discussions of Israel and Palestine

Paul in Berkeley complains about James Risser's diary on Kos: Should DailyKos ban all discussions of Israel and Palestine? Paul complains, "Because when they are ridiculously one-sided, as yours is, they are already pretty close to the bottom."

No Paul in Berkeley, the facts are the facts. Zionists resort to very ugly tactics all the time and they do it in order to abort discussion of the facts. If the facts are known, most Americans would not go along with these injustices. There is no excuse for calling people "anti-semitic" when they dare tell the truth about Israel. It is worse than calling someone a "racist" just because they think OJ Simpson is guilty of a double murder. And OJ Simpson DID brutally kill two people!

It isn't "one sided" to point that out!

"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

The deceptions and ugly tactics used to hide the brutal facts about Israel are incredible. The media is extremely dishonest when it comes to Israel, they push falsehoods all the time. "In my entire experience with American journalism, I have never found anything as extreme, sustained, and omnipresent" - Alison Weir

What is one sided is the mainstream media when it comes to Israel, they are committing fraud for Israel all the time. There has been suppression of the fact that Israeli soldiers often intentionally murder and maim children.

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. Physicians for Human Rights USA, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem all confirm the Israeli policy of targeting civilians.

An Israeli Jew Tells the Truth About The 'Anti-Semitism" Trick

Shulamit Aloni appeared on Democracy Now. Shulamit Aloni is a former Knesset member who headed the Meretz Party in Israel. She was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy NOW!

Amy Goodman asked her what she thought of the fact that often when people speak out against Israel policies they get labeled "anti-Semitic". Shulamit Aloni answered "well it is a trick, we always use it."

Journalistic Malpractice: Iraq, 9/11 and US support of Israel

Journalistic Malpractice: Iraq, 9/11 and US support of Israel

Journalistic Malpractice: Iraq, 9/11 and US support of Israel

Mainstream media certainly has not made it easy to understand what motivated the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks.

Deceptions Sell Israel to Americans

Israeli soldiers often intentionally murder and maim children.

Dishonesty about 9/11 motives robs Americans of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies.

The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel.

Mainstream Media, the 9/11 Commission Report, politicians and pundits have all downplayed and/or omitted the fact that the main motive for the 9/11 attacks was outrage over U.S. support of Israel. Here is a rare exception to the suppression, it comes from The Forward.

Also see: The continuing BS from AP

The continuing BS from AP

The continuing BS from AP

Christopher Torchia of the AP writes an article saying "the deaths of six U.S. soldiers pushed the American toll beyond the number of victims in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." The article is given the title "U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Exceeds Sept. 11 Count" and gets widely circulated, reported on AOL for example.

Christopher Torchia writes:

"President Bush has said that the Iraq war is part of the United States' post-Sept. 11 approach to threats abroad. Going on offense against enemies before they could harm Americans meant removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, pursuing members of al-Qaida and seeking regime change in Iraq, Bush has said."


What Christopher Torchia fails to mention is that even President Bush has admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Christopher Torchia also writes:

"Democratic leaders have said the Bush administration has gotten the U.S. bogged down in Iraq when there was no evidence of links to the Sept. 11 attacks"

Christopher Torchia fails to mention that it is not just Democrats that say there was no evidence of links between the Sept. 11 attacks and Iraq.

Newsday's article "U.S. death toll in Iraq exceeds number of deaths on 9/11" uses the same AP crap: "The U.S. military death toll in Iraq has reached 2,974, one more than the number of deaths in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, according to an Associated Press count on Tuesday. ... he deaths raised the number of troops killed to 2,974 since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks claimed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania."

Newsday can't do the responsible thing and point out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The way Newsday and others are reporting this milestone continues to push the misconception that attacking Iraq had something to do with responding to the 9/11 attacks.

The Continuing BS from AP and the MSM about Iraq and 9/11


UPDATE: Looks like AP sent out a new article by someone else about the same topic, the increase in deaths, in fact it looks like a replacement article since the link to the old story goes it it. This one says it is written by Lauren Frayer, Associated Press Writer. It has a title that no longer connects Iraq and 9/11: "U.S. soldiers' death toll climbs in Iraq" and Lauren Frayer makes this point: "There has been no direct evidence of links between Saddam's regime and the Sept. 11 attacks" THAT is what should have been said in the original article! By the way, the damage has been done by the original article because TV and other major media ran with the idea that Christopher Torchia's article pushed and they are not doing clarifications on TV. See this talked about in: Journalistic Malpractice: Iraq, 9/11 and US support of Israel

Covert Actions Against American Citizens Living in America

Members of the Church Committee which investigated the FBI's COINTELPRO talk about covert actions against American citizens living in America.

These clips come from "Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans" which was held September 21, 2006 and was shown on C-SPAN

Appearances:
Walter D. Huddleston (D) - U.S. Senator, Kentucky
Walter Mondale (D) - U.S. Senator, Minnesota
Frederick A. Schwartz - Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice

Summary:
A panel titled "Who's Watching the Spies: Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans - A Look Back at the Church Committee Report" discussed the work of the U.S. Senate Church Committee. The committee uncovered episodes in which the government spied on Americans and drafted many of the laws central to the current debates regarding warrantless wiretaps. Former Vice President Walter Mondale and Senator Walter Huddleston were members of the Church Committee. Fred Schwartz was chief counsel to the committe. The full name of the committee was the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activity (1975-1976).

The above video is about 12 minutes long, the full talk on C-SPAN was 1 hour, 26 minutes: Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans

Also see this post: What the FBI did to American citizens is beyond what most people realize today.

What the FBI did to American citizens is beyond what most people realize today.

What the FBI did to American citizens is beyond what most people realize today.

COINTELPRO discussed with Former Vice President Walter Mondale, Walter Huddleston and others. From the Church Report on U.S. Spy Agencies.




"did you hear about the assasination of Fred Hampton?" Noam Chomsky gives examples of COINTELPRO actions, Understanding Power p118


Also see this post:
Covert Actions Against American Citizens Living in America

outrage over U.S. support of Israel.

Mainstream Media, the 9/11 Commission Report, politicians and pundits have all downplayed and/or omitted the fact that the main motive for the 9/11 attacks was outrage over U.S. support of Israel. Here is a rare exception to the suppression, it comes from The Forward:

Bin Laden Aimed To Link Plot to Israel

Marc Perelman Fri. Jun 25, 2004

In an interim staff report released last week, the presidential commission investigating the September 11, 2001, attacks shed new light on the role of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Al Qaeda's worldview.

The disclosures seem to weaken Israeli claims that the issue was only a secondary priority for Osama bin Laden, and they could rekindle the debate about whether U.S. support for Israel is hindering national security.

In a 20-page report titled "Outline of the 9-11 Plot," the commission, which is to issue a final report at the end of July, describes bin Laden's willingness to time the attacks against America with two visits by Prime Minister Sharon, one in Jerusalem and one in Washington.

The report claims that Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, or KSM, the alleged mastermind of the attacks who was arrested in March 2003 in Pakistan, told his U.S. captors that bin Laden "wanted to punish the United States for supporting Israel."

This is why, according to KSM, bin Laden asked him to conduct the attacks "as early as mid-2000" in response to the outcry prompted by the visit of then-opposition leader Sharon to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the report states. Even though the Al Qaeda hijackers had barely arrived in the United States to take flight lessons, the Saudi renegade allegedly argued that it would be enough if they smashed planes to the ground without hitting specific targets. The report claims that KSM talked him out of the plan.

