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.

United States' Iran policy

Ritter says the United States' Iran policy is pushed by a nexus of Washington's neo-conservatives and Israel's right-wing Likud politicians

US sends the wrong messages to Iran
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
excerpt:

"The US wants initial sanctions to target Iranian activities related to its suspected weapons program - which Tehran denies.

Indeed, there is no evidence that Iran is proliferating, that it deserves the same punishment as North Korea. This is a point emphasized by the Iranian leadership, as well as others, including the former chief UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, at a recent talk sponsored by the Nation Institute in New York, also featuring veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who has written extensively on the United States' plans for military strikes on Iran.

According to Ritter, whose new book Target Iran is a powerful jab at the Bush administration's Iran policy, if the US bombed Iran's nuclear facilities today, there would be "no environmental damage" because Iran's facilities are mostly concrete buildings and rudimentary equipment with little actual nuclear material involved. "That is the whole insanity of this thing. Iran has no nuclear-weapons program and its enrichment program is at the lab scale," said Ritter. He added that the United States' Iran policy was pushed by a nexus of Washington's neo-conservatives and Israel's right-wing Likud politicians who have a "faith-based" rather than a "fact-based" approach with regard to Iran, that is, the Israelis have adopted the wrong policy toward Iran by deluding themselves into believing that Iran is proliferating nuclear weapons and is at the advanced stages of this process.

Dangerous consequences
What if there is a military strike on Iran? [ First of all, if such a thing was done it would be a war crime. It is illegal to attack a country that has not attacked you nor is in in the process of attacking you. It is a violation of International Law. Our Constitution makes clear that intonational treaties become law of the land. We can not allow our politicians to continue to violate our Constitution by starting more illegal wars. Kaveh L Afrasiabi really should be pointing this out, after all, we are not the Nazis where attacking other countries is just assumed to be OK. ] According to both Ritter and Hersh, the consequences could be dire and even catastrophic. Ritter, who has visited Iran in the recent past, is convinced that Iran is prepared to inflict pain on the US and its allies in the region in response to any such military strike, inviting more punishing blows by the US. These might include the use of "usable nuclear weapons" sanctioned by President George W Bush's nuclear doctrine and the idea of "preemption". "

US authorities violated international law

US authorities violated international law. They attacked a country that didn't attack us and didn't threaten to attack us. The whole excuse is absurd. Even if Saddam did have WMD, and you might remember that he didn't and said that he didn't and said that Bush would be proven a liar. But if he did, he was not likely to use them against the US. Look at the fact that when he did have them he was unwilling to use them against us even after we attacked him! (the Gulf War) The whole war is total BS. The entire premise is absurd. It had NOTHING to do with the so called "war on terror".

After committing a war crime, us authorities CONTINUED to violate international law by changing Iraqi laws (all to serve the interests of business)

Big business is making a bundle off of all of this and the US taxpayers are being ripped off. For big business to receive billions of dollars for US tax-dollars, they do have to have some excuse don't they? The fact that contractors are building things in Iraq means what exactly to you? That it is a "good thing"? What would you need to see to get that this is a ripoff of the American taxpayer? The entire premise of this thing is off the wall. It is quickly forgotten that US authorities resisted elections in Iraq and when it was insisted on by Iraqis, the US authorities took credit for it.

I have never seen ANYONE in mainstream media question the premise that US authorities actually intended on allowing real democracy in Iraq. What the hell do people think the policies of a truly democratic Iraq would be? They certainly are not going to follow the US governments line! Is this not understood?

The media helped sell this absurd war and has covered for the ongoing crimes. The media plays along with the absurd premises. Also, I didn't see ANYONE in the mainstream media point out who was funding Saddam in the late 1950's (the US government) Who backed the two coups that put the Ba'ath party in power in the first place? (the US government) INCREDIBLE that NO ONE in mainstream media reported this fact! Do you see how they play the game?

Also, I have seen dozens of times a US politician bitch about how bad Saddam was and then as proof say "Saddam attacked his neighbors." Neighbors? Plural? These politicians are actually referring to Saddam's attack on Kuwait AND Iran? If Saddam's attack on Iran is an example of Saddam's evil, then what the hell does that make the US government which supported him in his crime?!? In all the times I have seen a politician say "Saddam attacked his neighbors" NOT ONCE have I seen a reported ask why they are listing attacking Iran as a bad thing when the US supported Saddam's war on Iran! If it was a bad thing, then why the hell did the US government support him? NOT ONCE have I seen a reporter question a politician on this. This is just another example of the warped elite culture that dominates the public discourse and makes up all of mainstream media.

No, I don't know of anyone that holds the US government responsible for all the crimes in the world, only the ones it has actually committed.

Israel's Plan For A Military Strike On Iran

Israel's Plan For A Military Strike On Iran - by Jonathan Cook. Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His website is www.jkcook.net

The BBC spreads Israel's propaganda

"The BBC decided this week that it should air a documentary entitled "Will Israel bomb Iran?"

