Monday, November 28, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

Skepticism About U.S. Deep, Iraq Poll Shows

Motive for Invasion Is Focus of Doubts
by Walter Pincus, Washington Post
November 12th, 2003

More than half of Baghdad's residents said they did not believe the United States would allow the Iraqi people to fashion their political future without the direct influence of Washington, according to a Gallup poll.

With the Bush administration holding consultations on the future of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, recent analyses of the poll data, which were gathered three months ago, highlight the roots within that city's populace of many of the concerns the U.S.-led coalition now faces there.

Only 5 percent of those polled said they believed the United States invaded Iraq "to assist the Iraqi people," and only 1 percent believed it was to establish democracy there.

Three-quarters of those polled said they believed the policies and decisions of the Iraqi Governing Council -- whose members were appointed in July by Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator L. Paul Bremer -- were "mostly determined by the coalition's own authorities," and only 16 percent thought the council members were "fairly independent."

The poll, funded by Gallup, was conducted through face-to-face interviews with 1,178 Baghdad residents between Aug. 28 and Sept. 4. The initial results were announced in late September, but additional analyses were released to the polling firm's clients in succeeding weeks. Some Gallup analyses have been published on the Coalition Provisional Authority's Web site in the past two days.

Although 52 percent of those polled said they thought the United States was serious about establishing a democratic system of government in Iraq, 51 percent said Washington would not allow Iraqis to do that without U.S. pressure and influence. The margin of error in the poll was plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.

In an Oct. 28 analysis, Richard Burkholder, Gallup's director of international polling, noted that most Baghdad residents thought getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships they are enduring. But "most are deeply skeptical of the initial rationale the coalition has given for its actions," Burkholder added.

The poll showed that doubts about the U.S. motives for invading had led to doubts about Washington's commitment to creating an independent democratic government in Baghdad.

Forty-three percent of the respondents said they believed that U.S. and British forces invaded in March primarily "to rob Iraq's oil." While 37 percent believed the United States acted to get rid of the Hussein regime, only 5 percent thought it did so "to assist the Iraq people," the poll found.

An additional 6 percent believed the motive was to "change the Middle East 'map' as the U.S. and Israel want." Four percent believed the purpose was to destroy weapons of mass destruction, the primary reason given by the Bush administration.

At a time when the United States faces a growing security threat, the poll pointed to other possible reasons why coalition forces are being looked upon as occupiers instead of as liberators.

Almost everyone interviewed -- 94 percent -- said Baghdad "now is a more dangerous place than before the invasion," and 86 percent said that for the previous four weeks "they or a member of their household had been afraid to go outside their home at night for safety reasons," Burkholder said in his analysis. He noted that in the two months before the U.S. invasion, only 8 percent said they had experienced a similar fear.

Asked about attacks against U.S. troops, 64 percent said they were not justified; 36 percent said they sometimes were. Burkholder noted that those who believed such attacks were somewhat or completely justified -- 11 percent and 8 percent, respectively -- would translate to 440,000 adults 18 or older among Baghdad's adult population of 2.3 million.

Forty-eight percent of those polled said they did not believe that the United States will "remain in Iraq as long as necessary, but not a day more," as President Bush has said. Thirty-six percent said they believed that the Americans would leave as Bush had promised.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Sunday, November 27, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, November 18, 2005

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

  • 82% are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops
  • less than 1% of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security
  • 45% of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65% in the British-controlled Maysan province; ( "if that really means "all Iraqis," as reported, then the figure must be considerably higher among Iraqi Arabs." -C)
  • 67% of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
  • 43% of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
  • 72% do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
"The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq. The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." -Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops

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

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Bozell's Media Research Center Wrong Again

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

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

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

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

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




No effect
Don't Know/NA
Also See Once again Brent Bozell displays his ignorance

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

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

Saturday, November 12, 2005

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

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

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

Friday, November 11, 2005

Bill O’Reilly Issues Terrorist Threat Against Fellow Americans

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Chomsky Detractors' Inventions and Falsifications about his Khmer Rouge and Cambodia Statements

Chomsky Detractors hold this quote up as proof he said the Khmer Rouge would be liberators: "By the impulse it has given to the revolutionary forces, this vicious attack may have also prepared the ground, as some observers believe, not only for national liberation but also for a new era of economic development and social justice."

