Another Israeli Journalist Exposes Another Israeli Myth

Israeli journalist Amon Kapeliouk exposes the Israeli myth about the Camp David talks of July 2000. They myth pushed by amoung others, Ariel Sharon who claims that Israel has "no partner for peace."

"The 'no partner' myth is the rationale behind the unilateralism the Sharon government has practiced over the past four years on everything from building the wall, to withdrawing from Gaza. It will also be at the center of the upcoming Israeli elections in March, which will go a long way towards determining whether there will be a peace agreement or another generation of war and reprisal.

According to Israeli journalist Kapeliouk, the Palestinians were wary about Camp David because Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak refused to lay out a pre- talk proposal. But because the Palestinians were also worried that if they refused to sign on, Barak and President Bill Clinton would paint them as obstructionists, they agreed to the negotiations.

Sure enough, when the Palestinians got to Camp David they were handed an offer they could only refuse: Israeli sovereignty over the Haram al Sharif, Islam's third holiest site; continued Israeli presence in the West Bank; no sharing of Jerusalem; and no plan for the 3.1 million Palestinian refugees. To top it off, Barak insisted nothing be written down.

The Palestinians countered with a proposal to give up 9 percent of the West Bank, agree to Israeli sovereignty over settlements in East Jerusalem, and to find a solution to the refugee issue that 'would not threaten Israeli demographic and security interests.'

The Palestinians also wanted this in document form because they felt that by not insisting on specific language concerning the settlements they had been burned in the 1993 Oslo Accords. At the time, the Palestinians assumed Oslo meant the settlements would be frozen until a final agreement was worked out. Instead, Israel doubled the settler population and built more than 40 new ones" - Israel/Palestine A Way Out? by Conn Hallinan

Israeli journalist Tanya Reinhart has alos exposed the facts about Camp David. Reinhart writes about it in detail in her chapter "The Camp David Negotioations: Myths and Facts"
Tanya Reinhart's second edition of her book Israel/Palestine : How to End the War of 1948 provides a primer on the current Israeli/Palestinian crisis.

People like Thomas Friedman are deceiving the American public. As Tanya Reinhart, an Israeli scholar has pointed out, “It is still difficult for many to believe that a deception of such magnitude is possible. Deceptions and false declarations have ben the standard in the politics of the powerful, and certainly are in Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians from the start.” Israel/Palestine by Tanya Reinhart P25

Josef asked, “My question to you is then why didn't Arafat take the 2000 Camp David deal?”

Because it was grotesquely unfair. see link And it is incredible how sleazy the Israeli side was, nothing was put in writing and you may have noticed that “maps were carefully avoided in the US mainstream” medialens. See Reinhart’s book Israel/Palestine : How to End the War of 1948: Robert Malley revealed, after waiting a year, that the 2000 Camp David offer was not as it has been presented in the mainstream media. He pointed out that “strickly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer ... The Israelis always stopped on, if not several, steps short of an offer” Reinhart quoting Malley p25 Israel/Palestine see “Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors” The New York Review of Books August 9, 2001 And there were supposed to be more negotiations, it was the Israeli side that refused to continue the talks.

Josef insisted “And if you want right-of-return so bad, don't you realize that'll kill the Jewish state?”

I think the melodrama and manipulation of using words like “kill” has got to end. As far as a Jewish State, could there be anything more unjust to be imposed upon non-Jews? The whole concept violates basic human rights and is against basic American values. We don’t accept such injustice here in America, we should not be financing it abroad. A state should be of it citizens, not of a privileged class. Do you think Jews in Israel have some special right to set up a discriminatory state? Do you realize Zionists consider equal rights to be “the destruction of Israel” by definition? This is too fanatical an opinion to indulge. All people deserve equal rights regardless of the fact that they don’t belong to a certain religion. At the time the father of Zionism plotted to ethnically cleanse non-Jews, the non-Jews were over 90% of the population of Palestine. In 1947 when the Zionist started the massive ethnic cleansing, non-Jews were approximately 67% of the population. Do you realize that now in America, Christians make up over 76% of the population and Jews are only 1%? But setting up a “Christian State”would be unjust.

 The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

And this is the "liberal media"?!!?

The Washington Post REFUSES to do a poll on whether Bush should be impeached. The Washington Post polling director Richard Morin claimed that a poll question asking if President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the Iraq war would be "biased and would produce a misleading result." then he got angrier and angrier saying that they think of the requests as a joke and that they don't take the requests seriously. He also changes the excuses he gives for refusing to do the poll.

Why not contact him and ask him why he is acting this way since he is supposedly a "liberal" working for the "liberal" Washington Post
Caught in inconsistency by Media Matters, Wash. Post polling director changed story
Contact information:

The Washington Post
Washington Post ombudsman: ombudsman@washpost.com
202-334-7582

Post e-mail directory
The Washington Post
1150 15th St. NW
Washington, DC 20071

Study shows the so called "liberal media" uses the term "liberal bias" 96.5% of the time in relation to the word "media" and only uses the term "conservative bias" 3.5% of the time.*

* Percentages based on a total of 486 searches looking for the word "media" within seven words of either "liberal bias" or "conservative bias." 469 of those searches found the term "liberal bias" and only 17 of the searches found the term "conservative bias."( Geoffrey Nunberg conducted the study, I computed the percentages based on his numbers)

"I was struck by the fact that none of the critics took on the single most extraordinary result in the data I looked at -- this one involving, not labeling, but the way the press talks about the bias story itself. In the newspapers I looked at, the word "media" appears within seven words of "liberal bias" 469 times and within seven words of "conservative bias" just 17 times.

Now there's a difference that truly deserves to be called staggering. But how should we explain it? Certainly critics on the left haven't been silent about what they take to be conservative bias in the media, whether in the pages of political reviews or in dozens of recent books. But the press has given their charges virtually no attention, while giving huge play to complaints from the right about liberal bias. That's hardly what you'd expect from a press that really did have a decided liberal bias, and in fact the discrepancy is far greater than anything you could explain by supposing that reporters were merely bending over backwards to be fair -- in that case, after all, you'd expect them to give at least a polite nod to the other side, as well." - Label Whores, Take Two: A response to Bernard Goldberg, Brent Bozell, and others on media bias. By Geoffrey Nunberg

Think about this: In a 2003 Gallup poll, 45% of the public said the media is "too liberal" and 15% said the media is "too conservative." (36% said the news media are "about right.")

Compare the media's 96.5% to the 45% of the public opinion and the media's 3.5% to the 15% of the public opinion.

According to the study, 96.5% of the time, the media is using the term "liberal bias" in relation to the word "media" yet only 45% of the public thinks the media is "too liberal." And although 15% of the public thinks the media is "too conservative," the media is using the term "conservative bias" only 3.5% of the time.

Now if the media were actually liberally biased why are the results so skewed? The media is overwhelmingly using the term "liberal bias" at a rate above and beyond the general public's opinion and dramatically under using the term "conservative bias" compared to the percentage of the public that thinks there is a conservative bias. Is this the behavior of a "liberal media" or is it the behavior of a media selling the idea of a "liberal media" and downplaying the idea of a "conservative media"?

Geoffrey Nunberg wrote, "In newspaper articles published since 1992, the word "media" appears within seven words of "liberal bias" 469 times and within seven words of "conservative bias" just 17 times. If people are disposed to believe that the media have a liberal bias, it's because that's what the media have been telling them all along."

The Gallup poll conducted in February 2003 asked whether, “In general, do you think the news media are — too liberal, just about right, or too conservative?”

45% said "too liberal"
36% said "about right"
15% said "too conservative"
4% had no opinion

This is the same Gallup poll which Media Research Center (MRC) cites. Note that according to this poll, less than half of the public thinks the media is "too liberal," 45%. And note that the majority of people don't think the media is "too liberal," 51%, which is the 36% who said it is "about right" and 15% that said it is "too conservative." (4% had no opinion)

I think that the Gallup poll should have given as the second choice "no bias" instead of "just about right" to avoid any possible confusion with the word "right."

