Worst Piece of Fox News Propaganda Yet on “Radical Islam”

-

I feel awkward posting a link to this special that ran on Fox News on the topic of “Radical Islam.”
It is the single worst piece of television journalism engaging in hyperbolic fear-mongering that I have seen.
Sorry to be encouraging more to see this — but for those of you who already disliked Fox, this will take you a step further away — and for those moderates who think that the news media get some things right and some wrong, this is in the “outrageous category.”

— Steve Clemons

Comments

81 comments on “Worst Piece of Fox News Propaganda Yet on “Radical Islam”

  1. Den Valdron says:

    Winnipegger, are you arguing that you have ‘genuine pretensions’?
    I dunno, maybe I’m punchy, but it occurs to me thta fake pretensions are a redundancy, sort of like true facts.
    The key to this lad, is not rising to the bait every time its dangled. We are men, not dolphins.
    Let’s give it two weeks where we try not to respond to provocations, try not to incite each other. Just let it all go by.

    Reply

  2. Winnipeger says:

    btw, my pretensions are NOT false. the acrimony is tiring and it is never constructive.

    Reply

  3. Winnipeger says:

    i can understand if you’re uncomfortable being nice, poa. literally, i don’t think i’ve ever seen a conciliatory or nice comment from you. i’m sorry that you’re so angry and i’m sorry if i ever said anything to make you feel that way.
    i hope you can find a way to lighten up and release some of your anger. it’s a tragic way to live… even if it is only an online persona.

    Reply

  4. Pissed Off American says:

    Even more false pretensions from the little pissant. Screw him, I’ve heard this crap from him before. You all can swallow this horseshit from the lying little prick, but I’m not buying.
    Maybe Morrow will swallow it.
    Me? Like I said, I think its time to ignore him.

    Reply

  5. Den Valdron says:

    Whattaya say Carroll. Can we all take a stab at being nicer to each other.
    A nice change from taking stabs at each other?

    Reply

  6. Winnipeger says:

    carroll,
    i submit to you that none of us have complete understanding or all the answers; that’s not the nature of being human. we each have a specific vantage point and particular experiences which shape our world view; yours isn’t more “real” than mine and vice versa. we all have a lot to learn from each other. i’m convinced that is the only for wo/mankind to move forward and begin to heal.
    the problem in our dialogue is that offense is heaped upon offense, hurt is heaped upon hurt. we’re so busy demonizing each other that we don’t have the opportunity or the courage to learn from one another. the truth is we ALL NEED each other. our anger and bile is a distraction AND it is undoubtedly destructive; it corrupts our collective consciousness and inflames our worst impulses.
    i apologize for the hurtful things i’ve said to you in the past. i’m sure you’ll agree that we can each do a lot better.
    we’re ALL realists
    interestingly, this is the root of all geopolitical conflict in the world

    Reply

  7. Carroll says:

    There needs to be a new definition of “realist” around here.
    POA is a true realist…as I am.
    We listen to some of the “dilettantes” endlessly droning on with pseudo intellectualism from their ideological perches and private agendas near and far and marvel at their absolute stupidy in believing they will suceed in anything but bringing down this country.
    From now on they should be referred to as “fiddlers”..as in fiddling while Rome burns.
    While some of us keep ringing the fire bell and sounding the alarm.
    I leave it to people of common sense to figure out who is most worth listening to.