Bin Laden, however, reportedly asked him again a year later to hasten the preparations of the plot when he learned that Sharon, now prime minister, would visit the White House in June or July 2001, according to the report.

Once again KSM convinced him to wait, and the group eventually settled on September 11 after further debates about targets and timing, debunking the assumption that the details of the operation were planned long in advance.

In addition to bin Laden's reported interest in linking the attacks to Israel, the report also sheds light on the worldview of Al Qaeda operatives and its sympathizers.

It noted that Mohammed Atta, the Egyptian ringleader of the plot, chose the second week of September to ensure that Congress, "the perceived source of U.S. policy in support of Israel" would be in session. Atta, who lived in Germany with several other hijackers, "denounced what he described as a global Jewish movement centered in New York City which, he claimed, controlled the financial world and the media."

In a chilling detail, the report also mentions that KSM indicated that Mullah Omar, the former Taliban leader in Afghanistan, "opposed [Al Qaeda's plan to attack] the United States for ideological reasons but permitted attacks against Jewish targets."

"Bin Laden, on the other hand, reportedly argued that attacks against the United States needed to be carried out immediately to support the insurgency in the Israeli-occupied territories and to protest the presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia," according to the report.

The above article was reporting on an interim staff report. On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission released its public report. When reporting on the 9/11 Commission's report, only the Lexington Herald-Leader dared go with a headline that reflected the main point: the motives for the crime: "U.S. policy on Israel key motive."

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," whoever made the headline for McDermott's article used "New Plot Details Emerge" as the headline, which hid the main point of the article. The main point was only expressed when McDermott's article appeared in the Lexington Herald-Leader with the headline: "U.S. policy on Israel key motive." In the Forward, the main point of Marc Perelman's article was expressed with the headline: "Bin Laden Aimed To Link Plot to Israel."

Also see:

• The man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel Suppressing the Motives for the 9/11 Attack is Disgraceful.
• Mainstream media certainly has not made it easy to understand what motivated the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

Former CIA Official Exposes Bush Administration Fraud

Former CIA Official Exposes Bush Administration Fraud

The Bush Administration is committing fraud again in order to sell another war to the American people. How much fraud do we allow the Bush Administration to commit before we start impeachment proceedings?

Once again spineless cowards in our intelligence agencies are allowing the Bush Administration to commit fraud in order to start another war.

Tell your politicians to do their job to uphold the Constitution and to start impeachment proceedings immediately.

Flynt Leverett worked as a senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, the NSC, and he was a CIA analyst. Leverett reveals that he has been censored by the White House for purely political reasons.

Flynt Leverett and his wife wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times but the White House threatened him with criminal prosecution in order to prevent him from publishing his article. Leverett explains that the Bush Administration is abusing its power in order to suppress his article about Iran because they don't want the recent history focused on now. They are trying to control the public debate with the obvious motive to sell a war on Iran. The information that the Bush Administation is preventing from being published in the New York Times Op-Ed reveals that Iran has been cooperating with the US in Afghanistan and had offered to make a deal with the US.

The Bush Administration is claiming that the Op-Ed "contains classified information" even though all the info had already been cleared by the CIA and has been publicly available.

Leverett explains that the White House claim is fraudulent. He also says that people in the intelligence agency who know better are not prepared to speak truth to power. Once again spineless cowards in our intelligence agencies are allowing the Bush Administration to commit fraud in order to start another war. Please watch the video.

Flynt Leverett's report: Dealing with Tehran

See links that show that the Bush Administration has committed fraud before. See background information on the fraud committed by the Bush Administration to get us into the Iraq War:

The Problem Was Not "Faulty Intelligence," the Problem Was Dishonestly Selecting And Omitting Intelligence

Senate Hearing on Iraq Pre-War Intelligence

US Intelligence About Iraq Didn't Really Fail, It Was Manipulated

Beyond all reasonable doubt, the Bush Administration is guilty of the high crime of lying our nation into war.

Register to Vote for Kucinich in the Primaries

Announcement of Candidacy

Dennis Kucinich for President 2008

The only Democrat running for President who has a real plan to end the war and bring the troops home. Dennis Kucinich for President 2008

Kucinich is the only member of the House and the Senate running for President who has consistently voted against funding for the war, based on a principled opposition.

Kucinich was against the war then. Kucinich is against it now. A leader must have not just hindsight, but foresight.

Transcript of this video:
"At this moment, people's trust in government is on the line. Trust in the Democratic Party is on the line. What does it say if only one month after the voters gave us control of Congress on the issue of Iraq, that we turn around and say we will keep funding the war?

We Democrats were put back in power to bring some sanity back to our nation. We are expected to take a stand. We are expected to assert our constitutional power as a co-equal branch of government. We are expected to do what we said we would do: Get out of Iraq and bring the troops home.

I am not going to stand by and watch thousands more of our brave young American men and women killed in Iraq, or permanently injured, while our leaders are ready to take action to keep the war going.

This is the moment to end our war against Iraq, this is the moment to bring our troops home.

I know what it is like to take a stand. I know what it is like to put my career on the line. Today, I am prepared to put my career on the line once again to save my community and my nation from the devastating effects of more war.

Therefore, I am announcing my candidacy for President of the United States, with the intention of rallying the American people to the cause of our troops in the field, to the cause of stopping more American families from suffering, to the cause of ending a deepening tragedy in Iraq, to the cause of repairing America's reputation in the world, to the cause of the dreams of people in my own neighborhood and my own city.

I fully expect to be win, because when the American people hear this clarion call for a new and true direction, this call to confirm their intent, their power, I am confident that they will respond as powerfully, as they did just one month ago, to demand that America quickly change course in Iraq and to demand a leader who will make it happen."

Time Magazine Sucks

Time Magazine asks YouTubers to pick who they want to be "Person of the Year." I think it is a lame idea but an opportunity to look at the kinds of things Time Magazine has done and is doing now.

Norman Solomon, author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death, points out that "The Sept. 25 edition of Time Magazine illustrates how the U.S. news media are gearing up for a military attack on Iran." - Media Tall Tales for the Next War

Norman Solomon noted the above and in his article, When Journalists Report for Duty, Solomon points out the ugly essay, "The Case for Rage and Retribution," written by Time regular Lance Morrow.

Time published Morrow's ugly essay the day after 9/11. Here is part of it: "A day cannot live in infamy without the nourishment of rage. Let's have rage. What's needed is a unified, unifying, Pearl Harbor sort of purple American fury--a ruthless indignation that doesn't leak away in a week or two, wandering off into Prozac-induced forgetfulness or into the next media sensation (O.J.... Elian... Chandra...) or into a corruptly thoughtful relativism (as has happened in the recent past, when, for example, you might hear someone say, "Terrible what he did, of course, but, you know, the Unabomber does have a point, doesn't he, about modern technology?")."

Notice Morrow is manipulatively discouraging the public from even thinking about what the motive was for the 9/11 attack. He wants unthinking rage and the motive swept under the rug.