Here is a study by Geoffrey Nunberg that looks at Use of Political Labels in Major Newspapers

See also:
The numbers confirm what Michael Dolny has shown in a series of annual studies for the group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR): Reporters' Rolodexes stop three times as often at the names of conservative think tanks as at the names of liberal think tanks. The Think Tank Spectrum: For the Media, Some Thinkers Are More Equal Than Others

Student Admits Making Up Homeland Security Agents' Visit

"The UMass Dartmouth student who claimed to have been visited by Homeland Security agents over his request for "The Little Red Book" by Mao Zedong has admitted to making up the entire story. The 22-year-old student tearfully admitted he made the story up to his history professor, Dr. Brian Glyn Williams, and his parents, after being confronted with the inconsistencies in his account.

The student's motivation remains a mystery, but in the interview on Thursday, he provided a glimpse: "When I came back, like wow, there's this circus coming on. I saw my cell phone, and I see like, wow, I have something like 75 messages and like something like 87 missed calls," he said. "Wow, I was popular. I usually get one or probably two a week and that's about it, and I usually pick them up." " - Federal agents' visit was a hoax, Student admits he lied about Mao book By AARON NICODEMUS, Standard-Times staff writer

Re: Exit Strategy

Mr. X writes on CL, "Jeez, just leave already!!! It doesn't matter how long we're there to babysit those people. You are dealing with two different factions who haven't gotten along in a thousand years and you seriously expect them to get along and adopt Democracy just because GWB said so and is force feeding it down their throats?? We could be there a hundred years and the day we leave they will be at each other like it was yesterday. Do you seriously expect a tribe of camel jockeys who still live in the 13th century to join the modern world? It ain't gonna happen in your lifetime, your children's or grandchildren's. You may as well piss into the wind for the all the good this is doing anyone."

2 points:
#1 the US does not intend on allowing true democracy in Iraq.
#2 Iraq already had a democratic tradition, the U.S. and Britain crushed it. In fact the US was behind two coups that put the Ba'ath party into power in the first place.

Mr. X assumes Bush is "force feeding" democracy "down the throats" of Iraqis.

Mr. X, you have not done much research if you believe the Bush administration is actually intending on allowing real democracy.

Noam Chomsky: The US tried, in every possible way, to prevent elections in Iraq. They offered effort after effort to evade the danger of elections. Finally, they were compelled to accept elections by mass non-violent resistance, for which the Ayatollah Sistani [moderate Shi'ite leader] was a kind of a symbol. Mass outpourings of people demanding elections. Finally, Bush and Blair had to agree to elections. The next step is to subvert them and they started immediately. They're doing it right now. Elections mean you pay some - in a democracy at least - you pay some attention to the will of the population. Well, the crucial question for an invading army is: 'do they want us to be here?' Well, we know the answer to that. The British Ministry of Defense carried out a poll a couple of months ago, it was secret, but it leaked to the British Press - I don't think it's been reported in the US. They found that 82 percent of the population wanted the coalition forces, British and US forces to leave. One percent of the population said that they were increasing security.

The US and Britain announced at once, at once, we will not have a timetable to withdraw. So yes, you can all want us to leave, but we won't have a timetable for withdrawal.

How can it be Democracy if the Iraqi People's Wishes Are Ignored? You aren't supposed to think about that. The media and the officials talk about when WE want to withdraw, it isn't put in terms of "we will withdraw when the Iraqis want" So much for democracy! You hear "no timetable" all the time instead of what you should hear if Iraq really was allowed to be a sovereign and democratic nation. If Iraq really was allowed to be a sovereign and democratic nation then you should hear, "the timetable is what the Iraqis say it is."

Noam Chomsky: Suppose that the Iraqi parliament, instead of being an elite force, dominating the population, suppose the Iraqi parliament represents popular will, say the popular will of 80 percent of Iraqis who want the occupying forces to withdraw, according to the British Ministry of Defence. Suppose that happens? Well then the occupying forces should immediately initiate withdrawal and leave it to the Iraqis. Now there's a good reason why Washington and London are not contemplating that. It has nothing to do with the fate of the Iraqis, quite the contrary.

Just think for a minute. What would an independent Iraq be likely to do, an independent, more or less democratic Iraq? Think. I mean if you're going to have a Shi'ite majority. Therefore the Shi'ites will have a lot of influence in policy, probably a dominant influence. The Shi'ite population in the south, which is where most of the oil is, would much prefer warm relations to Iran over hostile relations to Iran. Furthermore they are very close relations already, the Badr brigade, which is the militia that mostly controls the south, was trained in Iran. The clerics have long-standing relations with Iran; the Ayatollah Sistani actually grew up there. Chances are pretty strong, they'll move towards a some sort of a loose Shi'ite alliance, with Iraq and Iran. Furthermore right across the border in Saudi Arabia, there's a substantial Shi'ite population, which has been bitterly oppressed by the US-backed tyranny in Saudi Arabia, the fundamentalist tyranny. Any move towards independence in Iraq is likely to increase the efforts to gain a degree of autonomy and justice. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. So you can see not far in the future a loose Shi'ite alliance controlling most of the world's oil, independent of the US. Furthermore, it is beginning to turn toward the East.

Iran has pretty much given up on Western Europe, it assumes that Western Europe is too cowardly to act independently of the US, well it has options. It can turn to the East. China can't be intimidated. That's why the US is so frightened of China. It cannot be intimidated. In fact, they're already establishing relations with Iran and in fact even with Saudi Arabia, both military and economic. There is an Asian energy security grid based on Asia and Russia but bringing in India, Korea and others. If Iran moves in that direction, having abandoned any hope in Europe, it can become the lynchpin of the Asian energy security grid.

Andy Clark: And you say that this may be part of an attraction for the Shi'ite groups in Iraq as well to sort of join this movement away from the Western world influence as it were?

Noam Chomsky: Yes, they have every reason to. In fact it might even happen in Saudi Arabia. From the point of view of Washington planners, that is the ultimate nightmare.

Andy Clark: And that's why you say they won't be prepared to leave...

Noam Chomsky: That is why they're fighting tooth and nail to prevent democracy and sovereignty in Iraq. The Iraqi people have resisted and it's a very impressive resistance. I'm not talking about insurgency. I'm talking about popular, non-violent resistance under bitter conditions. There's a labour movement forming, which is a very important one. The US insists on keeping Saddam's bitter anti-labour laws, but the labour movement doesn't like it. Their activists are being killed. Nobody knows by whom, maybe by insurgents, maybe by former Baathists, maybe by somebody else. But they're working. There's the basis of a popular democracy being developed there, much to the horror of the occupying forces, but it's going on and it could have very long term consequences in their national affairs, which is why Bush and Blair have so desperately been trying to prevent democracy and any form of sovereignty and have been forced to back off step by step. This is also going on with the economic arrangements. The US moved in and immediately tried to open up the economy to foreign take-over by imposing outrageous and in fact illegal laws for privatisation. You know, Iraqis don't want that, they want to take control of their own economy and resources. There's a battle going on about that.

Mr. X wrote, "Do you seriously expect a tribe of camel jockeys who still live in the 13th century to join the modern world?"

Mr. X, you don't know anything about Iraq. Do you know what happened in the 1950's and 1960's in Iraq?