    Reply

  8. Den Valdron says:

    Okay, you’ve been mocked and insulted. You’ve been pilloried and had both barrels opened up on you. Fair enough.
    But then again, weren’t there a few times when you started the fight? And weren’t there a lot of occasions when you were as bad as anyone else in making things ugly?
    I’m an offender myself. Sometimes, perhaps often, I’ve got a harsh way of putting things that lays on a real sting. And when it heads south, I’m all too willing to slug it out in the gutter. But I try and take a bit of responsibility for my buttholery, and occasionally I remind myself to stop being an asshole.
    Hmmm. A lot of gasoline around here. Are those matches in your hand? Maybe, just maybe, its not a good idea to light a few farts? Just some thoughts, an invitation to self reflection.
    As to your observations:
    1) Agree with you completely. Can you appreciate why P.O.A. seems so close to going off the deep end? How is his approach not perfectly rational, or at least as rational as any other. Certainly the complacency we see around us is not a rational approach. The accommodation shown by all too many Democrats is not a sane approach.
    2) I dunno. I think you’re selling the Arabs and Israeli’s short. Look, if there’s one truth to humans it is that people will do the sensible thing… once they’ve exhausted every other alternative. The other truth is that people invariably play the cards they get dealt, for both good and bad. The Israeli’s play the hand that they’ve got, we should expect no less. Morality doesn’t enter into it, it’s just what is, perhaps morality should. Does overwhelming power and domination of a system invite morality or free you from it? Whether they play that hand well, that’s yet another question? What I’ll say briefly is that the problems are solveable. Whether they’ll be solved, who knows.
    3) Its fashionable to snark on politicians. But they’re just people like the rest of us.

    Reply

  9. Winnipeger says:

    “And really Dude, mocking the guy for being cabinet maker? Tsk.”
    point taken. you’re right. i actually have the utmost of respect for tradesmen… and all people in general; we’re all doing the best we can — muddling through life, trying to make sense of it all.
    to be totally honest, i was only trying to hit back and insult him the way he insults me and others. when you project so much anger and bile, you have to be prepared to receive the same in return.
    but also, please keep in mind, den, that i’ve also been mocked and insulted in every way possible. sometimes without any instigation on my part.
    as i wrote earlier, the ironic truth is that there is so much we can and do agree on:
    1. america is in a historically precarious situation; the worst of my lifetime.
    2. israel and the arabs, and most other people in the world, also need to embrace the “cathartic rather than the destructive,” yet fail to do so over and over again.
    3. political leaders are almost universally self-serving and more interested in personal gain than the common wealth.

    Reply

  10. Den Valdron says:

    Does he? Is he really the worst of human nature?
    Is he as bad as Bill O’Reilly? How about Ann Coulter or Michael Savage? Has he advocated genocide for political or social groups he dislikes?
    Maybe he’s just Howard Beale?
    Maybe he’s just a decent man who has seen a country that he loves drown itself in dishonesty and illusions, and can’t keep from screaming in rage and anguish.
    Consider the Military Commissions Act. Here was a piece of legislation that eliminated the thousand year old right of habeas corpus, legitimized forms of torture, made it impossible to police other forms of torture, made a mockery and sham of judicial independence.
    And the worse thing? This paean to police states, this abomination upon every idealistic notion that America stands for… Almost every single Republican voted for fascism. And 1/3 of Democratic Senators and 1/4 of House Democrats voted for it.
    How do you respond to a thing that obscene? How did you respond?
    P.O.A. screamed and gnashed his teeth, he howled with rage and denounced those who supported it as traitors, thieves and cowards.
    Are you going to tell me that wasn’t a legitimate and sane response? I might argue that his response was saner and more needful than yours was.
    I dunno. Looking at American politics the last twenty or thirty years, it strikes me that there has always been a violently aggressive right wing, a right wing prepared and willing to demonize its enemies.
    Facing them have been a ‘liberal establishment’ that always seemed too interested in accommodation and conciliation.
    What does this amount to?
    A friend of mine dismissed American politics this way. He said it was a debate between hard line right and compromising left.
    Look at slavery. If Slavery were around today, you’d have the Republicans arguing for slavery to the max. And you’d have the Democrats whiffling that maybe there should be some regulations to make slavery more humane. But there’d be no one arguing that slavery was wrong.
    The argument that I’ve used with Clemons is that all too often, his ‘moderates’ and the Democrats are perrenially co-opted. That if it was a matter of Bush putting Americans in concentration camps, he and his ilk wouldn’t oppose them, but instead argue for humane conditions, improved plumbing and food, hygienic gas chambers.
    P.O.A. for all his faults, says ‘fuck slavery, its wrong’ and ‘fuck gas chambers its wrong.’
    In an American polity that seems perrenially dedicated to finding compromises or accommodation with evil, he stands up and says ‘this is completely wrong and I won’t stand for it.’
    P.O.A. makes a point of saying unpleasant things, and of saying them in unpleasant ways, and of venting a lot of his anger in saying it. I think your country needs people like that.
    And really Dude, mocking the guy for being cabinet maker? Tsk.

