaper the Toledo Blade launched a four-day series of investigative reports exposing a string of atrocities by an elite, volunteer, 45-man "Tiger Force" unit of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division over the course of seven months in 1967. The Blade goes on to state that in 1971 the Army began a 4.5 year investigation of the alleged torture of prisoners, rapes of civilian women, the mutilation of bodies and killing of anywhere from nine to well over one hundred unarmed civilians, among other acts. The articles further report that the Army's inquiry concluded that 18 U.S. soldiers committed war crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty.

"In fact, while most atrocities were likely never chronicled or reported, the archival record is still rife with incidents analogous to those profiled in the Blade articles, including the following atrocities chronicled in formerly classified Army documents:

* A November 1966 incident in which an officer in the Army's Fourth Infantry Division, severed an ear from a Vietnamese corpse and affixed it to the radio antenna of a jeep as an ornament. The officer was given a non-judicial punishment and a letter of reprimand.

* An August 1967 atrocity in which a 13-year-old Vietnamese child was raped by American MI interrogator of the Army's 196th Infantry Brigade. The soldier was convicted only of indecent acts with a child and assault. He served seven months and sixteen days for his crime.

* A September 1967 incident in which an American sergeant killed two Vietnamese children -- executing one at point blank range with a bullet to the head. Tried by general court martial in 1970, the sergeant pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of, unpremeditated murder. He was, however, sentenced to no punishment.

* An atrocity that took place on February 4, 1968, just over a month before the My Lai massacre, in the same province by a man from the same division (Americal). The soldier admitted to his commanding officer and other men of his unit that he gunned down three civilians as they worked in a field. A CID investigation substantiated his confession and charges of premeditated murder were preferred against him. The soldier requested a discharge, which was granted by the commanding general of the Americal Division, in lieu of court martial proceedings.

* A series of atrocities similar to, and occurring the same year as, the "Tiger Force" war crimes in which one unit allegedly engaged in an orgy of murder, rape and mutilation, over the course of several months" see The Tip of the Iceberg

UPDATE: For more documentation of the atrocities see: The Village Voice: Features: Swift Boat Swill by Nicholas Turse

Doug Harper and Ralph Peters seem determined to get everything wrong. Doug Harper gleefully quotes from Ralph Peters' shit article "VETS FOR SALE?":
"The only veterans' benefit young John Kerry fought for was the right of vets to be spit upon in public." Not only is that a fucked up thing to claim about Kerry, the "vets were spit on" thing turns out to be a big lie! Basically it is a sick myth created by sick minds.

Jerry Lembcke, a Vietnam vet himself, exposed the "Vietnam vets were spit on" claim as a myth in his 1998 book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam. Lembcke, a professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam vet, investigated hundreds of claims about antiwar activists spitting on vets and found none of them credible. In his investigations, Lembcke uncovered something very interesting: press accounts exist from the time about antiwar protesters getting spit on by pro-Vietnam counterprotesters yet he found no press accounts from the Vietnam years that actually mentioned the claim we hear today, that "vets were spit on by anti-war protesters." Jack Shafer of Slate points out that Lembcke did find published accounts of antiwar protesters on the receiving end of a spit from a pro-Vietnam counterprotester, "Surely, he contends, the news pages would have given equal treatment to a story about serviceman getting the treatment. Then why no stories in the newspaper morgues, he asks?" Shafer also notes, "there are the parts of the spitting story up that don't add up. Why does it always end with the protester spitting and the serviceman walking off in shame? Most servicemen would have given the spitters a mouthful of bloody Chiclets instead of turning the other cheek like Christ. At the very least, wouldn't the altercations have resulted in assault and battery charges and produced a paper trail retrievable across the decades?"

The basic premise of these "vets were spit on" stories is hard to swallow. Spit on a soldier and risk him kicking your ass? Give me a break! Another person pokes holes in the "Vietnam vets were spit on" claim:
"During Gulf War I, I heard an interview with Barabara Ehrenreich on NPR. She mentioned that she was intrigued by the trope of Vietnam vets getting spit on and had her research staff comb national news papers of the time to document incidences of this happening. The only one they found, Ehrenreich said, is when Ron Kovac (of Vietnam Vets Against the War) was spit upon in Dallas by a woman at the Republican National Convention." - Stefanie Murray

Jerry Lembcke has written, "It appears, in fact, that around 1980 stories of spat-upon veterans begin to percolate more or less spontaneously" "During the 1980s these stories began to proliferate, which prompted Chicago Tribune columnist Bob Greene to ask Vietnam veterans to send him their stories of being spat on."

Here is one of those submitted that Greene published: "My flight came in at San Francisco airport and I was spat upon three times: by hippies, by a man in a leisure suit, and by a sweet little old lady who informed me I was an 'Army Asshole.'"

Lembcke observes, "Besides the fact that no returning soldiers landed at San Francisco Airport, I find it hard to believe that the same veteran was spat on three times in one pass through the airport." Lembcke points out, "I cannot, of course, prove to anyone's satisfaction that spitting incidents like these did not happen. Indeed, it seems likely to me that it probably did happen to some veteran, some time, some place. But while I cannot prove the negative, I can prove the positive: I can show what did happen during those years and that that historical record makes it highly unlikely that the alleged acts of spitting occurred in the number and manner that is now widely believed."