They cut and pasted things they clearly don't understand. "may have also prepared the ground". This means what to them? Do they know what the word "may" means? Chomsky was hopeful some good would come of it. It was written in 1972. He didn't say "it will" or "it has." Chomsky has pointed out that he wrote that in 1972 "when the Khmer Rouge were a marginal and largely unknown factor; this was before the massive bombing campaign of 1973, which played a large part in recruiting the Khmer Rouge. I said then that I hoped that something decent might yet emerge, referring to Prince Sihanouk's peasant supporters. This statement was then reinterpreted as a prediction that the Khmer Rouge would turn Cambodia into a grand utopia"

Chomsky did not defend Pol Pot’s regime. That is a fabrication.
This quote: “We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments" is from the same 1977 article that detractors quote as "proof" that he "rejected the numerous reports of refugees". What they are doing is really ridiculous.

It is one of many attempts to dishonestly smear Chomsky. Those attempts continue right up to the present: Guardian Fabricates Chomsky Quotes in Bid to Smear World's Number One Intellectual

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

The Killing Didn't End With Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Before U.S. officials dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they fire bombed Japanese cities. But what few people know is that AFTER the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, U.S. officials carried out even more fire bombing of several Japanese cities.

Incredibly, there was a "1000-plane raid five days after Nagasaki on what remained of major Japanese cities, a triumph of military management skills designed to be "as big a finale as possible," the official Air Force history relates; even Stormin' Norman would have been impressed. Thousands of civilians were killed, while amidst the bombs, leaflets fluttered down proclaiming: "Your Government has surrendered. The war is over." General Spaatz wanted to use the third atom bomb on Tokyo for this grand finale, but concluded that further devastation of the "battered city" would not make the intended point. Tokyo had been removed from the first list of targets for the same reason: it was "practically rubble," analysts determined, so that the power of the bomb would not be adequately revealed. The final 1000-plane raid was therefore dispersed to seven targets, the Air Force history adds." p 238 Year 501 Noam Chomsky

Monday, November 07, 2005


You set up the artificial requirement of "other recent examples" while ignoring the ongoing example of Haiti. The U.S. is currently refusing to extradite Constant with an excuse that doesn't pass the laugh test.

The CIA is a secret organization so the more recent, the less info is available. With freedom of information requests and the statements of former officials we can get more details if we look at history.

But Haiti is recent. As for as economic subordination, I already gave you a link that you apparently didn't read. Look at the fact that Clinton shoved economic conditions on Aristide's return. A "harsh neoliberal program that Aristide was compelled to adopt was virtually guaranteed to demolish the remaining shreds of economic sovereignty" Look at the fact that Clinton allowed Aristide back but was eager for him to step down. "Tonight," Clinton said, "I can announce that President Aristide has pledged to step down when his term ends in accordance with the Constitution" and to transfer power to a successor. That conclusion, however, goes well beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about how to calculate the President's term when he has spent three years in exile while civil society is being decimated. One interpretation is that if reinstated, he should pick up where he left off, so that Aristide's term has almost 4 and a half years to run. Another interpretation is that his period in exile is part of his term as elected President. People with some lingering taste for democracy will presumably tend towards the first interpretation."

Chomsky points out that mainstream media ignores the wrong: "Without any exception that I can discover, U.S. commentators adopted Clinton's anti-democratic interpretation." Someone concerned about democracy would allow the man to serve out the length of his term, they would not count the years in exile as part of his term. And look at the very recent events: The U.S ousted him again, a man democratically elected. Also see: Why they had to crush Aristide

The mainstream media is not eager to report these things and hold the powerful accountable. Look at the fact that the U.S. helped put the Ba'ath party into power in the first place in Iraq. It is incredible that the MSM didn't report this fact to the public. We went to war with Iraq to oust Saddam and not a peep about the CIA's responsibility with supporting the man in the late 1950's (I am not talking about the 1980's support) and the fact of the CIA coups in the 60's that put the Ba'aht party into power in the first place! MSM is not performing anything close to what you assume. Start to do some research and stop being so eager to make excuses for these people.
Dear Ms. Brockes:

You wrote this about Chomsky: "... his conclusions remain controversial: ... that during the Bosnian war the "massacre" at Srebrenica was probably overstated. (Chomsky uses quotations marks to undermine things he disagrees with and, in print at least, it can come across less as academic than as witheringly teenage; like, Srebrenica was so not a massacre.)"