    Reply

  11. Winnipeger says:

    i don’t despise you, den.
    POA is another story.
    he has never demonstrated an any moderation in his rhetoric or any respect for those who don’t share his opinions, only venemous bile.
    imo, he represents the worst of human nature.

    Reply

  12. Den Valdron says:

    “More destructive than cathartic” Isn’t that what you said.
    But zap, you just rise straight up to it. What’s up with that?
    By the way, I was always a bit annoyed that you chose to attack P.O.A.’s vocation as a cabinet maker. My grandfather was a carpenter and I learned quite a bit of the trade from him. One of the things I picked up was a healthy respect for trades and vocations. Cabinet makers are near the top of the wood working trades and the finest of them are damned near artists. P.O.A., whatever his personal prickliness, makes his living with his hands, and he makes his living in a tradecraft which demands a lot of skill and ability.
    It’s one thing to call him an asshole, that’s par for the course around here. But there’s a special offensiveness to belittling his trade.
    I dunno. Just my two cents.
    But don’t let these comments stop you from stepping away from the brink, if that’s what you are thinking.
    If you despise P.O.A. or me, then why do you humiliate yourself with your worst. Why not show us your best.
    Just remember, “More destructive than cathartic.”

    Reply

  13. Winnipeger says:

    oh, poa, what a powerless and angry man you are. i’d take such pleasure in saying this to your face and watching you cower. your online bravado, much like den’s, is also bullshit.
    i used to defend kids like you in the schoolyard *sigh*

    Reply

  14. Pissed Off American says:

    More false pretensions. Screw the little weasel, but do it by ignoring him.

    Reply

  15. Winnipeger says:

    touche, den.

    Reply

  16. Den Valdron says:

    True. But I’ve offered truce on a few occasions.
    If you’re tired of these wars, then don’t go to war with people.

    Reply

  17. Winnipeger says:

    perhaps, but on the whole it feels more destructive than cathartic.

    Reply

  18. Den Valdron says:

    Well come on Winnipegger. The internet is the securest place in the world to be jerks. Would you deny the fun of indulging our worst natures?

    Reply

  19. Winnipeger says:

    the real crazy thing about the online world is that the two of us would probably enjoy each other’s company in meatspace.
    the dynamic that we have created TOGETHER is the worst that the internet has to offer.
    the truth is, we should both be ashamed of ourselves.

    Reply

  20. Den Valdron says:

    Juniors? Big Als or nothing. Let’s talk real burgers.
    Yeah, but once you’ve toughed out a Winnipeg winter, racists and liars are no big deal. 😉
    PS: Be more careful to make it clear what you agree or don’t agree with, when you’re chiming in with Morrow. Otherwise people will assume you’re pretty comfortable with his whole package.

    Reply

  21. Winnipeger says:

    thanks, den, i’d enjoy that. i’ll be you a burger at juniors and then you can call me a racist, it’ll be great.
    i never miss a summer at lake of the woods. ahhh…
    i can empathize with you den, i’d be a miserable prick too if i had to spend winters in winnipeg 🙂
    btw, morrow is off the wall, but even unhinged folks can make a valid point every once in a while.

    Reply

  22. Den Valdron says:

    No, you’re correct. There’s nothing racist per se in this specific post of yours.
    On the other hand you write “Morrow has a point” on a thread where Morrow writes writes most vituperatively.
    “I am sick of most muslims”, “we need to expell them from the USA” and “the ones who threaten us we need to kill by any means necessary, including atomic warfare.” Not quite exact quotes, but I think I got the gist. Basically, pretty racist sentiments advocating ethnic cleansing, genocide and nuclear war.
    Its the sort of lunatic sentiment that hangs over a whole thread.
    Which puts your ‘Morrow has a point’ in an awkward position.
    Look, you’re a racist. Fine. But I don’t think you’re a nutbar advocate of mass murder. So why did you endorse Morrow? Why would you legitimize something like that, someone like that?
    Did you give the matter any thought at all?
    And I don’t see why I have to be the one to travel. Why don’t you come to Winnipeg? I’ll show you around, we can go to the Forks, throw stones at the ducks, I’ll give you a tour of the exchange district, call you a racist, it’ll be fun.

