Prevent Bush from Attacking Iran!

Prevent Bush from Attacking Iran!

"Congress has the responsibility to prevent Bush from attacking Iran. In view of congressional opposition to his war in Iraq, Bush will not likely ask permission to make war on Iran. We can expect Bush to provoke - or even fabricate a la Tonkin Gulf - an incident with Iran and then claim he's responding to Iranian aggression. Senior Pentagon officials reported in Wednesday's Los Angeles Times that Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the Iran-Iraq border may be used more aggressively. Bush will then try to bootstrap the September 2001 and October 2002 congressional authorizations for force in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively into consent to attack Iran.

A U.S. Attack Is Illegal
Offensive military action against Iran would be illegal under the United Nations Charter, which requires that members settle international disputes by peaceful means. The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and thus part of American law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Under the Charter, a country can attack another only in self-defense or with the blessing of the Security Council. Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons would violate our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Congress should immediately pass a binding resolution reaffirming the United States' legal obligations and informing the Bush administration that it will not concur in any invasion or military action against Iran, would refuse to approve any funding for it, and would consider actions taken in contravention of the resolution as impeachable offenses." - Bush Targets Iran by Marjorie Cohn

Below is what I wrote about the illegality of President Bush's attack on Iraq:

I don't see any mention of the fact that it was illegal to attack Iraq. The NYT is notorious for serving the interests of the powerful and the powerful don't like to be bound by laws. All this sick minded talk from the Times as if it is simply a choice that may or may not be made. Attacking Iraq wasn't "a choice" that either "should" be made or not. It wasn't a choice that would be a "mistake" or not. It was a case of either violating the law of our land or not. The Times is a very sick newspaper for suppressing the fact that what Bush was contemplating was illegal.
It would be very interesting to see if any mainstream news outlet reported the fact that what Bush was contemplating was illegal. I never saw one report that basic fact.
see The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy

NOW we see the same game being played with regard to talk about Bush attacking Iran.

Bombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran.

Jet Fuel Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Jet Fuel Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

"Almost immediately after the impact, somewhat bizarrely, I smelled an overwhelming stench of aviation fuel, Jet A1 gas, which I recognized because I'm a private pilot and I'm used to airfield environments. I recall smelling it and almost instantly dismissed it as being illogical and didn't have any place in the World Trade Center." - Paul Neal

The planes impacted the buildings with tremendous force and damaged the structure. The crashes forced debris and jet fuel down the elevator shafts. The fire ball explosions came right out of the elevator shafts, the elevator doors were blown open. People in the the lower/sub-basements levels could smell the jet fuel which smelled like kerosene.

"At 8:46am, the 1st plane flew into the north tower, my building. My co-workers and I escaped by descending 30 flights of stairs through jet fuel fumes and water." - Jen Murawski

"We smelled kerosene," Mike Pecoraro recounted. Felipe David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries. Cutter explosives don't create fireballs.

"Mike walked through the open doorway and found two people lying on the floor. One was a female Carpenter and the other an Elevator Operator. They were both badly burned and injured."

"... I thought it was odd that no one was coming into our stairwell from other floors. I assumed that they found other stairwells. … 21, 20, 19 … I could smell something familiar. There it is, my first connection to the outside. I could smell something. What is it? It reminds me of something. Kerosene? It smells like the kerosene heaters my father had 20 years ago in the Poconos. (I never made the connection to jet fuel until later on.) ... We keep going; 9, 8, 7, then again, "hold it." Picture the scene. You can only see half a flight below you and half above. If you crane your neck into the center of the stairs, all you can see are dozens of hands. There is still no panic. We are using those ahead of us as scouts, listening to whatever we could. The smell of burning kerosene is getting stronger. ... When we got to 1, the elevator doors were blown out and blackened. These were our first images of what was happening. They led us out the Marriott Hotel lobby. On the floor to our right was a fireman with a woman who was blackened from head to toe, barely alive, if alive at all." - Christopher Ferrer

If it was "explosives" they would be blown to pieces rather than burned. Being burned is consistent with a fuel explosion. Other individuals were burned as well and there was a lot of smoke.