"Time magazine correspondent Laurence Zuckerman and a colleague found serious evidence of Contra links to cocaine trafficking, but their story was blocked from publication by top editors. A senior editor admitted privately to Zuckerman: "Time is institutionally behind the Contras. If this story were about the Sandinistas and drugs, you'd have no trouble getting it in the magazine." (The N.Y Times and Washington Post both endorsed aid to the Contra army, despite massive documentation from human rights monitors that they targeted civilians for violence and terror.)" - Jeff Cohen

"Time magazine's senior international correspondent Aparisim Ghosh argued against U.S. troop withdrawal (12/11/06) in favor of, among other things, "30,000 more coalition soldiers and a real willingness to thrash the Shi'ite militias, something they've avoided so far," a process that "may take five more years. But if the U.S. leaves sooner, Iraq will devolve into an even bigger mess." Speaking of military and foreign policy experts, it's not clear how many would see a declaration of war against the Shi'ite majority's militias would accomplish anything beyond increasing the 62 percent of Shi'ite Iraqis who already approve of attacks on U.S. forces (PIPA, 9/27/06)." - Withdrawing From Debate on Iraq Public's view too 'extreme' for media discussion

Time Covers Coulter: Magazine's Cover Story a Sloppy, Inaccurate Tribute to Far-Right Pundit "a puff piece that gave Coulter a pass on her many errors and vicious, often bigoted rhetoric."

Time Magazine has a history of not standing up for what is right. Take a look, as FAIR points out, at what they said about Martin Luther King:

Martin Luther King gave a speech called "Beyond Vietnam." In that speech, King called the United States "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."

"From Vietnam to South Africa to Latin America, King said, the U.S. was "on the wrong side of a world revolution." King questioned "our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America," and asked why the U.S. was suppressing revolutions "of the shirtless and barefoot people" in the Third World, instead of supporting them.

You haven't heard the "Beyond Vietnam" speech on network news retrospectives, but national media heard it loud and clear back in 1967 - and loudly denounced it. Time magazine called it "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi."" - The Martin Luther King You Don't See on TV

Re: TIME Person of the Year 2006

President Carter is correct about the apartheid.

President Carter is correct about the apartheid. Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper, points out that "the apartheid regime in the territories remains intact; millions of Palestinians are living without rights, freedom of movement or a livelihood, under the yoke of ongoing Israeli occupation, and in the future they will turn the Jews into a minority between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River."

The Smear Tactics Never End

I posted the following comment in response to John Amato's post The other Jimmy Carter C-SPAN call (satire):

"Seems like the comedy writer's attempt to discredit Carter for daring to write a book critical of the Israeli government's actions. The media were eager to spread Kenneth W. Stein's charges BUT if you look, he doesn't give any examples that have anything to do with his allegation that the book is "one sided."

The ironic thing is Carter's book has Zionist propaganda in it which serves the Israel agenda, for example on page 57. See how misrepresentative this is and how it omits key facts so that it ends up painting a picture as if the "Jewish community" was being reasonable and that they were "attacked." But the fact is, the 1947 UN plan was a proposal and it was the democratic right of 67% of the population to turn down such an unfair and crazy proposal.

This is a critical fact often omitted 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.

In practice, Zionists did not accept the UN Partition Plan. Zionists seized areas beyond the proposed Jewish State and did not recognize the International Zone. Using force and terrorism months before May 1948, Jews seized land beyond the UN proposed borders. The UN Plan was used as a pretense for taking over most of Palestine."

Then I see my post was removed and this was in its place:

"[Deleted. Take the bigotry elsewhere] Edited By Siteowner"

I then posted this response:

"Take the bigotry elsewhere"

Take down that comment connected with my name or you will hear from my lawyer. There was not a damn thing "bigoted" in my post and it is libelous for you to claim was. You can not label the listing of historical facts as "bigotry" just because you don't like them.

You need to explain what in God's name you think is "bigotry" in my post.

Are you ignorant of the definition of the word Zionist? Are you ignorant of the fact that 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.

What you need to do is stop libeling people immediately.

Chomsky Doesn't Say That The Israeli Lobby Has No Influence

Chomsky Doesn't Say That The Israeli Lobby Has No Influence

Alam: Often the so-called 'war on terror' is depicted by its American supporters as a civilizational war, pitting an advanced, upright nation against a sea of savage, senseless, Islamic barbarians. This depiction is interesting because it has always resonated well with a crucial U.S. ally whose role in this endeavor has been controversial and, to many, vague: Israel. You argue in Hegemony or Survival that Israel "has virtually no alternative to serving as a US base in the region and complying with U.S. demands."

Others, however, particularly in the Arab world, see Israel as using the financial clout of the pro-Israel lobby in the US to press its own demands. Some Israeli dissidents cite not financial but ideological influence: prefacing a summary of interviews with William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and Thomas Friedman, Ari Shavit of the Israeli daily Haaretz, wrote that "the ardent faith [in war against Iraq] was disseminated by a small group of 25 to 30 neoconservative intellectuals, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals…" Even the non-neoconservative Friedman, according to Shavit, justified the Iraq war as a replay of Jenin on a world scale. Do you consider it possible that, precisely because Israel depends so much on US support, pro-Israel intellectuals argue for US military action against the Arab world? Or is the role of neoconservatism and intellectuals like Kristol and Krauthammer overblown and only a subtext to a larger point?

Chomsky: It is impossible to give a measure to the influence of the Israeli lobby, but in my opinion it is more of a swing factor than an independently decisive one. It is important to bear in mind that it is not neoconservatives, or Jewish. Friedman, for example, is a liberal in the US system. The union leadership, often strong supporters of Israeli crimes, are protypical liberals, not neocons. The self-styled "democratic socialists" who modestly call themselves "the decent left" have compiled an unusually ugly record in support of Israeli government actions ever since Israel's massive victory in 1967, which won it many friends in left-liberal circles, for a variety of reasons. The Christian right is a huge voting bloc, plainly not Jewish, and in fact to a significant extent anti-Semitic, but welcomed by the government of Israel and its supporters because they support Israel's atrocities, violence, and aggression, for their own reasons. It is a varied and large group, which happens also to constitute a substantial part of the intellectual elite, hence the media elite, so of course there is ideological influence. However, these groups rarely distance themselves far from what they know to be authentic power: state-corporate power. If US government policy would shift, they would shift along with it, maybe with some snapping at the heels of the powerful, but never daring too much. That has been fairly consistent in the past, and I think there is good reason to expect similar behavior in the future. Privilege and rewards do not come from confronting power, but by serving it, perhaps with some complaints at the margins while pouring out lies and slanders against anyone who strays a few millimeters to far from doctrinal orthodoxy, a primary function of respectable intellectuals throughout history. Particularly since its 1967 victory, state power has generally regarded Israel as a very important "strategic asset," by now virtually an offshore military base and militarized high-tech center closely linked to the US and major regional US allies, particularly Turkey. That opens the way for the ideological influence to exert itself - lined up with real power. The story is far more complex than anyone can describe in a few words, but my feeling is that the essentials are pretty much like that. That is true of domestic lobbies quite generally, in a state capitalist society with very close ties between state and corporate power, a very obedient intellectual class, and a narrow political spectrum primarily reflecting the interests of power and privilege.

Alam: Israel's rhetoric and actions appear to be pulling in opposite directions. Its actions clearly point to greater brutalization and destruction of the Palestinians, as evidenced by continued construction of illegal settlements, erection of a separation wall which annexes more Palestinian land, and military raids leading to the death of innocents on a weekly basis. And yet some in the official establishment, from dissenting Refusenik air force pilots and special forces to former Shinbet officials and senior Likud officials like Ehud Olmert, are openly questioning the occupation and calling for unilateral withdrawal to preserve the "Jewish-democratic character" of Israel in the face an impending demographic crisis whereby Arabs will outnumber Jews in Eretz Israel.