    Reply

  23. Winnipeger says:

    nothing racist in my post, den. again, you know where to find me through the beginning of june. i dare you to come and call me a racist to my face.

    Reply

  24. Den Valdron says:

    Oh no point. He’s just demonstrating that your and Robert Morrow’s posts are racist lies.
    Nice company you’re keeping these days. So, will nuking Muslim countries be an ongoing part of the Winnipegger philosophy, or do you just like kissing up to Nazis?

    Reply

  25. Pissed Off American says:

    What, you insipid little piece of shit? You are now going to derail this thread? Screw off, leave me out of your ignorant horseshit. You are one sick and pathetic person, Winnipeger.

    Reply

  26. Winnipeger says:

    hey, POA, what’s your point?

    Reply

  27. Pissed Off American says:

    Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Photos of these Palestinian children were widely circulated shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Allegedly, they are celebrating the attacks. German media analyzing the whole film highlighted that the surrounding area is relatively quiet, that the people celebrating only appear briefly and then quickly disappear, and that a single person in a white T-shirt (shown here in the background) appears to have incited the children. (Fair use of AP photo)The September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack occasioned apparent spontaneous outbreaks of public celebration in a number of Arab Muslim communities. Press and television coverage of these celebrations were met with shock and outrage in the United States. However, later media analysis cast doubt on the motivations and extent of the celebrations, and many Muslim groups moved to distance themselves from such behavior.
    There were reports of celebrations on the West Bank, and at the time there was an urban legend that the footage of some Palestinians celebrating the attacks was faked, and that it was actually footage from the invasion of Kuwait. This was proven false shortly afterwards [1], and the media widely circulated that fact.
    This woman claims she was offered a piece of cake for celebrating in front of the camera. (Fair use of AP photo)However, the US media did not widely circulate European media reports (by the German weeklies Der Spiegel and Stern, by the German public TV magazine Panorama and by the Swedish Dagens Nyheter) that while the footage was indeed correctly dated, reporters may have partly staged one of the scenes. One woman later claimed she was offered a piece of pie for whooping it up in front of the camera. It is unclear whether it was explained to the woman what she was supposedly celebrating, nor is it clear whether the person who offered her the treat was a reporter. [2] The Panorama TV report which analyzed the full video footage noted (translated):
    A closer look at the complete film material which was not broadcast shows that the street around the celebration is quiet. Only in front of the camera there are a few excited children. The woman, who is remembered for her cheering, shortly afterwards moves along quietly. A man in a white T-shirt is conspicuous. He incites the children, and keeps fetching new people. The woman who just left the picture says today that she was offered cake if she celebrates on camera, and that she was appalled when she saw the pictures on television. [3]
    On the day of the attacks, Times Newspapers LTD. (British) reported that 3,000 celebrants were pouring into the streets of Nablus and dozens of people were celebrating in Arab East Jerusalem. [4]
    Moderate Palestinians and the Palestinian leadership quickly distanced themselves from any celebrations. The Palestinian Authority recognized the matter as a public-relations nightmare and moved quickly to censor further reports of public celebrations. Ahmed Abdel Rahman, Arafat’s Cabinet secretary, said the Palestinian Authority could not “guarantee the life” of an Associated Press cameraman if footage he filmed of post-9/11 celebrations was broadcast. Rahman’s statement prompted a formal protest from the AP bureau chief, Dan Perry. [5] A few days after the September 11th attacks, Yasser Arafat symbolically donated blood for victims of the attacks.
    There have also been reports of Israelis celebrating the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack. The ascribed motivation is that Americans would now understand the Israeli experience of terrorism in the same way that it was already understood by the celebratory Israelis. Such reports are often accompanied by a quotation from Benjamin Netanyahu, who is said to have responded to a question about the attacks’ probable effects on US-Israeli relations with the remark, “It’s very good… Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel].” Both the reports of celebrating Israelis and the Netanyahu remark serve as the cornerstone of a number of 9/11 conspiracy theories, alleging that the attacks were conducted, aided or abetted by Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad.[6] The source of the quotation and the reports is generally given as an article by Jim Galloway, published in the Austin American-Statesman on Nov. 25, 2001.