Noam Chomsky: Iraq has a long democratic tradition, goes back a century. It was crushed by the British invasion, but it continued to function in many different ways. There was some hope for it with the 1958 revolution, which was a kind of populist revolution which threw out the British and began to introduce social measures and so on and so forth. It introduced the constitution, which is far more liberal than the current one. Well the US and Britain couldn't stand that, so they backed and maybe initiated a coup, a military coup to put the Baath party in. That crushed Iraqi democracy for years." - On the Iraq Election

Working the Refs

Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of "liberal bias" in the media were part of "a strategy" (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time." http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

We have State-Capitalism NOT Capitalism

Capitalism failed before WWII, we now have state capitalism. Public money is funneled into the hands of wealthy private interests. "State-capitalism" is where socialism is benefiting the rich and powerful. Billions of dollars transferred to private interests, it is what keeps the economy afloat. You should look into how our economy really works.

A huge part of it is the military-industrial complex, where socialism is implemented under the guise of security. "The word to use remains "security," not "subsidy," as Air Force Secretary Stuart Symington advised in the early days of the Cold War, when government was being mobilized as the "savior" of private power, which could not survive in a competitive economy, as the business press frankly acknowledged."

And it does not stop with the Military-Industrial Complex, that is just part of the system. Check out how much wealthy corporation's R&D is on the backs of the American taxpayers. "It's not simply the subsidies to agribusiness and the protection, that's a small part of it; the major part is that there is a dynamic state sector in the economy which is the core of economic innovation and development. Research and development takes place mainly in the state sector. Take the entire new economy, computers, telecommunications, the internet, now biotechnology and so on, the costs are largely socialized through various mechanisms such as the institution we're now talking in (MIT) which is part of the system. Costs are socialized, risks are socialized and if anything comes out decades later it's handed over to private power"

Costs are socialized, profits are privatized

The average American is fed the story that we are a Capitalist economy and that companies invest in their business and reap the returns. The reality is that huge amounts of taxpayer money is used to keep big companies in business, welfare for the rich that many Americans are unaware of. I was flipping through the channels and just happened to catch a mention of something called the "National Nanotechnology Initiative" for a few seconds on the History Channel. It said that the budget was $961 million in 2004. I thought "holy crap", yet another example that puts a lie to the "Capitalist economy" that the public is brainwashed with.

ADM's Dwayne Andreas says talk of "free markets" is just wind, "People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country."

Neoliberal Economic Theory is Fraud They used state power to support and protect efficient capitalists within their own national boundaries who had the potential to become exporters. They poured subsidies into uncompetitive industries in order to substitute domestically produced goods for imports, often at almost any price.

Great info Tayssir John Gabbour pointed to on Znet:

Incidentally, if there's any doubt that elites are fully aware of socializing costs and privatizing profits:

"Let's talk about the question of why people are wealthy. There is a myth that it's a function of enormous personal attributes. There's a myth that achieving wealth is a function of personal intelligence and energy and thus that the product of that intelligence and energy being wealth is the sole and exclusive possession of the person who developed and earned it. And that myth is so egregious. It's just egregious. ...

There are some things that our government does with its tax money which directly create personal wealth and that is the enormous federal research activity. Do you know there would not be an Internet but for federal research money? There would not be new biotechnological companies but for the federal research effort. There would not be an examination of the human genome without the federal research effort. In those university laboratories is the seed of the health of our economy.

... the individual wealth which is generated in this economy is, in my judgment, and I doubt that there is much that anyone could disagree with about this, is a function of the innovative businesses which are created as a result of federal research. But you understand that the people who benefit from that research get it free ... It starts from this incredible research activity which is going on with federal money.

That leads me to a very simple conclusion. I think that people who have the good fortune, the skill, the luck to become wealthy in our country simply have a debt, simply have a debt to the source of their opportunity." -- Bill Gates Sr., 2003

★ ★ ★ Please Subscribe →↘↓↓↓

http://www.Tinyurl.com/YouTubeSub

Also please Join e-mail list →↘↓↓↓

★ ★ ★ http://www.Tinyurl.com/JoinEmail

Bloomberg is a total hypocrite

It's ironic to hear the mayor, for one, bleating about the rule of law and how "no negotiations should proceed until this illegal, selfish strike ends." This is the same law-abiding civic leader who bragged in "Bloomberg on Bloomberg" (p. 59-60) that breaking the law was just part of his inspired path to riches.- The New York City Transit Strike: It's About Respect...and Solidarity by Michael Hirsch


"Among old McDonald's hamburger wrappings and mouse droppings," the former media giant bragged, "we dragged wires from our computers to the keyboards and screens we were putting in place, stuffed the cables through holes we drilled in other people's furniture -- all without permission, violating every fire law, building code, and union regulation on the books. It's amazing we didn't burn down some office or electrocute ourselves. ... Back in the good old days, we transported the equipment in the back seat of a yellow taxicab. Import/export regulations? We just carried it into the next country in our luggage." p.50-60, Bloomberg on Bloomberg

Bloomberg bitches about working class people who are trying to hold on to what they got (keep pace with inflation and holding onto pension benifits for others) yet this creep broke the law in his lust to become a billionaire.

Sharon writes, "Is it unusual that more conservative think tanks would be quoted about conservative policies when conservatives are in power?"

It isn't OK if that is your question.

First of all Sharon, you ignored the point that the FACTS do not support the claims made by the study.

Second, media isn't supposed to be a mouth piece for those in power, it is supposed to be a watchdog not a cheerleader. If anything, the "fourth estate" is supposed to be a check and balance on political power not an echo chamber for it.

No matter what is pointed out to you, you always illogically twist things in order to refuse to admit the truth. Really amazing, you immediately drop the premise that they aren't doing what they are doing and start making excuses for what they are doing.

You ask if they get quoted not if they are simply referred to. So why should the media be quoting more of them as opposed to liberal think tanks? As if liberal think tanks don't have something to say and would not want to be quoted? If it was just references to certain think tanks then we could not know if their message is getting communicated, but since you said "quoted" we know that their message is getting presented to the public.

Now since those in office are already pushing the conservative message and are already quoting these conservative think tanks, where is the counter balance? How is the media the "fourth estate" that stands as a check and balance? All it is is an amplifier of the same conservative message.

So in answer to your question, yes it is "unusual" if we want to think that the media serves a service to the public as something that challenges power instead of assisting them with their message. Assisting conservatives with their messages undermines the entire premise of what this site tries to argue.

Liberals are concerned with the same topics and if the media is doing their supposed job of presenting the whole story, a complete reporting of all sides of the issues, then there should not be disproportionally more conservative think tanks being quoted.

If the media is quoting the conservative think tanks more and thus over-represents one side of a story then they certainly can't be biased towards liberals can they? Are you still maintaining that the media is "liberally biased"?

Sharon writes, "So for Ted Koppel to try to spin it into "the system broke down. We've done it in other countries but can't do it here" is at best disingenuous and at worst fraud. THIS is the media you idiotic leftists advocate?"

Holy ****! NO, I don't advocate a Ted Koppel type media. You are ridiculous Sharon. And you probably didn't notice how Koppel went after Kucinich with "Barbed Questions" during the debates, he was down right nasty. This is how a true liberal gets treated by the MSM.

If you honestly think the media was making excuses for Clinton you have serious problems. The media crucified the man. If you didn't see this, I would like to know what planet you were on during those years.

In fact the same WP man that REFUSES to do a poll on whether Bush should be impeached actually did a poll on if Clinton should be impeached. and contrary to your delusion that the media talked about sex as an excuse, the poll used it as one of the reasons for him to be impeached! So no, Sharon, the MSM did not try to give Clinton a free pass. And I point that out with a specific example of the double standard of the WP:

"A January 1998 Post poll conducted just days after the first revelations of Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky asked the following questions:

• "If this affair did happen and if Clinton did not resign, is this something for which Clinton should be impeached, or not?"
• "There are also allegations that Clinton himself lied by testifying under oath that he did not have an affair with the woman. If Clinton lied in this way, would you want him to remain in office as president, or would you want him to resign the presidency?"
• "If Clinton lied by testifying under oath that he did not have an affair with the woman, and he did not resign, is this something for which Clinton should be impeached, or not?"