Are you claiming that Chomsky made a gesture to indicate quotes when he said the word "massacre"? Did you then make the assumption that he has written massacre with quotes around it? You should try to find a source for that. In his book
Hegemony or Survival, he doesn't use quotes around the word. If you haven't, and it seems as if you haven't, you should consider reading some of the books that he has written. Hegemony or Survival and Understanding Power are really good.

Sunday, November 06, 2005

U.S. Still Harboring Brutal Terrorist

We should not use torture and we should not harbor terrorists that have carried it out on a large scale.

Treating people decently instead of supporting terrorists would go a long way in solving our problems.

The Amendment was a good start, I agree with Senator McCain.

How about we work to get the son of a bitch Emmanuel Constant extradited so he can stand trial for his horrible crimes?

If we are to be noble people and a nation of laws we need to get our CIA under control and stop them from using terrorism as a tool of economic subordination. Look at the horrific crimes that U.S. policy makers have carried out against Haiti. Chomsky mentions Constant in his book Imperial Ambitions.

If you guys are angered about being "too soft" on terrorists, what do you think of our government officials who claim that they can't extradite this brutal rapist because he wouldn't get "treated fairly"?

The media helps to keep these crimes going. The article's title should have been "U.S. Still Harboring Brutal Terrorist" but here is the AP article:Haitian Women Sue Former Strongman

Saturday, November 05, 2005

Lying to get us into war
The National Security Agency has kept secret since 2001 a finding by an agency historian that during the Tonkin Gulf episode, which helped precipitate the Vietnam War, N.S.A. officers deliberately distorted critical intelligence to cover up their mistakes, two people familiar with the historian's work say. NSA Still Covering Up Gulf of Tonkin Lies

The mainstream media did not remind the public that our government lied to us to get us into the Vietnam war and continued to lie to us about the war. All the comparisons the MSM made was about if it is being fought good or not, NOT about the fact it was a lie, not that it was immoral and wrong.

And they are still at it. New details about intelligence LIES about the Gulf of Tonkin were revealed, but MSM was not interested. Odd for a "liberal media" right? David Porter points out, "Did you catch one of the biggest news stories of the past 40 years?
Don't feel bad if you missed it earlier this week, because most of the news media -- this newspaper included -- didn't give that report the attention it demanded."
First casualty: Truth
Porter writes, "when the revelations on the Gulf of Tonkin incident came out earlier this week, much of the news media didn't spend much time or ink on it."

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Richard Miniter, author of "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror", peddles the same stupidity that slow bloggers have tried to peddle.

For example, Miniter claims that the U.S. "discovered" 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium in Iraq. Somone on craigslist gleefully quotes Miniter and posts: "Yet Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces have found NO weapons of mass destruction."

Gee wiz, so there were WMD in Iraq and that darn liberal media refuses to report it!

Of course Richard Miniter and the others are wrong, again. Those things were already tagged and under seal by UN inspectors.

See: "A joint Pentagon-Energy Department operation has removed 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium from a former nuclear research site in Iraq. The material had been sealed off after the Gulf War." - CBSNEWS 7/7/04

"As of 2002, the only known store of nuclear material in Iraq is in heavyweight sealed barrels at the Tawaitha research facility south of Baghdad. It consists of several tons of low-grade uranium and is monitored by an international agency with the full co-operation of the Iraqi regime."

* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
--You mean the ones that arrived AFTER the US Invasion?

See my previous post when I dubunked this a few months ago: These guys never stop, they point to uranium already tagged by the UN inspectors and think it is a discovery of WMDs!

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