init_baboy,

The political agenda that U.S. policy makers impose upon the Middle East has to do with power. If you really want to understand the political system in American then I suggest you ignore the terms "liberal" and conservative". They really do not mean much when we are talking about the brutal foreign policies.

For example, we don't sit around wondering if the Mob is "liberal" or "conservative", the mobsters simply want what they want and they break heads to get it.

You will never understand what is happening if you try to pigeon hole people into categories of "liberal" or "conservative". How are these thing even being measured, what do these terms actually mean? Clinton is guilty of enormous crimes too, like the continued backing of Israel. There is a continuity of the foreign policies from one Administration to the next. the recent Presidents all ignored the stated goal of the sanctions and said they would stay in place until Saddam was gone (thus undermining the whole intention of the sanctions)

If you really want to understand the political system in American then I suggest you visit http://www.chomsky.info/ Chomksy gives the analysis that you are looking for. Use this page: http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en type the word or words of the topic you are searching and put http://www.chomsky.info/ in the domain field

Here Chomsky exposes some actions Clinton and Bush are guilty of:

---

The US continues to "enhance terror" by providing Israel with the means for terror and destruction, including a new shipment of the most advanced helicopters in the US arsenal. These are standard reactions to atrocities by a client regime. To cite one instructive example, in the first days of the current Intifada, Israel used US helicopters to attack civilian targets, killing 10 Palestinians and wounding 35, hardly in "self-defense." Clinton responded with an agreement for "the largest purchase of military helicopters by the Israeli Air Force in a decade" (Ha'aretz, 3 October, '01), along with spare parts for Apache attack helicopters. The press helped out by refusing to report the facts. A few weeks later, Israel began to use US helicopters for assassinations as well. One of the first acts of the Bush administration was to send Apache Longbow helicopters, the most murderous available. That received some marginal notice under business news.

---

(notice it was not reported in the mainstream media for the general public)

Remember these Presidents turn a blind eye to the continued expansion of the illegal settlements in the occupied territories. (and the mainstream media basically refuses to report that the settlements are illegal) Here is something that happened in August 2005 when I confronted a reporter named N.J. Burkett. I was in the lobby of WABC-TV in NY and I overhear a guy saying, "I just got back from Gaza!" gleefully to N.J. Burkett.

I couldn't resist confronting these bastards. I walked over and I asked, "How come you never report that the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal?"

"Everyone knows the settlements are illegal," Burkett say to me. "No they don't," I said. Burkett says, "Sure, it is common knowledge just as there are 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights."

These guys are such miserable dishonest bastards. These sick minds must concoct lame excuses for not reporting BASIC important facts to the public. "The BBC must be crazy then," I pointed out because they report that the Israeli settlements are illegal. "The BBC manages to report this basic fact to their audience," I said, demolishing Burkett's asinine argument. "Your network doesn't report it, why do American TV networks refuse to report it?" I demanded.

Searching for an excuse why ABC is not reporting basic facts to the American people, the first guy tried, "Americans don't care." Burkett leaves at this point. These guys are such vulgar betrayers of the public trust.

You asked, "you refer to a few books by minor authors who appear to me to have an extremely narrow world view - what makes you so certain that these books contain the truth?"

What you look for is corroborating evidence. For years I have read about what the CIA did to Iran. The game during those years could have been to claim that "minor authors" are making it up. BUT, as of 2000, it is official because the U.S. State department has admitted that "In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister." The internal logic is that the U.S. admitting it corroborates it because it doesn't make sense to say that the U.S. State department is lying when it admits to wrong doing by the U.S. Once you see a dramatic wrong that has evidence to back it up, and the 1953 coup against Iran is a perfect example because the State Department has admitted it, then you can see that these things are possible and that powerful interests in the U.S. are not only capable of these things but often seek to obscure the fact that these things happened.

I have looked into many of the things that have been written about and they do check out. When Chomsky points out that the division of Vietnam was not supposed to create two countries you can look into it yourself and see that he is telling the truth, the 1954 Geneva agreements did not "partition" Vietnam "the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary." 1954 Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference You can read about the provision for a election. When you look into the facts, without a chip on your shoulder, when you stop with the subservient fanaticism of desperately making excuses for those in power, you can start to see what has been, and what is, going on. If you get it into your head that government officials are like your daddy and daddy would never lie to you then you will never learn the truth and be truly free. Thomas Jefferson warned that a nation cannot be ignorant and free.