    Reply

  28. Pissed Off American says:

    Gads, doesn’t the insipid little piece of shit know when to quit?

    Reply

  29. Den Valdron says:

    Just in case Winnipegger missed this, I’m reposting it here. In regard to his long running objection to my ‘$4 billion’ reference.
    The actual quote is in the ‘Doug Feith’ thread, just a couple back where someone (likely Winnipegger) is posting as ‘Offended American Jew.’
    The actual passage which causes so much trouble is:
    * * * * * * * * * * * *
    US and Israeli interests coincide, but there is nothing natural or inevitable about this. Economically, there is no ‘coincidence’ of interests. Israel has no oil or strategic minerals or resources, it does not occupy a particular strategic point, and it represents a substantial drain on US resources – to the tune of over four billion a year. It does not significantly advance any US foreign policy goal, and in fact, the Israeli/US relationship costs the US substantial credibility among muslims who see the US not as an honest broker, but as an ally to a state which threatens them and oppresses its muslim own population.
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    The offending reference is “…it represents a substantial drain on US resources, to the tune of over four billion dollars a year…”
    For the record, I regard the Hotpolitics site with the Tax4Israel link, and the passage quoted to demonstrate that Israel’s costs to the United States reaches or exceeds $4 billion a year. Indeed, it may reach $5.5 billion.
    This includes of course direct military aid, usually about 2.0 to 2.5 billion, give or take, with various forms of direct foreign aid of 1.0 to 0.5 billion.
    This also would include supplementary or emergency allocations made off or outside budgets, donations or contributions made through various direct or indirect program budgets, direct financial grants, grants in lieu, shared program costs, forgiven or non-repayable loans, advance cash interests, costs of rolling over or supporting loans, tax credits and private tax deductions for donations or transfers to Israel.
    I note that Israel’s direct financial costs to the United States are not necessarily wholly or completely recorded in the formal annual budget.
    The costs of the Iraq War are not recorded in Bush’s budgets. Rather, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are paid through ‘special appropriations’ outside the formal annual budget process. This helps to keep Iraq ‘off the books’ and is politically useful for minimizing deficits and hiding the costs of the war.
    In Israel’s case, I can think of two major instances where there were likely ‘special appropriations’ outside the normal budget allocation. Last year’s Lebanon War had the United States rushing emergency quantities of jet fuel, cluster bombs, munitions and reconstruction aid to Israel. We must assume that this was in the neighborhood of hundreds of millions or even billions.
    A second major ‘special appropriation’ may have taken place when Israel sought an emergency economic bail out package of 10 billion dollars a few years ago. Its not clear to me that they received all ten billion dollars sought or received it in the form requested. However it would be unlikely that they came away with nothing.
    Given ongoing circumstances, its hard to say whether or how often or how regularly Israel benefits from special ‘off budget’ appropriations, or in what amounts.
    Israel’s costs to the United States extend far beyond direct military aid or money spent to prop up the Israeli economy, but extend to a wide range of direct and indirect contributions and expenses which are nevertheless broadly measurable.
    Indeed, Israel’s costs to the United States extend beyond the actual borders of Israel. The United States second largest recipient of foreign aid in the entire world, astonishingly enough, is not Bangladesh, or Ethiopia, Nigeria or some other overpopulated, under-resourced, poverty stricken third world state. It is Egypt.
    Admittedly, Egypt is overpopulated, under-resourced and poverty stricken. But that is not why it is the second largest recipient of US Aid. No, the reason is that this aid is part of America’s committment to support peace between Egypt and Israel. Danegeld might be too harsh a term. But there you go.
    American aid to the Palestinian Authority or to Jordan is also motivated or driven in whole or in part by the need to support Israel.
    It’s not clear, in the absence of Israel and the need to secure, protect and promote Israel, what US foreign aid contributions to Egypt, Jordan, Palestine would have amounted to. Presumably they would not have been greater, and would have been substantially less. How else do we explain Egypt’s huge dollar figure.
    There were a whole bunch of issues here that I didn’t necessarily want to get deeply into. So in writing, I chose fairly broad language deliberately. I had other fish to fry and no particular desire to write a dissertation on the issue. My language was deliberately inclusive with the intention of covering all of the above noted categories of costs, including ‘special appropriations’, tax credits and deductions, and third nation aid – particularly Egypt.