Morin was the Post's polling director at the time, and he wrote the January 26, 1998, article reporting the poll results.How is "If the president did not tell the truth about the Iraq war, should he be impeached?" (which Morin refuses to do a poll on!) a more biased question than the questions the Post -- under Morin's direction -- asked in 1998?" - mediamatters.org

Sharon, do you have any idea how wrong you get things?

And when some of the most dramatic points are pointed pout to you you go into denial and outright lie.

I pointed out that MSM did not report how the Ba'ath party were put into power in Iraq in the first place. Instead of admitting this point you resorted to a complete lie pretending that the MSM reported that the U.S. was the one that backed the coups that put the Ba'ath party into power!

Not reporting this fact indicated incredible subservience to power on the part of the MSM. You could not deal with this fact so you lied and pretended that the MSM reported it.

And let me guess, you never wrote the WP ombudsman.

War on the Workers, What the Media is Not Making Clear

Very interesting. A reporter today was saying that the strike was continuing and then she started to say that the MTA didn't have the money but she had to stop herself BECAUSE THE MTA DOES HAVE THE MONEY

So the question is: why does the MTA insist on chipping away at the pension plans when there is enough money?

The reason? Because management wants to continue the war on workers by sending the message that workers must continue to expect less and less year after year. Year after year unions and workers are being attacked.

Remember, the MTA DOES HAVE THE MONEY. The question is: how much money would be saved if the MTA's pension plan scheme was put into effect? Less than 20 million dollars! That's right, that is how little. This strike has cost MANY times more than that. (city authorities fear New York will lose US$1.6 billion in Christmas business if the strike lasts one week, the economic impact could be huge. ) So why did the MTA force this conflict over less than 20 million dollars? Because management wants to send a message to workers to expect less and less year after year.

This is what the strike is about. Has the media made this clear to you?

The MTA is insisting that workers contribute more toward their pensions, a proposal would save the MTA less than 20 million dollars over the next three years.

"What they'd be saving on pensions is a pittance," said TWU leader Roger Toussaint. "were it not for the pension piece, we would not be out on strike.

It could be "resolved in hours if there's a will." "All it (the MTA) needs to do is take its pension proposal off the table."

Has the media made these details clear to you? The stubborn MTA insists on chipping away at worker's futures and forcing this strike to happen. This is management's continuing war on workers and the media is serving the interests of management.

Request for Donations Answered by Chavez, U.S. Media Attacks Him In Return

Those bitching about the deal to sell Venezuelan heating oil at discount prices to low-income communities in the United States should look at the facts:

"The deal developed after a group of US senators sent a letter to nine major oil companies asking them to donate a portion of their recent record profits to help poor residents cover heating bills. The only response came from CITGO."

"In the United States, commentary on the deal is grudging at best, saying that Chavez, who has accused the Bush administration of trying to overthrow his government, is motivated by political ends — unlike, for example, the purely humanitarian programmes of the US Agency for International Development."

"Cuba-Venezuela relations are becoming very close. They practice a barter system, each relying on its strengths. Venezuela is providing low-cost oil while in return Cuba organises literacy and health programmes, and sends thousands of teachers and doctors, who, as elsewhere, work in the poorest areas, previously neglected.

Joint Cuba-Venezuela projects are also having a considerable impact in the Caribbean countries, where, under a programme called Operation Miracle, Cuban doctors are providing health care to people who had no hope of receiving it, with Venezuelan funding.

Chavez has repeatedly won monitored elections and referenda despite overwhelming and bitter media hostility. Support for the elected government has soared during the Chavez years. The veteran Latin American correspondent Hugh O’ Shaughnessy explains why in a report for Irish Times:

"In Venezuela, where an oil economy has over the decades produced a sparkling elite of superrich, a quarter of under-15s go hungry, for instance, and 60 per cent of people over 59 have no income at all. Less than a fifth of the population enjoys social security. Only now under President Chavez ... has medicine started to become something of a reality for the poverty-stricken majority in the rich but deeply divided — virtually nonfunctioning — society. Since he won power in democratic elections and began to transform the health and welfare sector which catered so badly to the mass of the population progress has been slow. But it has been perceptible ..." - "A dangerous neighbourhood"

What you are saying about Chavez is simply not true.

Chavez is going to be a "Saddam"? Come on! You are spreading lies and disinformation about Chavez. First of all, U.S. policymakers did not support Chavez so already that is a good sign.
Who was Saddam's backer as early as the 1950's? The U.S. funded this killer in the late 1950's. Who was involved in the coups that put the Ba'ath party into power in the first place? The CIA. "The CIA were definitely involved in that coup" US diplomat James Akins who served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them," Akins said, "Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us"

We have reporters in a media system who are all too willing to "play the game" Notice that the MSM did not report how the U.S. was responsible for the rise of Saddam and the Ba'ath party? (I am talking about BEFORE the 1980's) We have a very obedient press that serves powerful interests ( towing the line helps reporters' careers) Now they are getting the message to slam Chavez and you guys are lapping it up.

"No reputable human rights organization would claim that Venezuela under Chavez is less democratic that under previous governments, or compares unfavorably in terms of human rights or democratic freedoms to the rest of Latin America.

On the positive side, even Chavez' opponents concede that millions of poor Venezuelans -- the majority -- now have access to health care, education, literacy programs, land titles, and credit for the first time, as a result of the government's social programs. ( U.S. MSM ignores this and the country's unprecedented economic growth that reached 17% in 2004, the highest in the world.)

Sadly, the biggest threats to Venezuela's democracy still come from Washington, which has funded and allied itself with the anti-democratic leaders of Venezuela's opposition, including supporters of the failed coup. This funding and support has been acknowledged by the U.S. State Department. The National Endowment for Democracy, which is funded by our Congress, has also funneled millions of dollars to opposition groups. And recently-released documents from the CIA show that the Bush Administration had detailed advanced knowledge of the coup but lied about what happened: the White House tried to convince the press and other countries that it was not a coup at all, but rather a legitimate seizure of power by "pro-democracy" forces."- Political Attacks Against Venezuela Continue

"A few weeks ago, a group of almost 400 Venezuelan journalists issued a statement denouncing a "campaign" from the United States against Venezuela. The journalists argued that negative and frequent media coverage of Venezuela in the U.S., as well as the frequent comments by high ranking officials at the State Department, the CIA, and The White House, amount to a "campaign" similar to those applied against countries which were later invaded by the U.S.

At a meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) held in February, Venezuela's Foreign Minister Ali Rodriguez, alerted the governments of the Americas that U.S. "interventionism" in Venezuela is a "prelude to aggression."

Last February, Minister Izarra presented a report detailing an alleged "anti-Chavez bias" in recent media coverage of Venezuela in the United States. Izarra asserted that "in light of the large influx of erroneous and de-contextualized information, it is evident that the U.S. private media has joined forces with the U.S. Department of State and spokespeople of the Bush administration in an effort to launch a 'smear campaign' against the Venezuelan government."" - Venezuelan Media

What U.S. officials did to Chavez was a crime and the MSM was right there playing along with it: "On April 12, 2002, Chavez resigned his presidency It said so, right there in the paper -- every major newspaper in the USA, every single one. Apparently, to quote the New York Times, Chavez recognized that he was unpopular, his time was up: "With yesterday's resignation of President Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator."

Problem was, the "resignation" story was a fabulous fib, a phantasmagoric fabrication. In fact, the President of Venezuela had been kidnapped at gunpoint and bundled off by helicopter from the presidential palace. He had not resigned; he never resigned; and one of his captors (who secretly supported Chavez) gave him a cell-phone from which he called and confirmed to friends and family that he remained alive -- and still president.