Given that Zionism is, as Norman Finkelstein writes in Image and Reality, "grounded in its pre-emptive right to establish a Jewish state in Palestine - a right that, allegedly, superseded the aspirations of the indigenous population," do you think the pragmatists advocating withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank can trump those who still want to pretend the indigenous Palestinians are, as Israel's first president Chaim Weizmann once said, "a matter of no consequence"?

Chomsky: I think it would be very likely to happen if "the boss-man called `partner'" - as more astute Israeli commentators refer to the US - were to change course and inform them that the time has come to obey the overwhelming international consensus that the US government has been blocking for 30 years. The "demographic crisis" is impelling hawks in the same direction. The "refuseniks" and Israeli solidarity groups are brave and honorable people, who deserve very bit of support we can give them. Their inability to have much of an impact is our fault, not theirs. No group in Israel can gain much credibility within unless it has strong support from the society of the boss-man.

Alam: Professor Chomsky, thank you very much for your time and responses.

On Bush, the Left, Iraq, and Israel

Noam Chomsky interviewed by M. Junaid Alam

Left Hook, February 4, 2004

Smears Against Carter

Mainstream media eagerly passed on Kenneth W. Stein's charges against President Carter's book. But what specifically are these charges, I looked into it and have to wonder, is this the best they can do?

"Kenneth W. Stein had sent a blistering letter of resignation Monday to officials at the Carter Center in Atlanta charging that the former president's book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," had factual errors, invented segments and, most seriously, "copied materials not cited."" - allegations over new Carter book include 'unusually similar' maps

Yet where is the beef? Look how they let Stein get away with making charges against Carter yet what examples does he give??? They allow him to smear the book even though Stein writes "In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins."

[now remember, Stein is claiming a "one-sided nature of the book" YET the ONLY examples that I have been able to find Stein give have absolutely NOTHING to do with "one-sidedness" or "bias"]

They NYT played along as if there was something to it yet look at this: "Mr. Stein declined to detail all the inaccuracies he found, saying he was still documenting them for a planned review of the book; but he did offer a few examples." - Former Aide Parts With Carter Over Book

[OK , so now let's see what these examples are]

"Mr. Carter, he said, remembers White House staff members in 1990 being preoccupied by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait when the former president tried to describe to them talks he had had with Middle Eastern leaders. But the White House briefings occurred in the spring, Mr. Stein said, and the invasion of Kuwait was not until August.

"You can't write history simply off the top of your head and expect it to be credible," he said."

[ WHAT?!? Whether or not Carter is wrong on this point, this example HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Israel as far as a supposed "one-sided nature" of Carter's book, IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM BEEN CONSTRUED AS A "BIAS AGAINST ISRAEL". What the hell would the above example mean? THIS is an example Stein gives and the media are running with this? THIS is the kind of thing, if true, that Stein needs to resign over?!? ]

"Mr. Stein also said he had been struck by parts of Mr. Carter’s book that seemed strikingly similar to a work by a different author, but he would not disclose the details."

"in a telephone interview Thursday evening, Stein offered a narrower criticism. "It appears that at least two maps that came out of the Carter book were or are very closely similar, or unusually similar, to maps that were produced and published in Dennis Ross' book The Missing Peace,' " Stein said."

Stein still isn't giving ANY examples that would indicate a "one-sided nature" against Israel. We find out near the bottom of this article and the writer notes that the Stein's criticism isn't making a case that points to a "one-sided nature."

"But, in a telephone interview Thursday evening, Stein offered a narrower criticism. "It appears that at least two maps that came out of the Carter book were or are very closely similar, or unusually similar, to maps that were produced and published in Dennis Ross' book The Missing Peace,' " Stein said.

WHAT? Maps look similar? They are not a copy, it isn't a copyright infringement, so nothing was done wrong. If maps are depicting the same thing then they should look similar. This is really a desperate attempt to smear Carter. It is a shame that mainstream media gives Stein's smears so much millage. And again, what in the world does the issue of if the maps in Carter's book were copied from the pro-Israel Dennis Ross' book have to do with a supposed "one-sidedness" with regard to Palestine?

Notice how it works, we hear smears against Carter in the media and people that who don't look into the details, that is all they hear. But the details that Stein gives have nothing to do with whether or not Carter's book is "biased."

The facts are even worse than President Carter reveals.

The facts are even worse than President Carter reveals. Unfortunately, some Zionist propaganda has made its way into his book. I have not read most of the book yet but I did find this misrepresentation on page 57: "In 1947 the United Nations approved a partition plan for Palestine. A Jewish state was to include 55 percent of this territory, Jerusalem and Bethlehem were to be internationalized as holy sites, and the remainder of the land was to constitute an Arab state. The Jewish Agency (an official group that represented the Jewish community in Palestine to the British Mandate) and other Zionist representatives approved the plan, but Arab leaders were almost unanimous in their opposition. When Jews declared their independence as a nation, the Arabs attacked militarily but were defeated."

If you look at the facts you can see how misrepresentative this is and how it omits key facts so that it ends up painting a picture as if the "Jewish community" was being reasonable and that they were "attacked." Please review this page I put together:
Palestine and Israel History 1947-1948 UN Plan and the Zionist Agenda

The fact that the rights of the majority in Palestine, which was non-Jewish, 67% of the population, were violated is suppressed in the media. Why in the world would anyone think it is legitimate for 33% of a population (the "Jewish community") to seize land and carve up the land into 7 parts? Why in the world should 67% of a population ever accept that? These population stats, which highlight just how undemocratic the UN proposal really was, are almost never mentioned in US media.

Fact is the 1947 UN plan was a proposal and it was the democratic right of 67% of the population to turn down such an unfair and crazy proposal.

In practice, Zionists did not accept the UN Partition Plan. Zionists seized areas beyond the proposed Jewish State and did not recognize the International Zone. Using force and terrorism months before May 1948, Jews seized land beyond the UN proposed borders. The UN Plan was used as a pretense for taking over most of Palestine.

NOTE: This is 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.

More New York Times Journalistic Malpractice: Bias For Israel As Usual

More New York Times Journalistic Malpractice: Bias For Israel As Usual

"A front-page New York Times article by Greg Myre" misleads readers. As FAIR points out, "had Myre taken the journalistically obvious step of interviewing independent experts on international law and human rights" readers would have known that Israel was
not exempt "from its legal duty to minimize civilian casualties."

"In fact, Myre incorrectly wrote that Amnesty "did not address the accusation that Hezbollah hid its militants among Lebanese civilians." Though Amnesty's initial September 14 report stated that it did not have enough evidence to take a position on that subject, the group treated the question extensively in its recent November 21 report (readily accessible on the Internet), which pointed out that, under the Geneva Conventions, Hezbollah's actions do not release Israel from its obligations under international law."

In attempting to cover for Israel and hide the facts, Myre mislead NYT readers when he selectively quoted Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth by omitting the lead paragraph of Kenneth Roth's op-ed which undermined Myre's case.