    The specific language I used is here. Anyone interested can go back to the original post and follow the thread. Winnipegger, despite his threat to cut and paste, failed to do so. I don’t know if this was laziness on his part (I was hoping he’d save me the trouble).
    It is possible that at some point he realized that reproducing the actual wording would be hugely counterproductive, ie, it would make him look stupid because what I said wasn’t what he was claiming. If that is the case, we can once again add dishonesty to his foolishness.
    For the record, Winnipegger consistently morphed the issue into a much more specific claim that Israel:
    “has been allocated four billion dollars in the latest proposes budget.”
    “scheduled to receive four billion dollars in the latest proposed budget.”
    “is receiving $4 billion from the US Federal Govt. in fiscal year ’07 or ’08.”
    “allocates $4 billion in the current fiscal budget?!”
    “have been allocated $4 billion ion the proposed federal budget.”
    “claim that Israel is allocated $4 billion in the new budget.”
    “was allocated $4 billion in Bush’s latest budget.”
    “is receiving $4 billion in this FY’s budget.”
    I frankly have no idea where he gets his language. Since I made no reference to any specific budget, nor did I use the term ‘allocations.’
    I note for the record that Winnipegger’s repeated language is identical to this passage from ‘Offended American Jew’ on the previous thread:
    “Your claim that Israel has been allocated $4 billion dollars this year in Bush’s proposed budget.”
    The order and structure of the sentence, specific pieces of language such as the word ‘allocated’ or the particular combination ‘$4 billion’ (dollar sign/arabic numeral/written number) rather than ‘four billion’ or ‘4,000,000,000’
    and the reference to a specific current budget is all not just identical, but hallmarks of Winnipeggers writing style.
    We can also see more similarities in this initial passage from Offended American Jew: “I’m curious if you can substantiate the *$4 billion* figure you reference in terms of US Aid to Israel. I thought the actual figure is *$2.6 billion* (proposed for ’06), since loan guarantees are not considered aid.”
    Once again, we see reference to current budgets. Note the recurring stylistic combination of ‘$4 billion’ (dollar sign/arabic numeral/written number), which also repeats with ‘$2.6 billion’. And for the record, note the use of ’06, rather than 2006, which is identical to Winnipegger’s later use of ’07 and ’08 to denote years.
    The fact that one passage is identical to Winnipegger’s later endlessly repeated passages, and the fact that both passages contain multiple signatures or overlaps with Winnipegger leads me to conclude that Winnipegger is in fact Offended American Jew.
    If this is the case, then he was clearly posting under an assumed name. Possibly this was to avoid conflict and get a fresh start since his old nickname had accumulated so much hostility. Possibly this was some dishonest little game.
    The other thing that I would note is that in the discussion, it appears that Winnipegger immediately misunderstood or misconstrued my accurate but general statement, and recast it as something quite different, far more specific and clearly inaccurate. It may or may not have been an honest mistake on his part. Sometimes what we read is not quite what was written. However, once he’d miscast my statement, he stuck to the misrepresentation like glue, repeating it more than a dozen times across two threads, even threatening to repost my original words.
    Under the circumstances, its hard to believe it was an honest mistake on Winnipegger’s part.
    If it was not an outright fraud from the start, at some point it became fraud when he either went back and took a good look, or should have taken a good look. Here was someone who was beating me over details, it doesn’t amount to an excuse that he was overlooking the same details.
    If in fact, he did go back, take a look and realized he’d screwed up, and kept it up anyway, then he’s simply an asshole
    The very best that can be said of him in this is that he was embarrassingly and foolishly sloppy. Under the circumstances, ROTFL would be redundant.
    And that’s about it. The end of this silly, sorry saga. Give a man enough rope, they say, and he’ll hang himself. Well, Winnipegger was given rope, and then he went out and took some more, and then he took even more. He let out yards and yards of rope. He has disgraced and embarrassed himself in more ways than I can count. None of it was necessary. All of it was self inflicted.
    He’s wasted a lot of everyone’s time and really polluted the thread. I apologize to everyone for the irritation. I can only hope that you all got some amusement.