"As we got to the third floor of the B stairway, we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides. The only thing that was remaining was the hoistway door. And inside the elevator were about I didn't recognize them initially, but a guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene. Thats when Lieutenant Foti said oh, thats the jet fuel. I remember it smelled like if you're camping and you drop a kerosene lamp.

The same thing happened to the elevators in the main lobby. They were basically blown out. I don't recall if I actually saw people in there. What got me initially in the lobby was that as soon as we went in, all the windows were blown out, and there were one or two burning cars outside. And there were burn victims on the street there, walking around. We walked through this giant blown-out window into the lobby.

There was a lady there screaming that she didn't know how she got burnt. She was just in the lobby and then next thing she knew she was on fire. She was burnt bad. And somebody came over with a fire extinguisher and was putting water on her.

Thats the first thing that got me. That and in front of one of the big elevator banks in the lobby was a desk and I definitely made out one of the corpses to be a security guard because he had a security label on his jacket. Im assuming that maybe he was at a table still in a chair and almost completely incinerated, charred all over his body, definitely dead. And you could make out like a security tag on his jacket. And I remember seeing the table was melted, but he was still fused in the chair and that elevator bank was melted, so I imagine the jet fuel must have blown right down the elevator shaft and I guess caught the security guard at a table, I guess at some type of checkpoint." - Firefighter Peter Blaich

"David Kravette, a managing director of Cantor Fitzgerald, caught an elevator down from the 105th floor to meet clients in the lobby. He emerged in the lobby, slightly aggravated at the inconvenience. "Which one of you knuckleheads came without an ID?'' Kravette recalled asking, just as a tremendous explosion shook the six-story lobby. "I saw a couple of elevators in free fall; you could hear them whizzing down and as they crashed, there was this huge explosion, like a fireball exploding out of the bank of elevators,'' Kravette said. "People were engulfed in flames.'' He escaped across an overpass to the West Side Highway. Three Cantor employees in the lobby suffered severe burns but will survive."

"Brian Reeves, a 34-year-old security guard, was nearly killed while making the rounds in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center on September 11. He started to run after hearing an explosion that he said sounded like a missile, but he was knocked down by a fireball that roared down the elevator shaft. Reeves suffered third-degree burns to 40 percent of his body before he was able to pat out the flames. He was one of 20 critically-injured patients rushed to New York Presbyterian’s burn unit that day."

As he waited for orders, Meldrum, the chauffeur (Fire engine driver), noticed that all windows in the high lobby were blown out. Glass and marble from busted walls littered the floors, crunched underfoot. He caught an occasional whiff of jet fuel, a smell like kerosene, wafting from elevator shafts. On the floor by the elevators he saw burned people.

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "and then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off." FIRE causes people's skin to peel and hang off their bodies. (*see example of skin hanging off because of fire below)

"It was an eerie walk down the smoky stairs, a path to safety that ran through the suffering. They saw people who had been badly burned. Their skin, he says, "was like a grayish color, and it was like dripping, or peeling, like the skin was peeling off their body."

... Even as people streamed down the stairs, the cracks were appearing in the walls as the building shuddered and cringed. Steam pipes burst, and at one point an elevator door burst open and a man fell out, half burned alive, his skin hanging off. People dragged him out of the elevator and helped get him out of the building to the doctors below." - TIME

There are more quotes at this page: Jet Fuel

*An example of skin hanging off because of fire: (from "Escape: Because Accidents Happen: Fire" PBS Airdate: February 16, 1999) ""Some people had - Their clothing was alight, their hair was very singed. Where their arms and skin were exposed, there was skin hanging off that had been burnt." - Alan Pryke

Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous

Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous

President Bush was interviewed on 60 Minutes by Scott Pelley at Camp David. The online interview clip and transcript reveals something that they left out of the TV version: Increadibly, Bush thinks the Iranian President "threatened countries with nuclear weapons" and that he "said he wants a nuclear weapon." Please stop the 'War President' before he starts WWIII. See video

SCOTT PELLEY: What would you say right now in this interview to the Iranian president about the meddling in Iraq?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I'd say, first of all, to him, "You've made terrible choices for your people. You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people, and you've made your country the pariah of the world. You've threatened countries with nuclear weapons. You've said you want a nuclear weapon. You've defied international accord. And you're slowly but surely isolating yourself." And secondly, that "it's in your interest to have a unified nation on your border. It's in your interest that there be a flourishing democracy." And thirdly, you know, "If we catch your people inside the country harming US citizens or Iraqi citizens, you know, we will deal with them." transcript

Bush is wrong! This is a dangerous situation.
Stop the 'War President' NOW!

Write Your Representative
Contact Your Senator
Contact the Whitehouse
Contact the Media

See Video: Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous
Stop the 'War President' before he starts WWIII.

The video was removed by YouTube but it should not have been. It is a textbook example of "Fair Use" SEE: A Fair Use Issue and CBS

Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous

Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous
A Fair Use Issue and CBS

I uploaded this video: Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous, to LiveVideo since YouTube removed it.

There was no justification for removing the video. I used 18 seconds of audio, with one still frame in order to comment on an extremely serious matter where the President of the United States makes another false statement. I also used 7 seconds of video without audio to critique the segment as well (it showed the interviewer and Bush). This is in a 70 second video that I present as my news analysis. This CLEARLY falls under Fair Use. My video has been pulled off of YouTube and this notice is in its place: "This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner CBS Broadcasting, Inc because its content was used without permission" That is BS. I have a right under Fair Use to use 18 seconds of audio and 7 seconds of video to analyze an extremely important issue of the day. If what I did in this video is not "Fair Use" then nothing is.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Read transcript here: President Bush was interviewed on 60 Minutes by Scott Pelley at Camp David. The online interview clip and transcript reveals something that they left out of the TV version: Increadibly, Bush thinks the Iranian President "threatened countries with nuclear weapons" and that he "said he wants a nuclear weapon." Please stop the 'War President' before he starts WWIII.

1993 World Trade Center Bombing Motive

1993 World Trade Center Bombing Motive: Attack was "to revenge for my Palestinian brothers and my brothers in Saudi Arabia."

Abdul Rahman Yasin was an accomplice in the 1993 bombing of the WTC. Lesley Stahl, from the CBS show 60 Minutes, interviewed him in May of 2002. She asked him about Ramzi Yousef and how Yousef convinced him to help him.

Abdul Rahman Yasin: He was not charismatic but he had a strong logic. He can convince people easily. He convinced me.

Lesley Stahl: So you’re saying that Ramzi Yousef and Mohammed Salameh tried to politicize you. Is that what you're telling us?

Abdul Rahman Yasin: Yes, they tried and I was influenced. They used to tell me that you are an Iraqi and you have seen the destruction in Iraq. And they used to tell me how Arabs suffered a great deal, and that we have to send a message that this is not right. This is to revenge for my Palestinian brothers and my brothers in Saudi Arabia. So they talked to me a lot about this.

Yasin "says he is sorry for what he did and that the bombers, whom he said he met for the first time while living in a Jersey City apartment building, talked him into it."

After his capture, the FBI questioned Ramzi Yousef on the flight back from Pakistan about his motivations for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993.

"Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden by his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops." "Yousef said he "would like it to be different," but only terrible violence could force this kind of abrupt political change. He said that he truly believed his actions had been rational and logical in pursuit of a change in U.S. policy toward Israel. He mentioned no other motivation during the flight and no other issue in American foreign policy that concerned him." Steve Coll, Ghost Wars p273

Yousef sent a letter to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack on the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. 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."