Kenneth Roth wrote, "Why did so many Lebanese civilians lose their lives to Israeli bombing? The government line is that the IDF was doing the best it could, but these deaths were the result of Hizbullah hiding its rockets and fighters among civilians. But that assertion doesn't stand up to the facts." Roth also wrote that "under international humanitarian law, just as Israeli abuses in Lebanon did not justify reprisals against Israeli civilians, so Hizbullah's war crimes did not justify Israel shirking its duty to protect Lebanese civilians."" - New York Times on Israeli War Crimes
No independent analysis of pro-government spin

ACTION: Please ask the New York Times to revisit the issue of war crimes in the war in Lebanon, providing reporting on the relevant international law. Also ask the Times to correct the record on Amnesty International's stance on Israel's responsibility toward civilians.

CONTACT:
New York Times
Byron Calame, Public Editor
public@nytimes.com
Phone: (212) 556-7652

New York Times Corrections
nytnews@nytimes.com

AP Erases Video of Israeli Soldier Shooting Palestinian Boy

AP Erases Video of Israeli Soldier Shooting Palestinian Boy
"Alison Weir - In the midst of journalism’s “Sunshine Week” – during which the Associated Press and other news organizations are valiantly proclaiming the public’s “right to know” – AP insists on conducting its own activities in the dark, and refuses to answer even the simplest questions about its system of international news reporting." - Bias and Distorted Media Coverage
AP Erases Video of Israeli Soldier Shooting Palestinian Boy

President Carter talks about AIPAC and Israel on C-SPAN

See video: President Carter talks about AIPAC and Israel on C-SPAN
Call-In In Depth with Jimmy Carter
C-SPAN, BookTV


Former President Jimmy Carter, author of a new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is interviewed from his home in Plains, Georgia. He responds to a caller who asks questions concerning pressure put on the US political system and the resulting support of Israel. The caller refers to author James Bamford's book A Pretext For War and he asks President Carter about AIPAC and other pressure groups within the US.

President Carter reveals the intense pressures used to prevent public discussion of the facts concerning Israel. He admits that some Universities have actually turned him away, telling him that discussing Israel was "too controversial!"

The caller mentions this article which says: "The strict immigration policy that Israel is adopting with these laws completely ignores the breadth of possibilities stemming from ties of love and human relationships. Henceforth, the government recommends, through legislation, it is advisable to fall in love only with Jews, or to give up living in Israel." - Fall in love only with Jews by Haaretz Editorial

Thomas Friedman is truly one of the most frivolous, dishonest, and morally bankrupt public intellectuals

"Friedman is truly one of the most frivolous, dishonest, and morally bankrupt public intellectuals burdening this country. Yet he is, of course, still today, one of the most universally revered figures around" "the nation's preeminent centrist foreign policy genius." - "The Tom Friedman disease consumes Establishment Washington" is a good article but Glenn Greenwald doesn't mention Friedman's lies serving Israel's agenda.

Who is Thomas Friedman?
Here is a comment I posted on Glenn Greenwald's blog:
Thomas Friedman is a very, very, rich man who carelessly harms the little guy and he is a racist against non-Jewish Palestinians. And he has the audacity to lie to the American people about the worst attack against America in history in order to serve Israel's agenda. And he wants those who dare talk about the 9/11 motives identified by the government and put on a State Department list. Here is proof:

"Throughout his journalistic career, Friedman has been married to Ann Bucksbaum -- heiress to a real-estate and shopping-mall fortune now estimated at $2.7 billion. When the couple wed back in 1978, according to The Washingtonian article, Friedman became part of "one of the 100 richest families in the country."" On the Tim Russert show, Friedman admitted "he fervently advocated for a major trade agreement without knowing what was in it." - "It's reasonable to ask whether Friedman -- perhaps the richest journalist in the U.S. -- might be less evangelical for 'globalization' if he hadn't been so wealthy"

On Democracy Now, Amy Goodman exposes Friedman's racism and his call for the State Department to identify those who talk about the terrorists motives. (because he doesn't want the public to know we are attacked mainly over the policy of supporting Israel.)

"New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has urged the U.S. government to create blacklists of condemned political speech--not only by those who advocate violence, but also by those who believe that U.S. government actions may encourage violent reprisals. The latter group, which Friedman called "just one notch less despicable than the terrorists," includes a majority of Americans, according to recent polls." - A New Blacklist for "Excuse Makers"

Friedman lies about bin Laden's motives. Friedman claims, "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

Mainstream media certainly has not made it easy to understand what motivated the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Friedman is probably the most powerful writer who deceives the public with Israel propaganda, we must not shy away from pointing this out because Freidman and others are putting our lives at risk.

Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East

Jewish minister of intelligence writes

"Jewish minister of intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils" writes:

"On the question of my invoking the Nazi parallel with Israel, you fail to acknowledge that I have consistently and pointedly referred to certain comparable measures being employed against the people of Palestine and Lebanon," he said. "I am clearly referring to certain actions and not a total genocidal system such as the Holocaust," Kasrils wrote.

"Mr. Editor, you and the cowardly cabal behind you can ban and vilify me, but as long as I have breath I will continue to protest against Israel's fascist-style brutality and declare 'Not in my name' in the interest of the true values of Judaism and humanity and in support of justice and security for all Christians, Jews and Muslims in the Middle East and further afield."

Here is a decent Jew who is standing up for justice. He is being wronged by the South African Jewish Report because he is telling the truth about Israel.

Kasrils "accused the newspaper of misleading readers into believing that he was calling for the annihilation of Israel and that he was a Holocaust denier."

"The South African Jewish Report is also going head-to-head with the South African Freedom of Expression Institute. In a statement released to the media this week condemning the SAJR's decision not to publish Kasril's letter, Jane Duncan, director of the institute, wrote, "The newspaper is engaging in contradictory behavior by publishing an opinion piece posing questions and then denying the person to whom the questions are being put the right to answer them. The SAJR had the right to editorial independence, but this was qualified by normal editorial ethics, which included 'the sacrosanct principle of the right to reply.'"" - S. African Jewish paper causes storm

WILL GET ATTACKED AGAIN if the let them continue these policies

"a reasonable Administration would not"

Experts say we WILL GET ATTACKED AGAIN. No matter what the size of the attack, why should even a single more American die?

a reasonable Administration would not continue the policies that guarantee that we get attacked again.

I really have to wonder about writers that would use the term "Chomskyite"

These people are in such denial about what the US government's polices are that they must invent stupid words in order to avoid facing reality? Chomsky happens to be right.

I have to wonder what is so damn difficult about realizing that when the US government screws people over it is possible that some of them will lash out.

We have devious people in the press like Thomas Friedman who work to deceive the American people about why it is we were attacked. Thomas Freidman LIES when he writes that bin Laden never mentioned Palestine until after 9/11. It is obvious why he lies to the American people, the same reason the President lies, in order to protect specific foreign policies, in this case US support of Israel. This is the same agenda that the 9/11 Commission served over the American people. 9/11 Commissioners betrayed the American people when they "rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report." 9/11 Commissioners betrayed the American when they worried that "listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy." 9/11 Commissioners betrayed the American people when they omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report the key testimony in response to Lee Hamilton's question, "what have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?" They serve special interests who don't want these policies changed so they have the audacity to lie and suppress why it is that the United States is being attacked.

Republican Dirty Tricks

A good video that exposes the Republican Dirty Tricks. PASS IT ON TO EVERYONE. Republican Dirty Tricks

The National Republican Congressional Committee's Ad Tricks the Public.




This is another example of Republican Dirty Tricks.

MR. RUSSERT: Let's watch.

(Videotape of National Republican Congressional Committee campaign ad):

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Hi, sexy. You've reached the live, one-on-on fantasy line.