    Reply

  30. Den Valdron says:

    Oh hey, was that Winnipegger, showing his shiny red ass?

    Reply

  31. Den Valdron says:

    Gee Robert, wait for the next 9/11, when that happens, everyone else in the world will be cheering, dancing, throwing candy and honking their horns. It’ll be because you guys spent the last five years working so hard to make yourself loved.
    The Palestinians were just ahead of the game, that’s all.

    Reply

  32. Winnipeger says:

    …and i love it when POA get’s on here and underscores just how despicable an fringe “progressive” really is.
    but morrow has a point, if you have such disdain POA for your purported “dancing israelis” (a total crock if you ask me) what is your opinion of the celebrating masses of palestinians on 9/11?

    Reply

  33. ckrantz says:

    An interesting idea would be to cut together a TV special with what the likes of coulter, a number of american clerics and public figures have been saying about muslims. You could make an convincing case that all americans hate muslims. And that they at best want’s to forcibly convert them to christianity or at worst kill them.
    What FOX did was basically a case of SWIFT boating muslims with a clear focus on Iran and it’s allies.

    Reply

  34. Pissed Off American says:

    I love it when Morrow gets on here and underscores just how despicable a typical Bush supporter is.

    Reply

  35. Robert Morrow says:

    Neil, one BIG reason for all those prohibitions on Palestinians is that they keep BLOWING THEMSELVES UP everytime they get into Israel. So what’s the big deal?
    I remember the Palestinians – they were the ones on 9-11 who were cheering, honking their horns and throwing candy in the streets. So screw the Palestinians; let the Israelis jack with them anyway they want to.

    Reply

  36. rich says:

    Flynt Leverett was outstanding on the NewsHour last night. Explicitly stated the obvious: that the presence of Iranian arms proves nothing, as Iran’s been at war or involved for years. Pointed out Iran’s under threat from the US, etc.
    Reyes has a voice; from NYTs:
    “Even so, critics have been quick to voice doubts. Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the White House was more interested in sending a message to Tehran than in backing up serious allegations with proof.”
    Still interested in hearing about what specifically Harman and Reyes both have to offer that’s unique relative to Bush, etc.

    Reply

  37. rich says:

    Flynt Leverett was outstanding on the NewsHour last night. Explicitly stated the obvious: that the presence of Iranian arms proves nothing, as Iran’s been at war or involved for years. Pointed out Iran’s under threat from the US, etc.
    Reyes has a voice; from NYTs:
    “Even so, critics have been quick to voice doubts. Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the White House was more interested in sending a message to Tehran than in backing up serious allegations with proof.”
    Still interested in hearing about what specifically Harman and Reyes both have to offer that’s unique relative to Bush, etc.