"The historical fact, I pointed out, is that the peace movement reached out to veterans as potential allies in a struggle against an unpopular war, while many veterans were joining the anti-war movement by the late 1960s. ... research done by other scholars that showed quite convincingly that acts of hostility against veterans by protesters were almost nonexistent. No researchers cited reports that veterans were spat on (Beamish, Molotch, and Flacks, 1995). I also found historical evidence for what I came to call 'grist' for the myth. There are newspaper reports, for example, of pro-war demonstrators spitting on anti-war activists" -Jerry Lembcke

I have noticed how some people on the right look for what they think are examples of "bias" in the media. So often tortured logic and denial go into producing their supposed instances of media's "liberal bias". These guys, like Doug Harper, stubbornly insist that the things they point to are examples of "bias." And they obnoxiously refuse to acknowledge the real and clear examples of dishonesty when they are pointed out to them.

The reality is the bias is overwhelmingly in the other direction and mainly outside of what they can fathom, serving agendas that they seem incapable of understanding even the existence of. The latest things Harper insists are examples of "bias" are only so in his mind.

Here is a real example of real bias and out right deception that is obvious to anyone that knows that real story. In his AP article "Rove Says Kerry Tarnished Vietnam Veterans", Ron Fournier, distorts what Kerry said in '71.

Fournier writes, "Testifying to Congress on behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he detailed atrocities he said were committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam, including rapes, beheadings and random killings of civilians, only to acknowledge later he had not witnessed these acts."

"he detailed atrocities he said were committed by U.S. troops"?!? It is incredible how manipulatively dishonest it is the way Fournier puts it. What Kerry actually said was, "They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads ..." "They told the stories", the U.S. troops themselves. The way Fournier puts it, it is deceptive to a ridiculous degree. And Fournier writes, "only to acknowledge later he had not witnessed these acts." What the hell is this guy pulling? When a speaker says that people told stories about certain events, IT IS NEVER ASSUMED that the speaker witnessed the events. The context and common usage of "they told the stories at times they" makes it clear that the speaker heard the stories about the acts, not that he witnessed the acts himself. This is not the way our language works. Fournier deceives his readers by implying that Kerry implied or stated that he witnessed the acts.

Someone that witnesses an event NEVER describes it as "they told stories" if they witnessed it too! Fournier acts like it would be logical to assume that Kerry had been implying he had witnessed the events. The meaning of Kerry's testimony is clear, what Fournier has done is off the wall dishonest. And he is playing along with a game that others have been playing about this key sentence from Kerry's testimony for quite some time.

It is deceptive since Kerry clearly said that he heard the stories about the acts from the soldiers that did those acts.

When a speakers says "they said they saw X, Y, or Z ..." it simply is not normal or logical to assume the speakers means that he saw the events too. You don't describe events that you are a witness to as "they told stories". You would say something like "we both have stories about these acts", or "we witnessed these acts." Saying it the way Kerry did made it CLEAR that he heard it from the troops, only a dishonest person or a fool would assume that Kerry meant he actually witnessed the events. So it is really underhanded to write "only to acknowledge later he had not witnessed these acts," as if it would be reasonable to assume he had witnessed the acts!

"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads ..." The part in bold is often omitted when they quote Kerry. Is this honest? The thing omitting these words avoids is the obvious conclusion: these deniers are calling US soldiers liars. To play the game, the words are left off so that people can deny the crimes and avoid acknowledging the fact that US soldiers ADMITTED TO THESE CRIMES.
Very often in the media I have seen it portrayed as "Kerry accuses soldiers" when the reality was soldiers admitted publicly to war crimes and Kerry is simply relaying what other soldiers said. Again , is it HONEST to misrepresent the facts? Somone wrote "it's more accurate to say, as opposed to his having "accused" all veterans of being war criminals (Kerry being a Vietnam veteran himself), that he merely reported to Congress what other vets had said in public testimony concerning their own involvement in, or witnessing of, alleged war crimes." It isn't "more accurate", it simply is acurate to say Kerry merely reported what others had said, saying that he "accused" vets is inaccurate.

And SEVERAL media outlets have picked up this AP angle and ran with it. Here are some of them:
nynewsday.com
news.bostonherald.com
boston.com
newsday.com
washingtontimes.com
aolsvc.news.aol.com

UPDATE: Someone must have admitted that the " only to acknowledge later he had not witnessed these acts" line was too inaccurate. Below is another version of that paragraph but it still has a flaw. It should not say "Kerry detailed atrocities he said were committed by U.S. troops" but at least now Fournier mentions that "Kerry said at the time he was referring to incidents witnessed by other veterans". The other version was horrible.

"Rove Targets Kerry Anti-Vietnam Testimony"
"Testifying in 1971 to Congress on behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Kerry detailed atrocities he said were committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam, including rapes, beheadings and random killings of civilians. Kerry said at the time he was referring to incidents witnessed by other veterans, and has since said he regrets some of the language he used."
[link to www.newsday.com]