AD ANNOUNCER #1: The phone number to an adult fantasy hotline appeared on Michael Arcuri's New York City hotel room bill while he was there on official business. And the call was charged to Oneida County taxpayers. Arcuri has denied it but the facts are there. Who calls a fantasy hotline and then bills taxpayers? Michael Arcuri.

WOMAN: Bad call.

AD ANNOUNCER #1: The National Republican Congressional Committee paid for and is responsible for the content of this message.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Now, here are the facts, and they're not disputed by anybody, from the local Utica, New York, newspaper. "What the record shows: A bill ... shows a call costing $1.25 to the number 800-457-8462. The call was made at 3:26 p.m. Jan. 28 and was billed for one minute. ... Phone records show a call made at 3:37 p.m. using his calling card to the number 518-457-8462"--the same numbers exactly are right. "That number, he said, is for the office of the New York state Department of Criminal Justice Services." An aide inadvertently dialed the wrong area code. Everyone admits it, and yet you put an ad on suggesting that this guy is calling sex hotlines. Is that fair?

( No, it isn't fair and Republicans don't care. )

MR. RUSSERT: You said you're responsible, that's what the banner says. You can take it down if you wanted to.

REP. REYNOLDS: I paid for it. The committee paid for it, it was pulled down.

MR. RUSSERT: Is it, is it fair? Is it fair?

REP. REYNOLDS: Politics isn't always fair, Tim ...

Look who the Republicans are being unfair to: the American People. We are the ones being unfairly treated.

Pass this video, Republican Dirty Tricks

The Innermost Belly of the Neoconservative Beast

The Innermost Belly of the Neoconservative Beast

"The American Enterprise Institute sits in the innermost belly of the neoconservative beast. ... The American Enterprise Institute's current wish list features, at the very top, a military attack on Iran, followed by such subsidiary enabling measures as prosecuting journalists, strengthening domestic surveillance programs still further, and a reflexive defense of Israel as the highest imperative. "- The AEI, Iran and a Free Press

We can make this work if people just never figure it out

"Are you referring to ..."

No Mike, I am referring to the fact that Bush and other Republicans know damn well what they did with Kerry's speech. As Dick Armey said: "misconstrue what somebody said. You isolate a statement, you lend your interpretation to it and then feign moral outrage"

Two days ago the ugly game was exposed in detail by Chris Matthews and Dick Armey:

MATTHEWS: Kerry was trashing Bush himself and Bush says, "Don't say those terrible things about my troops!"

ARMEY: Right.

MATTHEWS: So, this is a bit of theater orchestrated well by the White House. They have got the American Legion commander out there making a statement. They got him to do it. I'm sure -- I assume that most of these people did not read the whole statement of Kerry yesterday, but they are happy to jump on the quote they got.

ARMEY: A fundamental premise of politics is: We can make this work if people just never figure it out.

The Republican interpretation is dishonest, it doesn't make sense because "getting stuck in Iraq" only makes sense as policy. Are we to believe that a well educated soldier doesn't get stuck but a poorly educated one does? That doesn't make sense, clearly "getting stuck in Iraq" is about a policy. If Kerry meant what the Republicans want to pretend he meant, he would say "if you don't get education you could end up in the army or end up being sent to Iraq." Even Jay realizes that Kerry was talking about Bush and not the troops.

Kerry's sentence right before it was another dig at Bush so they know damn well the context was about Bush. It takes balls for Bush to pretend that a joke against him was against the troops. Bush is willing to upset the troops by pretending that Kerry was insulting them, THAT IS REALLY LOW!

LOOK at what the Republicans are doing to the troops. The Republicans have no respect for the troops, the Republicans are using them as a prop in a desperate attempt to score political points right before an election.

Like I said, "the Republicans are playing an ugly game, they don't care if they hurt the troops by making them think a politician is mocking them when he was not."

See A fundamental premise of politics

deniers of what you admit were atrocities

"Did atrocities occur in VietNam? Of course they did!" - USMC Pilot

USMC Pilot, you are now admitting what others here deny. Will they attack you? Others, including Jay, call what you admit happened "lies." Is that OK with you? You try to make some other point while ignoring the fact that others here are deniers of what you admit were atrocities.

And what is the problem with Kerry recalling the testimony of over 150 honorably discharged vets? He DID NOT say "the entire military" as you claim. In fact, if someone giving the misimpression that it was the "the entire military" makes you angry then you should be angry at all those that misquote Kerry because they are the ones that omit the words "at times" and give a false impression.

Guys, the Republicans are playing an ugly game, they don't care if they hurt the troops by making them think a politician is mocking them when he was not. The Republicans are using the troops as a prop in their efforts to gain political ground for the election. It is shameless.

Let's not skip past the fact that former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) admitted the truth: the Rebublicans are playing a dishonest game with Kerry's words: "It's pretty standard fare in political discourse. You misconstrue what somebody said. You isolate a statement, you lend your interpretation to it and then feign moral outrage. ... A fundamental premise of politics is we can make this work if people just never figure it out."

the reason the amoeba is angry

Keven quotes Wikipedia, "Self described “Independents” make up the largest voter group in American politics" "please correct me if I’m wrong." Kevin refers to the Independents as "the Angry Amoeba." Here is my comment on his article:

It sounds incredible doesn't it? I only started to try to see if it is correct but let's just say it is for the sake of argument. Also, I think it is probably true since this source also says that it is true, it says it is true now having changed from decades ago: "In the mid twentieth century, party identification was a badge of honor. According to the National Election Studies program at the University of Michigan, fifty years ago 47 percent of voters identified with the Democrats and 28 percent with the Republicans, while just 23 percent were independents. In the year 2000, however, those numbers were almost reversed, with 40 percent of American voters describing themselves as independents, 34 percent as Democrats, and 24 percent as Republicans."

Isn't it incredible that the media doesn't have an Independent view represented every time they talk to a Republican and a Democrat? This is part of the reason I think you are concluding that there is no "vital center." I think the media simply doesn't present it so it seems like there isn't. This is part of the power of the media. Kat was right about the fact that the media is powerful and what that means, "Because you cannot know any different, you will base your decisions on what I have told you. If I have done my job well you will make the decision I want you to make." The huge part of the power is what they omit. MSM omits the Independent view because MSM's focus is around centers of power and powerful interest put their money behind what is often called "the two parties." The mainstream media could have on people who identify themselves as part of the Amoeba you mention but they do not do so for the most part, basically all the political energy is framed as Democratic or Republican.

I argue that powerful interests fear the angry amoeba and that powerful interests are catered to by excluding Independents from the media as much as we see. Compromise options COULD BE discussed in the mainstream media if they simply allowed it or didn't restrict it to the large degree that see that they do. A functioning media is essential to a functioning democracy. I think this is part of the reason the amoeba is angry.

And to make the point that relates to this, people need a real and fair way to exercise their democratic rights. the amoeba is angry because it is getting screwed over. It does matter if large parts of the amoeba are being deceived and manipulated by mainstream media and they never figure it out. People need to know the truth otherwise they really are not making choices without true freedom. If you come to my store and I deceive you into thinking I am selling you a sofa yet I ship you a thimble, you don't share the blame for why you ended up with a thimble, I am to blame because it wasn't fair for me to do that. I can't misrepresent what it is I am selling you and think you share blame for you being conned. The same goes for those that run our media and it applies to the "evil politicians" you refereed to in "If This Country Goes Down, It’s Taking Me With It." And this point is important because you take issue with me blaming "evil politicians."