Working for the Guardian and the BBC, I was able within hours of the kidnapping to reach key government people in Venezuela to confirm that this "resignation" factoid was just hoodoo nonsense.

But it was valuable nonsense to the U.S. State Department. The faux resignation gave the new U.S.-government-endorsed Venezuelan leaders the pretense of legitimacy -- Chavez had resigned; this was a legal change of government, not a coup d'etat. (The Organization of American States bars recognition of governments who come to power through violence.) Had the coup leaders not bungled their operation -- the coup collapsed within 48 hours -- or if they had murdered Chavez, we would never have known the truth.

The U.S. papers got it dead wrong -- but how? Who was the source of this "resignation" lie? I asked a U.S. reporter why American news media had reported this nonsense as stone fact without checking. The reply was that it came from a reliable source: "We got it from the State Department."" - How the American media distorted events in Venezuela beyond all recognition

Chavez is using the oil resources to help the poor, his first concern is not the profits of U.S. corporations and that is considered a crime in the U.S. All the attacks on him have to do with how he is helping the people. Some important facts slip through in the MSM: To lessen his dependence on the U.S. market, which soaks up two-thirds of Venezuela's 2.1 million barrels of average daily exports, Caracas also is investing in several major projects such as refineries and shipping terminals to cut out costlier middlemen, predominantly from the United States."

also see Venezuela Watch

Report: Canada testing device that alerts drivers whenever the exceed speed limits.

This is a very good start to ensure safety on the roads. Some people don't appreciate what a VERY clever idea it is to have a system that would enforce speed limits by making it harder to push down the car's gas pedal once the speed limit is passed. The added effort to push on the gas sends a reminder to ourselves of our responsibilities and that going over the speed limit is not the same as going a safe speed under it. It still gives enormous freedom for emergencies. This is something that could give enormous benefits with such an incredibly small "inconvenience" the idea is very, very, clever. And we need to something, so many Americans die on our roads each year, nearly 40,000 MORE than died on 9/11.

42,800 people died on the nation's highways in 2004 Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said the nation was "in the midst of a national epidemic" "If this many people were to die from any one disease in a single year, Americans would demand a vaccine."

And we should put money towards public transportation, the current transportation system is insane. People in the future will look back at our time and think we were barbarians for allowing over 40,000 Americans to die on the road every year. It doesn't have to be this way.

What do YOU think the US position and/or involvement should be with the Sudan where major human rights violations are occurring on a daily basis?

You sound like a bleeding heart liberal, so concerned about human rights and so willing to have the government so something about it. The Military Industrial Complex has quite a marketing department for you to so readily concern yourself with this, and apparently so willing to use taxpayers money to right wrongs.

I would take a careful look before being so willing to go for "Humanitarian Military Intervention." I know you didn't suggest it but this is something that gets pushed and I would suggest you don't assume noble intentions on the part of U.S. policymakers. If they wanted to be decent thing then after the mistaken bombing (which they had no right to do) they should have paid reparations to Sudan. Also the U.S. should not have been undermining attempts to refer the Sudan situation to the ICC. Amnesty International reiterated its concern that the USA is refusing to adopt the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendation that the situation in Darfur should be referred to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution and to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. The U.S. Signed the UN Charter, look at our Constitution, Treaties become law of OUR LAND. You need to take seriously the obligations that have been made. We need to stop undermining the UN. Bolton needs to shut his obnoxious mouth and stop openly declaring a policy of lawlessness.

Your whole premise of "constructive comments" is absurd. If someone were to say that street thugs should be held accountable and be brought to justice, I am sure you would agree. Yet you are brainwashed with this idea that people in powerful positions in our government become "America" itself so that we can no longer hold them to account without being cast as "anti-American". It really is one of the most serious propaganda problems we have. All I am saying is that people that violate the law and commit crimes are wrong and should be held accountable so why do you bitch about "criticisms?" If I was saying it about a small time hood you would be jumping up and down saying yes, yes, yes! You would not be saying that it is "worthless criticism" Yet this insane propaganda of conflating U.S. officials with "America" itself has got you brainwashed.

As for specific details of what we should talk about at the UN, I would need to do some research. I, unlike some other people, like to be informed about the issues I discuss.

This topic was about the Iraq Debate, why are you so concerned about Sudan?

Planting Fake News Stories
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' transcript for December 1 show

MATTHEWS: When we return, will the Pentagon strategy of planting fake news stories hamper the chances of true democracy and U.S. victory in Iraq? HARDBALL returns after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Amy Goodman is the radio talk show host for Democracy Now, and Byron York is the White House correspondent for “The National Review.”

Byron, we're going to put you in an interesting position here. Does it offend you, as an American, that we're buying good press in Iraq?

BYRON YORK, NATIONAL REVIEW: I think we shouldn't have been doing it. And I do think that Jim Miklaszewski hinted at this. There is kind of a war going on inside the Pentagon. And I personally think if we had found out there was an article that appeared in the Iraqi press that was very positive to the United States, years later we find out it could be traced back to the CIA, some very black operation at the CIA, big deal. We've done that a lot over the years in many different wars.

But there is a problem when you blur the distinction between that sort of thing and the public affairs officials of the United States military, who should be telling the truth. Did we kill this many people? Have we built this many schools? They should be telling the truth about that. So there is a war in part going on inside the Pentagon and the Bush administration, over how to do this kind of thing.

MATTHEWS: Who makes the decision, do you know? Who made the decision to clear this contract and say, all right, go out there and create some of this bogus positive coverage?

YORK: Well, first of all, I don't know. And I'm not sure a lot of people do know, and I'm sure they're scrambling right now to try to find some answers for Senator Warner.

MATTHEWS: Well, $100 million is a hell of a lien item. And somebody had to approve it.

YORK: Well, yes, but by the way, if I read the stories correctly, the $100 million is for the next five years. It's not as if $100 million was spent on doing this particular stuff we're talking about.

MATTHEWS: Well, at $200 a reporter, $20 million goes a long way this year.

YORK: It does.

MATTHEWS: Anyway, let me go to Amy Goodman. Your view of this matter. This is of course the story we're getting the last couple of days. It's going to be investigated tomorrow by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John Warner of Virginia. Senator Warner said he's going to be holding—getting a briefing from the Pentagon as to what role they played at the top. What do you make of it, Amy?

AMY GOODMAN, DEMOCRACY NOW: Well, Chris, it's an absolute outrage, and there are many levels of it. One is of course the outrage against the Iraqi people, that they're not getting true operations, that this is a kind of psychological warfare, and you've dealt with it well on the program.

But I want to talk about a few other levels of this. You also have the blowback effect. When you have pieces that appear in Iraqi papers and then you have newspapers around the world and in this country as well citing those papers, and the blowback comes to this country.

And then you have the marginalization of a press in Iraq that may well be telling the truth. You have organizations like Al-Jazeera. If you have some news outlets telling the truth and others only telling the, quote, “good news.” In fact, the lies that the Bush administration is putting out, and wants the Iraqi people to believe, that marginalizes those news organizations.

(Apparently, Matthews suddenly resents the fact that Goodman is talking about the fake news yet this is what he referred to in the intro! He challenges her:)

MATTHEWS: Well wait a minutes. There's been nothing in the reporting on this to say that we're putting out this information, though. From what I've been reading, we're putting out factual accounts of what we're doing over there in terms of construction.

GOODMAN: There's no different issues here. One is wanting to put out, quote, “good news stories,” that the military is putting out and paying reporters to take. The other part is the covert operation, what they call the—basically, the information, the psychological operations.

This has been reported in “The Philadelphia Inquirer,” has been reported by Knight Ridder. And that is actually planting false stories. Jonathan Landay had a very good piece on this today. Actually, purposely putting in false stories about what is going on in Iraq. And of course the tragedy for the Iraqi people is that they see what's happening on the ground, and they look at a press and they say, why isn't it reflecting what is happening here?