When it is former U.S officials who spill the beans, it is something to take seriously because the internal logic demands it. You can't irrationally dismiss everything you don't want to hear. When former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, admits that the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion, this is something you should take seriously. The story we have been told is that the U.S. responded to the Soviet invasion but that is a lie. Brzezinski said, "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."

Notice too that mainstream media is not eager to make any of these things clear to the general public.

There are dramatic examples by the way. You can look into International Law and the UN resolutions and see violations that MSM is unwilling to make clear to the public. Remember these Presidents turn a blind eye to the continued expansion of the illegal settlements in the occupied territories. (and the mainstream media basically refuses to report that the settlements are illegal) Here is something that happened in August 2005 when I confronted a reporter named N.J. Burkett: I was in the lobby of WABC-TV in NY and I overhear a guy saying, "I just got back from Gaza!" gleefully to N.J. Burkett.

I couldn't resist confronting these bastards. I walked over and I asked, "How come you never report that the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal?"

"Everyone knows the settlements are illegal," Burkett say to me. "No they don't," I said. Burkett says, "Sure, it is common knowledge just as there are 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights."

These guys are such miserable dishonest bastards. These sick minds must concoct lame excuses for not reporting BASIC important facts to the public. "The BBC must be crazy then," I pointed out because they report that the Israeli settlements are illegal. "The BBC manages to report this basic fact to their audience," I said, demolishing Burkett's asinine argument. "Your network doesn't report it, why do American TV networks refuse to report it?" I demanded.

Searching for an excuse why ABC is not reporting basic facts to the American people, the first guy tried, "Americans don't care." Burkett leaves at this point. These guys are such vulgar betrayers of the public trust.

When you read about this and see what the MSM has been up to, it is time to stop mindless falling aver yourself trying to make excuses for people that get into positions of power within our government. The idea of America was never supposed to be "follow the leader!" WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to have self rule, anything less betrays the Spirit of '76.

Media is key to the solution. Control is the issue. You get the maximum control with ownership so there must be a competitive media system that is free from private control and is instead controlled by the general public. The old media can of course be free to do what they do but it is a necessity that a new media system be established that will be in competition with the MSM. Part of that mission is to advocate for a Representative Media, a media system which will be controlled by the American people and not special interests. A system that can compete with the power of the current mainstream media.

American Mainstream Media

Unfortunately American mainstream media doesn't offer a forum for serious discussion and honest public discourse about U.S. support of Israel. Many things need to be discussed, for example what Israel actually is. When people talk about the destruction of Israel - if all the Jews and non-Jews in Israel lived totally equally, the way let's say hopefully like in America, that would be, by definition, the destruction of Israel.

There are a lot of facts that the media is simply not reporting.

Decent Jews, brave journalists, and honest doctors all attest to the fact that Israeli soldiers are deliberately killing and maiming children.

People don't know facts like this because the media "plays the game." This example shows how they do it: August 2005 I confronted a reporter named N.J. Burkett. I was in the lobby of WABC-TV in NY and I overheard a guy saying, "I just got back from Gaza!" gleefully to N.J. Burkett. I couldn't resist confronting these bastards. I walked over and I asked, "How come you never report that the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal?" "Everyone knows the settlements are illegal," Burkett say to me. "No they don't," I said. Burkett says, "Sure, it is common knowledge just as there are 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights." Notice how pathetic Burkett's response is yet this is how these guys rationalize it.

Leigh Wolinsky posted a comment to my post with the same kind of game playing.

My response to her:

You claim you "feel for both sides" yet you have a tantrum when it is pointed out that one side's crimes go unreported. You ignored what my post actually said and you tried to discredit it by concocting a strawman argument. What you wrote was extremely offensive. How dare you claim that those who are honest about Israeli crimes are "disregarding" anything. Your claim is obnoxious since it is Israeli crimes that are routinely disregarded. If you think you can honestly dispute what I have written then try to do so, don't insult me with dishonest and manipulative posts.