I think what former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) said just 2 days ago on October 31 is something everyone should think about. Dick Armey said: "a fundamental premise of politics is we can make this work if people just never figure it out." Armey's amazingly honest admission about conning the public reveals what goes on in political discourse. Chris Matthews had asked him if what the Republicans were doing was "making it look like they've got Kerry saying something" and Armey admitted, "it's pretty standard fare in political discourse. You misconstrue what somebody said, you isolate a statement, you lend your interpretation to it, then feign moral outrage. And Democrats have been doing it for years."

A fundamental premise of politics

A fundamental premise of politics

Does anyone still believe that Kerry was talking about the troops and not what is logical, about Bush's policy which has us stuck in Iraq?

The internal logic shows Kerry was talking about Bush.

I think people can see (IF THEY THINK ABOUT IT) that if someone was talking about being dumb and then sent to Iraq but what would eduction have to do with the differance betwen stuck and unstuck if it was not a policy you had control over?

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) was INCREADIBLY honest when he admitted what was going on: On the October 31 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Armey said of the attacks on Kerry's remarks, "Well, it's pretty standard fare in political discourse. You misconstrue what somebody said. You isolate a statement, you lend your interpretation to it and then feign moral outrage." When host Chris Matthews stated that Kerry "was trashing Bush," Armey responded, "Right," and went on to say, "A fundamental premise of politics is we can make this work if people just never figure it out."

Problem is, some of you at Wizbang, when you are fooled by the Republican lies, you won't admit it because of pride. Look at what Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) said above and think it over a while, I think it could open your eyes to what is really going on in this country.

A fundamental premise of politics

Kerry has NOT "slammed the troops for 35 years."

You are using a dishonest quote in order to pretend that what Kerry said in 1971 was an accusation. It was not an accusation, Kerry was just relating the testimony of soldiers. He was reporting what the soldiers said, and not making an accusation against them. Kerry was quoting them, not accusing them. THEY told the stories in THEIR testimonies:


"... over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans
testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia ... men who were reliving their
experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this
country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut
off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of
Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and
generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the
normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which
is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

You guys start your quote by omitting all that comes before Kerry says "they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks" Republicans omit this so they can pretend that Kerry was accusing them. Republicans omit this so they can hide the fact that he was actually quoting them, not accusing them.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) displayed INCREADIBLY honesty when he admitted: "It's pretty standard fare in political discourse. You misconstrue what somebody said. You isolate a statement, you lend your interpretation to it and then feign moral outrage. ... A fundamental premise of politics is we can make this work if people just never figure it out."

The game Republicans play with the 1971 statements is just one example. Think about what Dick Armey, a Republican from Texas, admitted to. Think about it.

Sen. Allen's political thugs assault a citizen trying to ask questions

In America we have a right to question politicians running for public office.


But Senator Allen's political thugs assault a citizen trying to ask questions.

See video and pass it on

Is this the kind of America you waant to live in?

political discourse

Kat, I would hate to think that political discourse has become so poisoned by snarky comments that we can no longer have a functioning democracy. I think this paper makes some good points, the main one to me being that it is vital that citizens are able to discuss issues of the day civilly. Civil Political Discourse In A Democracy "Jefferson and the other founders of the United States democracy expected that the clash of opposing positions within political discourse would increase citizens' understanding of the issue and the quality of their collective decision making."

Aside from that, what you presented did not make your case. The links you sent did not say the war was legal. I can go into detail in another post put you might want to look at these links which do address legality:

"The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter." And even the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. He is right, and the fact is the US signed the UN Charter. A preemptive attack on Iraq violates the United Nations Charter, which is a treaty and part of the supreme law of the United States under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. signed the UN Charter and we are obligated to uphold the law according to our own Constitution. A treaty that we sign becomes the "law of the land" according to our Constitution. See: Big Media Refuses to Report this Basic Fact: Attacking Iraq Violates International Law

The US and UK can not legally decide what is enforcement of a UN resolution and on their own "enforce" a UN resolution. "The position that individual member states can respond to claimed violations of the ceasefire agreement between Iraq and the UN without the consent of the Security Council is inconsistent with the role of the council and is an unsustainable view of international law." See: The Iraq War was Illegal Mr. Kamm

And I said nothing about a “conspiracy.”

free speech

Anonymous Blogger, free speech should be free, decent Americans don't try to financial sabotage someone because they don't like what they sat. Boycotting is BS, it is pressure to keep people from voicing their opinion, it is not a fair response to free speech. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not vindictive financial sabotage aimed at punishing those that dare voice their opinion. You should see what was done to the Dixie Chicks for what it is. We are supposed to be a people that respects free speech, not one that intimidates and pressures people into not voicing their opinion. Working to hurt people by undermining the way they make a living is not respecting free speech. If you want to live as a decent person that understands the principles this country is built on, they you should accept that people will say things you don't agree with. Attempting to silence them by making them wary of voicing an opinion is sick. What is hard to understand about that?

And Bush is HORRIBLE! ( the mainstream media DOES NOT point this out: Bush lied or is insane or is so ignorant and incompetent that it isn't funny at all. Bush thinks Saddam didn't let the inspectors in and that is why we attacked him! He has said it at least 3 times now and the media keeps letting him get away with it!)

And here is an example of out government violating the principle of free speech: Free Speech? Not for this American.

free speech

Anonymous Blogger, free speech should be free, decent Americans don't try to financial sabotage someone because they don't like what they sat. Boycotting is BS, it is pressure to keep people from voicing their opinion, it is not a fair response to free speech. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not vindictive financial sabotage aimed at punishing those that dare voice their opinion. You should see what was done to the Dixie Chicks for what it is. We are supposed to be a people that respects free speech, not one that intimidates and pressures people into not voicing their opinion. Working to hurt people by undermining the way they make a living is not respecting free speech. If you want to live as a decent person that understands the principles this country is built on, they you should accept that people will say things you don't agree with. Attempting to silence them by making them wary of voicing an opinion is sick. What is hard to understand about that?

And Bush is HORRIBLE! ( the mainstream media DOES NOT point this out: Bush lied or is insane or is so ignorant and incompetent that it isn't funny at all. Bush thinks Saddam didn't let the inspectors in and that is why we attacked him! He has said it at least 3 times now and the media keeps letting him get away with it!)

And here is an example of out government violating the principle of free speech: Free Speech? Not for this American.

because no one would publish it

Saad Sayeed, Excalibur Online: And what keeps you motivated?

Noam Chomsky: I'll just tell you a brief story. I was in Beirut a couple of months ago giving talks at the American university in the city. After a talk, people come up and they want to talk privately or have books signed.

Here I was giving a talk in a downtown theatre, a large group of people were around and a young woman came up to me, in her mid-'20s, and just said this sentence: "I am Kinda" and practically collapsed. You wouldn't know who Kinda is but that's because we live in societies where the truth is kept hidden. I knew who she was. She had a book of mine open to a page on which I had quoted a letter of hers that she wrote when she was seven years old.

It was right after the U.S. bombing of Libya, her family was then living in Libya, and she wrote a letter which was found by a journalist friend of mine who tried to get it published in the United States but couldn't because no one would publish it. He then gave it to me, I published it. The letter said something like this:

Dear Mr Reagan, I am seven years old. I want to know why you killed my little sister and my friend and my rag doll. Is it because we are Palestinians?
- Kinda

That's one of the most moving letters I have ever seen and when she walked up to me and said I am Kinda, and, like I say, actually fell over, not only because of the event but because of what it means.