(Seems Matthews suddenly doesn't like the fake news being talked about, at this point Matthews never asks Goodman another question.)

YORK: The reports I've seen on this is that they were accurate, but one-sided. Which is, they should include all sides, but that's a tradition we see in many American news reports.

MATTHEWS: The news around the street, going to both of you. Dispute here in America now, and we're trying to find this out, the objective fact here. It's not about propaganda. We want to know, how well are we doing in training the Iraqi security forces over there, so we can go home. And let them defend their own government.

And the question now, as we have the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Peter Pace, putting out a statement today, that people like George Casey, the Army Chief of Staff, has been making it too high a standard for these Iraqis, saying they're not doing as well as they should, when in fact, he says, just get the standard down a little, and they'll look better. We're having a dispute among the very highest level of our military over whether we've trained anybody over there.

YORK: Well, not completely over whether we've trained anybody, but...

MATTHEWS: ... sufficient to defend the country.

YORK: The president brought that very thing up yesterday in the speech in Annapolis, and he said that we all remember the incidents when the Iraqis just ran away from battle. But there has been a dispute over how many battalions, battalion being 350-800 people: how many of them are ready to go? I mean, the president yesterday...

MATTHEWS: ... do they look like soldiers when they march around? They don't look like people doing something by the hour, they're getting paid to do it?

YORK: When you see them in a pickup truck in irregular uniform, no, they don't look like American soldiers.

MATTHEWS: They look like those dazed guys.

YORK: It's another part of the world.

MATTHEWS: No, but they look like they're kind of dazed and disinterested. When you look at these guys, they don't look like crack outfits. At least, what they're putting on television.

YORK: Well, they're not crack outfits. But on the other hand, these are people who could be killed by doing this.

MATTHEWS: Oh, I understand that. But they're getting paid, too.

YORK: And they know that. So they made a certain decision.

MATTHEWS: They're getting three squares out of this, too. It's isn't completely volunteer work.

YORK: But it's a dangerous decision to make.

MATTHEWS: Yes, it is, based upon a lot of factors, like pay.

YORK: Well, American contractors do the same thing.

MATTHEWS: I know, but we'll wait to see. But this is interesting. When George Casey is fighting with Peter Pace, the highest levels of our military whether we have any standards at all or not, over this. It's fascinating. It's probably a lot more important than this propaganda story.

Amy Goodman, thank you for joining us, Byron York. When we return, President Bush is about to light the National Christmas Tree in Washington. We'll take you there when we return.

Words Goodman was able to speak: 282
Words York was able to speak: 403

I talked about specific facts that you are too cowardly to address. I said that MSNBC neglected to say why the hostages were taken. I said most of the media acts this way. What we did to the Iranians was a crime. You should look into it. In fact it isn't even denied at this point, the US officially admits they perpetrated the coup. What they haven't done is apologize. In 1979 there was a real concern by the Iranians that the US would once again re-install the Shah. The very building the students seized was the building the CIA used to perpetrate the 1953 coup.

At the very least a people have the right to hold their own leaders responsible for the crimes the commit agisnt them The Shah was guilty of enormous human rights violations, many were killed too. What doe the US do? it gives him sanctuary. It wasn't "whimpiness" it was jerkyness on the part of US policymakers. what right do we have to shelter a criminal from his own peoples desire to bring him to justice? For the life of me I don't understand why you think it is OK for the US to meddle in the internal politics of these foreign countries and violate their rights. We are a country that fought to free ourselves from a king and US policymakers go and undermine a democratic government and instal a king!?! And you don't think that US policymakers violate the very principles we supposedly stand for? The example of slavery is to show that policies can be extremely wrong and still there will be people like you that refuse to see that fact. Look how the policy of slavery violated the very principle of freedom, which is what America supposedly stood for. There were many AMericans who said the abolitionists were just noise generators too.

I don't see any mention of the fact that it was illegal to attack Iraq. The NYT is notorious for serving the interests of the powerful and the powerful don't like to be bound by laws. All this sick minded talk from the Times as if it is simply a choice that may or may not be made. Attacking Iraq wasn't "a choice" that either "should" be made or not. It wasn't a choice that would be a "mistake" or not. It was a case of either violating the law of our land or not. The Times is a very sick newspaper for suppressing the fact that what Bush was contemplating was illegal.

It would be very interesting to see if any mainstream news outlet reported the fact that what Bush was contemplating was illegal. I never saw one report that basic fact.
see The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy

Brian,

What in the world do you think was "handled?" You are not following the premise of the discussion if you think they "handled" the comments. Seriously, tell me what it is you need to see. What is it you are not seeing? I laid out the facts so why would anyone continue to believe that U.S officials intend on true democracy? Look at the history, look at their current actions. You think U.S, polciymakers actually want the Iraqi people to make their own policies? What do you think these policies are? U.S. officials talk about a pipe line to ship oil to Israel. do you really think this is what the Iraqis want? Can't you see that policy makers don't care what they want?

I pointed out that there is no reason to believe U.S. policymakers when they claim they want democracy for IRaq. I gave the example of VIetnam where there was to be an election in 1956 yet the US backed Diem who refused elections. No one can dispute this fact and yet you want to think the problem in Vietnam was we were to "wussy?" And look how the media behaves, they don't make this clear to the public. ANd since you read Chomsky's book, Imperial Ambitions you know that he pointed out on page 125 that a huge number of Americans have no idea how many Vietnamese were killed in the war. A public-opinion study was done. "the mean answer was a hundred thousand, about 5 percent of the official figure." The media hasn't even made the public aware of the accurate number of war deaths!

I then pointed out, not quoted but just wrote off the top of my head that only 1% of Iraqis actually believe the U.S. intends to allow real democracy in Iraq. 74 minutes later I provided the source I got the info from and correctly quoted what it was I thought I was referring to. "1% of Iraqis thought the goal was to bring democracy." (by the way, turns out 5% or less thought the goal was WMD, the U.S.'s stated goal) And I went to the trouble of finding the Washington Post article and that still wasn't enough for stinker?

But the central premise that the U.S. doesn't intend to allow real democracy is the main point. In fact as I posted, "51 percent" of Iraqis "said Washington would not allow Iraqis to do that without U.S. pressure and influence."

But the history shows there is no reason to believe U.S. officials' claims. There is no reason to believe the MSM is serious about pursuing these things. Look how they don't deal with the extremely important fact about the Iraqi election that "people voted with the hope that it would end the occupation."

Do you not notice that U.S. officials are not saying that the U.S. will get out when the Iraqis want us out? Do you not notice the media doesn't frame the debate around what the Iraqis want but instead talk about what the U.S. intends to do regardless of what the Iraqis want. Do you not see that? Democracy means that the Iraqi government would represent the will of the Iraqi people, we can see that powerful interests the U.S. are not concerned about that. Is it really hard to believe that these U.S. officials share the mentality of LTC (RET) John G. Wheelock and think “to the victor goes the spoils?" We certainly have bad people in America, you guys can't get it into your heads that bad people can get into our government. You don't think there are people in government like Wheelock who think it is a big joke to undermine democracy for foreign people? The same way Wheelock thinks the coup against Chavez was fine, you don't think U.S. policy makes are just as willing to disregard the rights of people in foreign countries?

I pointed out the VERY important fact that U.S. officials and the media almost never if ever talk about what the Iraqis want when it comes to the troops.

The media constantly plays the game of going alone with the agenda of the powerful. I just saw the Iran hostage crisis mentioned on MSNBC, no mention of the reason why the hostages were taken. This is very common for the media to do.

What does it take Brian? You don't notice that I was debating with someone that doesn't even share American values? “to the victor goes the spoils" is what this guy prefers. That is the mentality of our enemies for God sakes. Americans are supposed to stand for values. Why don't you take this seriously Brian?