MSNBC : The Contenders - Where's Dennis Kucinich?

NBC : The Contenders - Where's Dennis Kucinich?

It way be far worse than that.

It way be far worse than that. People are starting to realize that Bush threatened Iran in the speech and US raid on the Iranian consulate in Iraq is a bad sign. A worse sign is the air craft carriers and the missiles that Bush is sending over there.

It would be another war crime on a huge scale and could very well spiral out of control into WWIII.

Now I don't know about you but every WWIII forecast I have ever seen predicted deaths in excess of the casualties of every other war to date. We are living in dangerous times. It is critical that we pull Bush's ability to start another war NOW. His violation of the US Constitution is grounds enough to politically neutralize him to prevent him from destroying millions of lives.

Selling his plan for escalating the war in Iraq

Selling his plan for escalating the war in Iraq, President Bush claimed, "the consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits."

Amy Zalman, Ph.D. writes, "There is no evidence that any American presence in Iraq will forestall Islamist extremism, nor that leaving or engaging differently would by itself lead to an increase." - Bush's Speech Sees Iraq as Fatal Battleground for Terrorism Vs. Freedom

I think she should point out that there is evidence that staying in Iraq actually increases the anger and recruitment of Islamist extremists.



Zalman does point out that the speech indicated a "poor understanding of the region." But she should explain it so people can understand it. She should explain that "terrorism vs freedom" is a false premise about why we were attacked on 9/11. The premise for why we were attacked on 9/11, the premise for the war on terror, is a lie. We were not attacked on 9/11 because "they hate our freedoms." We were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific foreign policies and not "because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world" as Bush claimed on 9/11.

Terrorists are attacking us for the same reason terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. Ramzi Yousef sent his letter to the NYT stating the motive for attacking the WTC in 1993, "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."

Osama bin Laden has made his motives known, "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."

President Bush says, "the Commander-in-Chief ought to listen to what the enemy says." I think President Bush should do what he says. Bin Laden has repeated the motives by reminding people that "in 1998, the Mujahideen warned America to cease their support to the Jews and to leave the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries, but the enemy refused to heed this warning ..." He also pointed out that President Bush was hiding the truth about their motives, "the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries."

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.

Bush lied about why we were attacked on 9/11.

The motives for 9/11 are no mystery. The motives have been stated by several people clearly and repeatedly for years. The terrorists are not attacking us in order to force us to convert to Islam or because we don't believe in Islam or that they don't like freedom or that they are envious.

Osama bin Laden answered questions

In a May 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden answered questions posed to him by some of his followers at his mountaintop camp in southern Afghanistan. Here is a key question that answers why he commits terrorism against the U.S.

Q: Many of the Arabic as well as the Western mass media accuse you of terrorism and of supporting terrorism. What do you have to say to that?

Osama bin Laden: There is an Arabic proverb that says "she accused me of having her malady, then snuck away."

Besides, terrorism can be commendable and it can be reprehensible. Terrifying an innocent person and terrorizing him is objectionable and unjust, also unjustly terrorizing people is not right.

Whereas, terrorizing oppressors and criminals and thieves and robbers is necessary for the safety of people and for the protection of their property. There is no doubt in this. Every state and every civilization and culture has to resort to terrorism under certain circumstances for the purpose of abolishing tyranny and corruption. Every country in the world has its own security system and its own security forces, its own police and its own army. They are all designed to terrorize whoever even contemplates to attack that country or its citizens. The terrorism we practice is of the commendable kind for it is directed at the tyrants and the aggressors and the enemies of Allah, the tyrants, the traitors who commit acts of treason against their own countries and their own faith and their own prophet and their own nation. Terrorizing those and punishing them are necessary measures to straighten things and to make them right. Tyrants and oppressors who subject the Arab nation to aggression ought to be punished. The wrongs and the crimes committed against the Muslim nation are far greater than can be covered by this interview. America heads the list of aggressors against Muslims. The recurrence of aggression against Muslims everywhere is proof enough. For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed. And the strange thing is that any act on their part to avenge themselves or to lift the injustice befalling them causes great agitation in the United Nations which hastens to call for an emergency meeting only to convict the victim and to censure the wronged and the tyrannized whose children have been killed and whose crops have been destroyed and whose farms have been pulverized. ...