Here's the United States with no pretext at all, bombing another country, killing and destroying, and nobody wants to know what a little seven-year-old girl wrote about the atrocities. That's the kind of thing that keeps me motivated and ought to keep everybody motivated. And you can multiply that by 10,000.

powerful politicians who abuse our system

Kevin, do you really think that there would be impeachment hearings if Bush bombed Iran? What do you base this on? Haven't you noticed that the Democratic Party is unwilling to talk about impeachment now even after Bush attacked Iraq? I don't see anything to convince me that Iran would be different. And that is one of the reasons why it is so wrong to not address impeachment for Bush's war on Iraq, you only encourage him. I don't see anyone now standing up and telling him that attacking Iran is off the table and illegal and that he will be impeached if he does. I can see him shrugging and saying "I said it was one of the axis of evil countries" and for people to leap to make excuses for his bombing of Iran (or morphing it into "America's" bombing of Iran and therefore it must be justified)

Could you please explain why powerful politicians who abuse our system is "we" and their crimes must not be seen but rather morphed into "we" of "America" and therefore it must be ignored? Can you just answer one question and tell me why these sick politicians morph into "America" itself in your mind and why you can't bear to read legitimate criticisms of them (or at this point not them but in your mind "America itself" or "us" or we".) Why do you feel it necessary to label accurate and vital analysis of foreign policies as "spiel" YET you don't have any trouble with someone (Kat) actually trashes us - THE AMERICAN PEOPLE themselves. You don't label all the crap she wrote about the American people "as a whole" as a "spiel", in fact you leap to defend her. Can you please tell me why you are so eager to find an excuse to disregard criticism of powerful individuals' actions which violate the very meaning of America yet you lap up a list of criticisms leveled at the American people.

You are so eager to excuse the powerful that you are concocting things I never said nor implied. Where are you getting "we are so fucking evil!" and "the rest of the world is so pure and good" An American citizen has a right and a responsibility to make sure that our representatives represent our interests and abide by their oaths of office. Why in the world do you resent this? Could you please explain this to me? And what the hell is "ultra-left wing" about it?

I don't think you have thought these issues through. These are life and death issues. 9/11 is a gravely serious issue and I find it extremely offensive how powerful individuals have betrayed the American people in order to serve special interests. George Tenet is one of these despicable men. He testified before the 9/11 Commission and helped push the lie that you have been deceived with by omitting the motive for the fatwa by omitting half of the key sentence and only referring to the first half: "In 1998, bin Laden issued a fatwa telling all Muslims it was their duty to kill Americans and their allies, civilian and military, wherever they may be." The second half of that sentence which read: “in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [in Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.” Pundits are telling lies about 9/11. Thomas Friedman is one of these despicable men. He committed FRAUD by alleging that bin Laden "only started talking about "Palestine" after September 11." That is a lie, and a simple google search exposes it in seconds. Here is one example: "We feel for our brothers in Palestine and Lebanon." It is a fact that people in power are suppressing the motives for the 9/11 attacks and this fact was admitted to by the top chairmen of the 9/11 commission who write in their new book that commissioners, "rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report." Please watch this: What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't Notice that FBI Special Agent Fitzgerald's testimony never made it into the report and the report makes no recommendation to address the main motive for the attacks.

Dishonesty about the 9/11 motives robs Americans of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies.

Bad.

"Given that we invaded Iraq, an invasion I didn’t support for different reasons than yours, how are we doing?"

Bad. And it could get even worse. The Bush team which you don't want to hold accountable is upping the aggression towards Iran and it looks like they want to commit another war crime by bombing Iran. This has to be stopped. And a question that should be asked is are we a nation of laws or aren't we? Shouldn't wrong doers be held accountable even if they are powerful? Just because you get yourself into our government doesn't make you above the law.

The press plays along with state power and doesn't question violations of international law.
The press only concerns itself with if the crimes are carried out efficiently, not if they are wrong.

Kat doesn't respect the concept of democracy. When confronted with the reality that the administration was not "up front" with the American people, she blames the American people for being "pretty weak and self-centered," "not very worldly or well-traveled," and "pretty ignorant and spoiled, on the whole." She had more criticisms for the American people than the politicians who violated their oaths of office and lied us into an illegal, immoral unnecessary and dangerous war! Kat makes excuses for the Bush administration's lying to the American people by blaming the American people, we have to be lied to because of our defects. Kat is an apologist for undemocratic leaders.

And if you are concerned about the threat posed by the kinds of terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, attacking Iraq IS THE LAST THING YOU WOULD DO! This whole thing is an dishonest and reckless endeavor.

Kat, like mainstream media, is "dissing" "the execution of the whole affair, not on the direction." This is all to common of apologists for state power, they want the actions carried out efficiently no doubt and they don't question if the actions are actually correct in the first place.

Kat doesn't speak for me when she writes "about a world that up to 9/11 we were all pretty well happy to ignore." I knew plenty about it before 9/11 and I know even more now. Kat clearly does not. The first thing Bush did was lie to us about why we were attacked. He was more concerned about the special interests he serves than the American people. Bush lied when he said we were attacked because of our freedoms. Bush has said "the Commander-in-Chief ought to listen to what the enemy says." What they say is crystal clear, they attack "in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [in Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." And they have been talking about he same issues for years. In 1993 the terrorists who bombed the WTC said, "This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region." In 2001, bin Laden said, "We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine . This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula , and until it stops its support of Israel."

How can anyone take seriously claims by this administration and previous ones about concerns about human rights and democracy? Take the example of US support of Israel. Israel is a system of discrimination against those who are not of the privileged religion. This is not an American ideal. The majority of Jews in Israel don't think non-Jews should have full equal rights. Imagine for a minute even asking whites in America if they thought blacks should have full equal rights, the question itself is offensive! Yet the majority of Jews in Israel have no problem being racist and the US backs this injustice. And it is worse that n that, Israel targets and kills civilians and the US continues its support. This is a specific example of what people around the world are talking about when they talk about US hypocrisy. It is central to the so called "war on terror" because US support for Israel was the prime motive for the attacks!

Kat thinks we are being attacked because of "full blown envy" which turns "into hatred." To put it bluntly, that is ignorant. We are being attacked because of what our politicians have done to people in the Middle East. The track record speaks for itself but the mainstream media almost always sweeps it under the rug. Take what Kat referred to. What "freedom" was US policy makers offering when they SUPPORTED "those who butcher and murder in the name of religion?" The CIA was supporting people like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who was known for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil, etc. The US was literally shipping Korans and weapons and encouraging Jihad, to kill in the name of religion. The target? The government of Afghanistan which was instituting social and economic reforms, where girls were going to school and big advancements were being made. That isn't my opinion, the US State Department knew what they were doing, "despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." And these Sate Department thugs were doing it to send a message the way the Mafia would. In order to "show the rest of the world, particularly the Third World" that they should not get it into their heads o enact similar social and economic reforms. Remember, although mainstream media does not point it out, the US support of the Islamists was BEFORE the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. The US used the very same people they self-righteously denounce today to destroy the Afghanistan government as a demonstration to others to achieve political goals. Truly ugly acts and violations of what the average American thinks of as an American ideal. Callimachus mocks Americans that want their government to respect virtues they hold dear. "If you don’t like it, go to divinity school," says Callimachus.