... the programme addresses none of the important issues raised by Israel's increasingly belligerent posture towards Tehran.

It does not explain that, without a United Nations resolution, a military strike on Iran to destroy its nuclear research programme would be a gross violation of international law.

It does not clarify that Israel's own large nuclear arsenal was secretly developed and is entirely unmonitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or that it is perceived as a threat by its neighbours and may be fuelling a Middle East arms race.

Nor does the programme detail the consequences of an Israeli strike on instability and violence across the Middle East, including in Iraq, where British and American troops are stationed as an occupying force.

And there is no consideration of how in the longer term unilateral action by Israel, with implicit sanction by the international community, is certain to provoke a steep rise in global jihad against the West."

"the programme's unequivocal main theme -- echoing precisely Israel's own agenda -- is that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is hellbent on destroying Israel. The film-makers treat seriously, bordering on reverentially, preposterous comments from Israel's leaders about this threat."

"as has now been pointed out on numerous occasions (though clearly not often enough for the BBC to have noticed), Khomeini and Ahmadinejad were referring to the need for regime change, the ending of the regime occupying the Palestinians in violation of international law. They were not talking, as Netanyahu and co claim, about the destruction of the state of Israel or the Jewish people. The implication of the speech is that the current Israeli regime will end because occupying powers are illegitimate and unsustainable, not because Iran plans to fire nuclear missiles at the Jewish state or commit genocide.

[ Many news sources reported that he said, "Israel must be wiped off the map" but a correct translation shows what President Ahmadinejad actually said: "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)." Pundits and politicians are actively trying to create a confrontation with Iran.]

Overlooked by the programme makers is the fact that "fragile" Israel is currently the only country in the Middle East armed with nuclear warheads, several hundred of them, as well as one of the most powerful armies in the world, which presumably make most of its neighbours feel "fragile" too, with far more reason."

"why did the BBC buy this blatant piece of propaganda? ... Could it be that the "hasbara" division of the Israeli Foreign Ministry has got far more sophisticated than it once was? ... Is the Israeli government using Shalev, wittingly or not, and is he in turn using the BBC, to spread Israeli propaganda? Propaganda that may soon propel us towards the "clash of civilisations" so longed for by Israel's leadership."

SEE FULL ARTICLE: ZNet |Israel/Palestine | Israel's Plan For A Military Strike On Iran

It is outrageous to suppress the facts to keep the policies from being reassessed!

This talk of "left" and right" misses the point. show me people that are willing to tell the truth regardless if it may cause others to reassess specific polices. SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks. The 9/11 Commissioners more interested in playing politics than in fulfilling their mandate. "Commissioners ... rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report. In their view, 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."

It is outrageous to suppress the facts to keep the policies from being reassessed!

Tatterdemalian writes, "How many news agencies, worldwide,showed the Mohammed cartoons again? Most are submissive slaves to their local imams, already. How can anyone describe that as free?" For God sakes, Tatterdemalian, use your head. Decent people don't think it is OK to offend people. For the same reason that news agencies don't show hard core porn and don't show racist caricatures of blacks or Jews. The reason is offending people of any group or religion like that is understood to be wrong. You must have some sort of blind spot if you can't extend the same level of decency to people of the Islamic faith as you do to people of other faiths and races.

I notice a disturbing pattern of antagonism towards Muslims. Propagandists share a large part of the blame for this. Propagandists who seek to protect their favorite policy: US support of Israel. I can list examples if anyone is interested. Recently we had one of the most dramatic examples, ABC ran "The path to 9/11" which contained a fabricated fatwa quote that purported to say that bin Laden was attacking us "until America converts to Islam". This is a lie, there is no such demand and never has been. It is fabricated to hide the fact of what the real motives were for the 9/11 attacks. There has been a pattern of suppression and lies in order to hide the real motives for the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden has been explicate, "the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq." He has not said "until American converts to Islam", that is not what this is about. He has said until what: "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."

Not Saying Why, MSM's Bias Against Chavez

Notice these guys won't answer Larry King's question:

L. KING: Why is Chavez so angry, Wolf?

BLITZER: Because he really hates this president of the United States.

L. KING: Because?

BLITZER: Very close to Fidel Castro. You see the trips he's making to Iran, to Syria, coddling up with all those leaders that really don't like this president, don't like the United States very much at all. And I guess you've got to talk to Hugo Chavez, but I think the first President Bush is right. When Venezuela is a member of OPEC, it's a huge oil-exporting country, they're making a ton of money right now as is Iran, another member of OPEC. And as long as these guys have a lot of cash, they can go around and make the kind of statements they make.

CARVILLE: I've worked for the opposition of Venezuela for some time, so I'm pretty familiar with it and President Bush. And Wolf, we're exactly right. If he's sitting on $60 a barrel oil and he's giving what they refer to -- and you have a long history of neglect in Venezuela -- it wasn't like you had some pristine great government in there before Chavez came. He is a bad actor, not a small-d Democrat in any sense of the word. He is as autocratic as he can possibly be, but he's trying to ferment a lot of stuff around Latin America and around the world and he's being propped up by this high price of oil.