In today's wars, there are no morals, and it is clear that mankind has descended to the lowest degrees of decadence and oppression. They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice. And the United Nations insistence to convict the victims and support the aggressors constitutes a serious precedence which shows the extent of injustice that has been allowed to take root in this land.

John Miller also asked questions, below is an example:

John Miller: Ramzi Yousef was a follower of yours. Do you remember him and did you know him?

Osama bin Laden: After the explosion that took place in the World Trade Center, Ramzi Yousef became a well known Muslim figure. Muslims have come to know him. Unfortunately, I did not know him before this incident. I of course remember who he is. He is a Muslim who wanted to protect his religion jealously from the oppression practiced by America against Islam. He acted with zeal to make the Americans understand that their government was attacking Muslims in order to safeguard the American-Jewish interests

The Iraq War and Oil Privatization

The Iraq War and Oil Privatization
Antonia Juhasz, author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time,"


"to have nobody talk about it, to me, is fairly shocking and makes clear that still the Democrats, the Republicans, the media are afraid to talk about oil"

"the report calls for privatization of Iraq’s oil, turning it over to private foreign corporate hands, putting all of the oil in the hands of the central government, and essentially, I would argue, extending the war in Iraq to ensure that US oil companies get what the Bush administration went in there for: control and greater access to Iraq's oil."

"the report also says that the US government will withhold military, economic and political support of the Iraqi government, unless the recommendations are met. That’s a pretty straightforward statement. The US government will not provide any support to the al-Maliki government, unless it advances the changes to the Iraqi constitution and changes to Iraqi national law that essentially privatize Iraq's oil."

That is something for us in the antiwar movement to be very, very clear about, that this is their objective and that we have to, as I repeatedly say, not just call for the end of troops in Iraq, but make clear that the US corporate invasion cannot be progressed or continue, as well."- Oil for Sale: Why the Iraq Study Group is Calling for the Privatization of Iraq's Oil Industry

"The Iraqi government is considering a new oil law that could give private oil companies greater control over its vast reserves. In light of rampant violence and shaky democratic institutions, many fear the law is being pushed through hastily by special interests behind closed doors."

How is pressure used to make Iraq do what the special interests want? See:

"The recent Iraq Study Group report recommended the US help Iraq "prepare a draft oil law" to hasten investment. The report estimates Iraq could raise oil production from 2 million to 3 or 3.5 million barrels per day over the next three to five years.

Critics say the US is leaning on the IMF and World Bank to push Iraq into signing oil contracts fast, so western firms can secure the oil before Chinese, Indian and Russian firms do. An IMF official told SPIEGEL ONLINE that "passage of a hydrocarbon law is not a condition for financial support from the IMF." Nevertheless, Iraqi authorities found it necessary to promise the IMF a draft petroleum law by the end of this year -- this in the same letter that says "we will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the program remains on track."

The IMF sets the conditions for Iraq's debt relief from the so-called Paris Club countries. Eighty percent of that debt has been wiped clean, and the final 20 percent depends on certain economic reforms. With the final reduction, Iraq's debt would come to 33 percent of its GDP -- but if the reforms are not made, debt would climb to 57 percent of GDP, according to an IMF report.

Criticisms have also been levelled against the World Bank, where former US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz is in charge. Wolfowitz has been accused of pushing a US agenda after opening a World Bank office in Baghdad."

- Will Iraq's Oil Blessing Become a Curse? By Joshua Gallu in Berlin

Domestic terrorism to silence free speech: KPFT radio station bombed

Domestic terrorism to silence free speech: KPFT radio station bombed

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