Brian's unbelievable response:

Tom,
You have pointed out a lot of crap, and none of it is even interesting. If it was, I would be paying more attention in here. Chomsky is a Communist, he can label it anyway he likes, and you have decided to become his follower. That is never going to get any traction here.

Ya know, there is a whole lot of really good philosophy books out there to study, I wouldn’t bother with an old Commie who lives like a capitalist.

Frankly I do not know why my readers bother debating you. It is like trying to tell a Christian that Jesus wasn’t God. That is a complete waste of time, and not a worthy endevour. I imagine they believe they can save you from yourself, and I don’t believe that is possible.

I don’t know why people buy into all this crud. It is like talking to an anti-gunner that thinks the country would be safer if we banned guns, even though every country that has banneed them has gotten worse.

Communism cannot work, it always leads to a totalitarian government. History teaches us this fact.

Utopia on earth will not happen unless there is a second coming of christ. It is just not reality.

If you consider economic opportunity for other countries creating an empire, you are foolish. History has always showed America to be a Great Country that never dominates another.

Iraq will make of Iraq what it will. We are giving them an opportunity and what they do with it is their responsibilty.

Although I think Chomsky is brilliant, he is also a dope for buying into all that commie crap. Either that or he is intellectually dishonest, and a phoney; you decide.

So, there is really nothing to discuss.

You all did a great job, but I would just let him talk to himself.

My Reply:

Brian said: "You have pointed out a lot of crap, and none of it is even interesting"

So you can’t deal with the facts, you are “bored”. You can’t counter anything, all you can do is label things, never deal with the points raised. Actually when you do you see that I am telling the truth. You probably were surprised to learn that AMerica was not the first to free the slaves. I guess you don’t want to risk learning that other things you assume are incorrect too.

I can’t make you act like an adult and actually discuss the pressing issues of the day. You want to avoid it all label people to avoid thinking about the issues.

Brian said: "Frankly I do not know why my readers bother debating you. It is like trying to tell a Christian that Jesus wasn’t God."

Actually it is you that take these things as articles of faith that simply cannot be discussed. What you are doing is called projection. I am more than willing to have my assumptions challenged with facts. You go on an on with this “communist” stuff. what does it have to do with the points raised. It is an embarrassing copout on your part. Throw those labels around yet what does it have to do with points of fact about the issues we are discussing?

Your non-review of the Chomsky book was so odd, I should have known you would post such an evasive reply. What are you so afraid of? I know that there were many people in 1831 who were afraid to question if slavery was right.

Brian said: "“If you consider economic opportunity for other countries creating an empire, you are foolish. History has always showed America to be a Great Country that never dominates another.”

It would be a good idea to examine the facts. It would be a nice thing but being in denial and refusing to even discuss it doesn’t make it true. Do you realize how much the media suppresses? Fo example, did it ever occur to you to look into how the Ba’ath party got into power in the first place? Notice the MSM didn’t think to look at that either.

If someone tells you that people are suffering and dying as a result of certain policies, it really is depraved to dismiss it without looking into it. In America, we are supposed to be self ruled. You are not doing your duty as a citizen to make sure that crimes an injustices are not perpetrated.

"In many respects, the elections were successful. The main success, however, is being mentioned only marginally, by a few reporters: the US was compelled to allow them to take place.

That is a real triumph of non-violent resistance, for which Sistani has been the symbol. The US sought in every possible way to avoid elections, but has been compelled to back down, step-by-step. First, it tried to ram through a US-written constitution. That was barred by a Sistani fatwa. Then it tried to impose one or another device (caucuses, etc.) that could be controlled completely. Also blocked by non-violent resistance. It continued until finally the US (and UK, trailing obediently behind) had no recourse but to allow an election—and of course, the doctrinal system went into high gear to present it as a US initiative, once it could no longer be avoided. The US also sought to undermine it as much as possible, e.g., by driving independent media out of the country (notably al-Jazeera, the most important), by ensuring that its own candidates, particularly Allawi, would be the only ones to have access to state resources to reach the public (most candidates had to remain unidentified), etc. But the US-UK couldn’t block the elections, greatly to the distress of Washington and London. The question now is whether they can be compelled to accept the outcome. There’s little doubt, even from the more serious mainstream press as well as from polls and from properly hawkish experts (like Anthony Cordesman) that people voted with the hope that it would end the occupation. Blair announced at once, loud and clear, that the prospect is not even being contemplated, clearly articulating his usual contempt for democracy.

Washington also announced that the US military forces would stay at least into 2007, whatever Iraqis want. The more serious press, like the Wall St Journal, is reporting that the US is attempting to secure some kind of agreement on a “vague promise” to withdraw eventually." -Chomsky - Two perspectives on the U.S. occupation of Iraq

They want us to leave.
Polls have asked Iraqis specifically about the presence of U.S. troops

A February poll by the U.S. military, cited by the Brookings Institution, found that 71 percent of Iraqis "oppose the presence of Coalition Forces in Iraq." This poll was taken only in urban areas, but others have found much the same sentiment.According to a January 2005 poll by Abu Dhabi TV/Zogby International, 82 percent of Sunni Arabs and 69 percent of Shiite Arabs favor the withdrawal of U.S. troops either immediately or after an elected government is in place.

A nationwide poll taken by Iraqi university researchers for the British government found that 82 percent of all Iraqis surveyed in August are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops and 67 percent feel less secure because of the occupation, the Sunday Telegraph of London reported last month. Let's ask the Iraqi people if U.S. forces should leave

Skepticism About U.S. Deep, Iraq Poll Shows Motive for Invasion Is Focus of Doubts by Walter Pincus, Washington Post November 12th, 2003

More than half of Baghdad's residents said they did not believe the United States would allow the Iraqi people to fashion their political future without the direct influence of Washington, according to a Gallup poll. With the Bush administration holding consultations on the future of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, recent analyses of the poll data, which were gathered three months ago, highlight the roots within that city's populace of many of the concerns the U.S.-led coalition now faces there. Only 5 percent of those polled said they believed the United States invaded Iraq "to assist the Iraqi people," and only 1 percent believed it was to establish democracy there. Three-quarters of those polled said they believed the policies and decisions of the Iraqi Governing Council -- whose members were appointed in July by Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator L. Paul Bremer -- were "mostly determined by the coalition's own authorities," and only 16 percent thought the council members were "fairly independent." The poll, funded by Gallup, was conducted through face-to-face interviews with 1,178 Baghdad residents between Aug. 28 and Sept. 4. The initial results were announced in late September, but additional analyses were released to the polling firm's clients in succeeding weeks. Some Gallup analyses have been published on the Coalition Provisional Authority's Web site in the past two days. Although 52 percent of those polled said they thought the United States was serious about establishing a democratic system of government in Iraq, 51 percent said Washington would not allow Iraqis to do that without U.S. pressure and influence. The margin of error in the poll was plus or minus 2.7 percentage points. In an Oct. 28 analysis, Richard Burkholder, Gallup's director of international polling, noted that most Baghdad residents thought getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships they are enduring. But "most are deeply skeptical of the initial rationale the coalition has given for its actions," Burkholder added. The poll showed that doubts about the U.S. motives for invading had led to doubts about Washington's commitment to creating an independent democratic government in Baghdad. Forty-three percent of the respondents said they believed that U.S. and British forces invaded in March primarily "to rob Iraq's oil." While 37 percent believed the United States acted to get rid of the Hussein regime, only 5 percent thought it did so "to assist the Iraq people," the poll found. An additional 6 percent believed the motive was to "change the Middle East 'map' as the U.S. and Israel want." Four percent believed the purpose was to destroy weapons of mass destruction, the primary reason given by the Bush administration. At a time when the United States faces a growing security threat, the poll pointed to other possible reasons why coalition forces are being looked upon as occupiers instead of as liberators. Almost everyone interviewed -- 94 percent -- said Baghdad "now is a more dangerous place than before the invasion," and 86 percent said that for the previous four weeks "they or a member of their household had been afraid to go outside their home at night for safety reasons," Burkholder said in his analysis. He noted that in the two months before the U.S. invasion, only 8 percent said they had experienced a similar fear. Asked about attacks against U.S. troops, 64 percent said they were not justified; 36 percent said they sometimes were. Burkholder noted that those who believed such attacks were somewhat or completely justified -- 11 percent and 8 percent, respectively -- would translate to 440,000 adults 18 or older among Baghdad's adult population of 2.3 million. Forty-eight percent of those polled said they did not believe that the United States will "remain in Iraq as long as necessary, but not a day more," as President Bush has said. Thirty-six percent said they believed that the Americans would leave as Bush had promised. © 2003 The Washington Post Company

The Uncooperative Blogger writes Well pulling out our troops from Iraq before the job is finished, is quitting, pure and simple.