L. KING: Why did the president of Iran get so much attention?

J. KING: Why did the president of Iran get so much attention? Because he has a nuclear program that many think is on the verge of becoming a nuclear weapon program, and he has said that he thinks Israel should be wiped off the map.

L. KING: But he doesn't run Iran, does he? He doesn't really run that country.

J. KING: Well but why did they pick him? If he doesn't run that country and the religious leaders do, why did they pick him at this moment in time? That is the question the world is asking itself. And you have the United States, which has -- its position in the Middle East has been weakened because of the Iraq war, its leverage in the region has been weakened because of the Iraq war. This man steps out there and he's trying to assert himself in the region and so far with Hezbollah and with Syria, he's succeeding.

You go into Israel right now and they are worried. The Israelis are very worried that he's serious. They take him at his word that he wants to wipe them off the map.

L. KING: J.C., did Hezbollah win that war?

WATTS: No, I don't think so.

L. KING: It won the P.R. war.

WATTS: Well they got some P.R. brownie points out of it, but I don't think they won. The president of Iran, and the president of Venezuela, they both are small men with withered souls. And they're very dangerous people, and I do think the president of Iran is to be taken seriously, which I think this president has taken him seriously. And any time that he will make some of the crazy, ludicrous statements that he's made about Israel and even the United States of America. Again I think Hezbollah got some brownie points, I don't think they won the war.

L. KING: The problem is still Israel/Palestine, isn't it, Candy? The focus of all that?

CROWLEY: Absolutely. It always is. I mean, you know, the problem -- but it's just gotten worse again because, as John said, the diminution of U.S. power and U.S. influence in the area, on Chavez and the president of Iran,I mean, we're back to all politics is local. This helps them with the home team crowd. That's what this is about. It's -- you know, if you're a dictator, if you're a guy that has power through means other than democracy, you've got to play the hometown crowd so they don't run it up.
- CNN LARRY KING LIVE Aired October 4, 2006 - 21:00 ET

These shills fail to admit that Chavez is democratically elected and VERY popular and he is helping the poor.

the extremism of US neoconservative foreign policy has exacerbated the danger of terrorism

The Extremism of US Neoconservative Foreign Policy has Exacerbated the Danger of Terrorism
"Blair's craven support for the extremism of US neoconservative foreign policy has exacerbated the danger of terrorism and the instability and suffering of the Middle East. He has dishonoured the UK, undermined the UN and international law and helped to make the world a more dangerous place. The erosion of the rule of law and civil liberties has weakened our democracy and increased Muslim alienation." Clare Short: I'm standing down so I can speak the truth
I am profoundly ashamed of the Government. The Labour Party has lost its way
Published: 14 September 2006

Chomsky is doing what all Americans should do

Chomsky is doing what all Americans should do, point out things that violated the professed values of the US. Take the recent example, MSM in the US talked about Chavez's comment about Bush yet they omitted a key fact that Chomsky is willing to point out (a very rare mention in the MSM was this NYT article where they actually published a quote from Chomksy that contains critical info) "he said Mr. Chavez's anger was understandable. "The Bush administration backed a coup to overthrow his government," he said. "Suppose Venezuela supported a military coup that overthrew the government of the United States? Would we think it was a joke?""

You don't dispute that the US backed the coup do you? By the way, I just learned tonight that the infamous Kissinger is involved in and influences policy formation for the Bush Administration.

This is a very important point. It highlights the hypocrisy of US politicians about valuing democracy, they clearly don't. At this point, I would think you should see that standing up for what is the stated American values is not "anti-American". How can being in favor of the principles of this country be "anti" this country? Think about how sick is is that politicians and pundits all omit mention of why Chavez would be calling Bush the devil. There is something deeply wrong with mainstream media which serves essentially as the public forum for the people in the US and to our great detriment. The political arena in the US is twisted as well. And the media, as you can see, is clearly not going to hold them to account. This is a pattern. As you may have noticed in my writings, I point out that that politicians and pundits lie about why the US was attacked on 9/11. Notice too that the movie "Path to 9/11" fabricated a fatwa quote which makes the motive about "converting to Islam" when the real motives were, to quote the 1993 note explaining the 1993 bombing, "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." It is outrageous to manipulate the American people about why it is they are being terrorized.

On Zionism and ethnic cleansing:

ethnic cleansing
n.

The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.

Tell me you don't know that that is the plan modern Zionists are implementing right now.

Chavez is not a dictator

Chavez is not a dictator. It is yet another indication of how extreme mainstream media is that this canard is given such high profile without challenge. "Mr. Chomsky said that he would not choose to use the same harsh oratory, but added that the Venezuelan leader was simply expressing the views of many in the world. And he said Mr. Chavez's anger was understandable. "The Bush administration backed a coup to overthrow his government," he said. "Suppose Venezuela supported a military coup that overthrew the government of the United States? Would we think it was a joke?"

Chavez has won six closely supervised elections.

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."

**This is why the US media attacks him**:
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."