Here is yet more evidence that shows mainstream media is not an honest forum: A new If Americans Knew Report Card reveals that Associated Press coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict significantly distorts reality, essentially over-reporting the number of Israelis killed in the conflict and underreporting the number of Palestinians killed. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/ Another reports showed significantly distorted coverage with a bias for Israel by the news shows of ABC, CBS, and NBC as well as the The New York Times. Alison Weir has received deaths threats for attempting to get these facts out to the public.

You wrote, "..i think it's common knowledge that the israeli settlements are illegal."

People are not born with the knowledge so where are they supposed to learn it? American TV news reports clearly play the game when they keep their mouths shut. and there are indeed many people that do not know it.

You are in denial if you think it makes sense not to report a fact as important as the legal status of these settlements. CLEARLY they are reluctant to inform people that do not know about the illegal status.You can't be claiming that all AMericans know, so why would the news make a point of not informing people that do not know? This has been going on for years, as people grow up, they should be able to learn by hearing basic facts on TV. You really are trying to hard to excuses. N.J. Burketts didn't expect to be confronted on what he had been doing and he pulled an absurd excuse out of his ass. It is sad that you can convince yourself that it makes sense. It is one word: "illegal" and it would carry so much information, no way in hell is there an innocent reason for it not being reported You are in extreme denial if you think there is.

You know damn well why it is happening, these reporters are playing the game. I haven't posted the NJ Burkett story "at least 5 times", you resent that I am informing people about the truth. Reporter N.J. Burkett is an embarrassment, here is his comments from Gaza: "I mention in the piece that the prayers reached a cresendo as the troops were breaking in and that was extraordinary - that was a moment that I will never forget and I'm not Jewish, and as I made my way through the crowd I suddenly realized that here I was and their world as they know it was falling apart all around them, and I'm not wearing a yarmulke. I pulled out a handkerchief from my back pocket and covered my head as a gesture of respect." http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/BurkettGaza/wabc_081805_gazaPM.html

"Wolfowitz's statements: the Bush administration, he said, was disappointed that the Turkish military "did not play the strong leadership role on that issue [i.e., the Iraq debate] that we would have expected. .. in Turkey the meaning seemed painfully clear: The United States wished the Turkish military had either overruled the elected government or perhaps even pushed it aside in favor of one more subservient to U.S. demands.

As numerous Turkish commentators have noted, that's an odd stance for a country now presenting itself as the champion of Middle Eastern democracy."

You are in denial about Wolfowitz. Look at "Wolfowitz's career – like his strong support for Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century's worst mass murderers and aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald Reagan.

As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines."

U.S, policy makers showed pathological disregard for the improvements to the lives of the Afghanis, what they did to Afghanistan had nothing to do with helping the Afghan people.

"In August 1979, three months before the Soviet intervention, a classified State Department Report stated: 'the United States's larger interests ... would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan. ... the overthrow of the D.R.A. [Democratic Republic of Afghanistan] would show the rest of the world, particularly the Third World, that the Soviets' view of the socialist course of history as being inevitable is not accurate.'" http://www.doublestandards.org/blum6.html

There was a "large following of people who favored reforms and didn't want to live under a fundamentalist Islamic government" and you think it was OK to support Muslim fundamentalist extremists?!

Many improvements were being made in Afghanistan, girls were going to school. The U.S. actions destroyed that by backing extremist fundamentalists, backing them with BILLIONS of dollars. The CIA was literally shipping Korans and weapons. You think it was a good idea to encourage violent Muslim fundamentalism????

It is unbelievable that you can make excuses for backing violent Muslim fundamentalists after 9/11. You really are too much, it is absolutely unbelievable given what happened on 9/11.

By the way, it isn't just my opinion that what the U.S did provoked the Afghan war, Brzezinski brags about drawing the Russians into "the Afghan trap." This guy was willing to use the Afghan people as expendable chess pieces in a game just to hurt the Russians. "We didn't push the Russians to intervene," Brzezinski said, "but we knowingly increased the probability that they would." http://members.aol.com/bblum6/brz.htm

if it's a closely guarded secret, how did wikipedia find out?

Brzezinski made his statements in 1998, the guy that wrote the wikipeda article could have found out just like I did. The point was it was a lie pushed on the American people and kept secret for years. Obviously after Brzezinski is talking about it publicly people can learn about it.