Are you aware of the dynamics at work ? How can you possibly buy into the idea that U.S. officials intend on real democracy and actual self determination for the Iraqis? Do you not see the assumption being made that it is the U.S. that decides when the troops leave? Do you not see how the media, politicians and pundits (and you) all assume it is the U.S.'s decision to make? When the troops leave is the decision for the Iraqis to make, it is their right.

Did you know 82% of Iraqis are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops. Less than 1% of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security and 72% do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

Did you know about the surprising degree of consensus reached by the main Iraqi factions at the Arab League-orchestrated Reconciliation Conference in Cairo last weekend sharply undercuts the unilateral, guns-and-puppets approach of the Bush administration to the deteriorating situation in Iraq:

We demand the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with a timetable, and the establishment of a national and immediate program for rebuilding the armed forces ... that will allow them to guard Iraq's borders and to get control of the security situation ..

"The Kurds would doubtless prefer for the US to stay, as long as the US doesn't once again betray them, as it has done, repeatedly, in the past. The Sunnis, about as numerous as the Kurds, doubtless want the US out. As for the Shiites, it's not so simple. The Sadrists have called for withdrawal. The last poll I know of was on the eve of the election: about 70% of Shiites favored US withdrawal immediately or right after the January elections. The National Sovereignty Commission of the Parliament recently issued a report calling for a timetable for withdrawal of the "occupation forces." The main Shiite Party in the South, SCIRI, just demanded that the British troops there stay in their barracks. According to Steven Kull, one of the most respected polling experts in the country, the International Republican Institute, which had been taking regular polls, stopped reporting them after the elections because of the results they were finding.

It's correct that an occupying army has no rights, only responsibilities, including the responsibility to pay massive reparations and to withdraw unless there is powerful evidence that the population wants them to stay. I don't see evidence of that. And the decision should be made by the victims. We have little to say about it, whatever our subjective judgments, as a matter of principle." -Chomsky 16 Oct 2005

What Do Iraqis Want?
The British ministry of defence did the study, according to their findings:

• 82% are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops
• less than 1% of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security
• 45% of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65% in the British-controlled Maysan province; ( "if that really means "all Iraqis," as reported, then the figure must be considerably higher among Iraqi Arabs." -C)
• 67% of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43% of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72% do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

"The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq. The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." -Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops

"We can't find out for sure what Iraqis want -- or what Americans want. But there are some general principles that ought to be observed. One is that invaders have no rights, only responsibilities, and among those responsibilities is to follow the will of the victims (and to provide reparations, trials for the criminals who ordered the invasion, and others). A subsidiary principle is that unless there is strong evidence that the victims want the invaders to remain, they should withdraw. US-UK policy is the opposite, with bipartisan and media support: We decide, and we will "stay the course" as long as we -- not they -- decide to do so." - Chomsky Nov 18, 2005

Bozell's Media Research Center Wrong Again

Sharon, I already have showed you that Bozell is a fraud yet you regurgitate his distortions.
There was nothing wrong with what Rather reported! The
MCR deviously creates a false impression by leaving out the key numbers in the
poll. The fact is "less than half the respondents thought the Bush
tax cut would actually help the economy": 41%.

What MCR doesn't say is that 33% didn't think it would have an effect.

So 33% (which MCR didn't mention) plus 19%
who said it would actaully hurt gives a total of 52%. You can even say
that 7% more (for a total of 59%)didn't say it would help either since they said they either didn't know or didn't
answer. It is MCR that really distorts the picture, not Dan Rather. When you
have 52% or 59% of Americans that don't say it would help, it means
less less than half think it would actually help. Bozell's Media Research Center is deceptive by not mentioning the 33%

Did you take the time to look up the poll that Rather and MCR refer to?

Here is the poll:
Dan Rather and the CBS NEWS/NEW YORK TIMES POLL
Also, Dan Rather serves powerful interests by framing it about Democrats vs. Republicans. The fact is it isn't just Democrats that "call it a campaign for the wealthy" Rather's report once again positions Democrats as the only opponents and pushes Independents out of the discussion. (MCR cleary doesn't have a problem with this game, they make no mention of it.)
CBS NEWS/NEW YORK TIMES POLL: TAX CUTS, THE ECONOMY & BUSH ADMINISTRATION 5/9-12/03
q24 From what you know, do you think a new tax cut would be good for the
economy, bad for the economy, or won't it have much effect on the economy?

	Total	Republican	Democrat	Independent
Good	41%	60%	25%	38%
No effect	33%	26%	39%	35%
Bad	19%	8%	28%	20%
Don't Know/NA	7%	6%	8%	7%

Also See Once again Brent Bozell displays his ignorance

Neo-Conned! Again : Hypocrisy, Lawlessness, and the Rape of Iraq Including Noam Chomsky, Milton Viorst, Naomi Klein, Justin Raimondo, W. Patrick Lang

The question was a number count and I pointed out that OVERWHELMINGLY the deaths are that of Palestinians and that the Media presents an OVERWHELMINGLY distorted picture. So what do you think your point about the 10 suicide bomb children makes? Israel has killed more children than that, on average for the last 5 years, every month.

And you really should look into the background. Setting up a racist state and ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousand of people is going to anger the victims. Israel continues to violate the rights of millions of Palestinians.

a critical fact often omitted when the history is presented and this leads to a very distorted view of what happened in 1948. The misleading story often told is that "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked." The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State. SEE Sources

Bill O’Reilly Issues Terrorist Threat Against Fellow Americans

Fanatical Radio and TV pundit issued a radical and vicious threat to fellow Americans who voted for a policy he didn't like. O’Reilly went on air inciting terrorist acts against a landmark tower in San Fransisco, the Coit Tower. As President, O'Reilly would retaliate against residents of San Fransico by encouraging the terrorists of al-Qeada to blow up the Coit Tower.

"And if al-Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." - November 8, 2005 broadcast of Fox News' The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly

• O'Reilly Sounds Off At San Francisco Voters
• Talk host's towering rant: S.F. not worth saving
• O'Reilly to San Francisco: "[I]f Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. ... You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead"

Ibin Thinkin,
Thanks for the response. I hope you will consider reading Chomsky's book Imperial Ambitions

I am working to get basic facts out to the public. The fraud that I pointed out is not the only example. I am watching Karen Hughes on C-SPAN play the same deceptive game. The game she is playing at the hearing I am watching is a denial of what the U.S. policies actually are in the Middle East. Journalist Chris Hedges and others have witnessed Israeli troops intentionally murdering children. And what Hedges and others have witnessed has been documented by an Israeli human rights group and has been confirmed by Israeli soldiers admissions. These facts matter. Please read my post on this. When people see the U.S. supporting these things they get angry. People like Karen Hughes deny what it is that motivates the terrorists and militants that attack U.S. military and civilians.