    Reply

  38. Neil says:

    Neil Maydom
    An Israeli writer has added considerable weight to Jimmy Carter’s assertion that Israel is an apartheid state, with a detailed list of Israel’s oppressive restrictions on freedom of movement for Palestinians. (Israel’s bluster about its so-called “Right to Exist” ignores the fact that the Incredible Shrinking Palestine is in grave danger of disappearing altogether, as the sequence of maps found by Googling Palestinian Loss of Land 1946 to 2000, clearly illustrate.)
    All the promises to relax restrictions in the West Bank have obscured the true picture. A few roadblocks have been removed, but the following prohibitions have remained in place. (This information was gathered by Haaretz, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and Machsom Watch)
    Standing prohibitions:
    * Palestinians from the Gaza Strip are forbidden to stay in the West Bank.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to enter East Jerusalem.
    * West Bank Palestinians are forbidden to enter the Gaza Strip through the Erez crossing.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to enter the Jordan Valley.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to enter villages, lands, towns and neighborhoods along the “seam line” between the separation fence and the Green Line (some 10 percent of the West Bank).
    * Palestinians who are not residents of the villages Beit Furik and Beit Dajan in the Nablus area, and Ramadin, south of Hebron, are forbidden entry.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to enter the settlements’ area (even if their lands are inside the settlements’ built area).
    * Palestinians are forbidden to enter Nablus in a vehicle.
    * Palestinian residents of Jerusalem are forbidden to enter area A (Palestinian towns in the West Bank).
    * Gaza Strip residents are forbidden to enter the West Bank via the Allenby crossing.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to travel abroad via Ben-Gurion Airport.
    * Children under age 16 are forbidden to leave Nablus without an original birth certificate and parental escort.
    * Palestinians with permits to enter Israel are forbidden to enter through the crossings used by Israelis and tourists.
    * Gaza residents are forbidden to establish residency in the West Bank.
    * West Bank residents are forbidden to establish residency in the Jordan valley, seam line communities or the villages of Beit Furik and Beit Dajan.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to transfer merchandise and cargo through internal West Bank checkpoints.
    Periodic prohibitions:
    * Residents of certain parts of the West Bank are forbidden to travel to the rest of the West Bank.
    * People of a certain age group – mainly men from the age of 16 to 30, 35 or 40 – are forbidden to leave the areas where they reside (usually Nablus and other cities in the northern West Bank).
    * Private cars may not pass the Swahara-Abu Dis checkpoint (which separates the northern and southern West Bank). This was cancelled for the first time two weeks ago under the easing of restrictions.
    Travel permits required:
    * A magnetic card (intended for entrance to Israel, but eases the passage through checkpoints within the West Bank).
    * A work permit for Israel (the employer must come to the civil administration offices and apply for one).
    * A permit for medical treatment in Israel and Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem (The applicant must produce an invitation from the hospital, his complete medical background and proof that the treatment he is seeking cannot be provided in the occupied territories).
    * A travel permit to pass through Jordan valley checkpoints.
    * A merchant’s permit to transfer goods.
    * A permit to farm along the seam line requires a form from the land registry office, a title deed, and proof of first-degree relations to the registered property owner.
    * Entry permit for the seam line (for relatives, medical teams, construction workers, etc. Those with permits must enter and leave via the same crossing even if it is far away or closing early).
    * Permits to pass from Gaza, through Israel to the West Bank.
    * A birth certificate for children under 16.
    * A long-standing resident identity card for those who live in seam-line enclaves.
    Checkpoints and barriers:
    * There were 75 manned checkpoints in the West Bank as of January 9, 2007.
    * There are on average 150 mobile checkpoints a week (as of September 2006).
    * There are 446 obstacles placed between roads and villages, including concrete cubes, earth ramparts, 88 iron gates and 74 kilometers of fences along main roads.
    * There are 83 iron gates along the separation fence, dividing lands from their owners. Only 25 of the gates open occasionally

    Reply

  39. ET says:

    I did not see a lot of Faux coverage on this item:
    A federal judge has ruled that a CIA agent identified only as “Doe,” allegedly fired after he gathered prewar intelligence showing that Iraq was not developing weapons of mass destruction, can proceed with his lawsuit against the CIA.
    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070209/9cia.htm

    Reply

  40. Steve Wild says:

    I am a liberal who despises President Bush and his reckless war in Iraq and his abuse of the US Constitution.
    Whether Fox News and it’s allies are biased and trying to sway people to a viewpoint, that does not negate the fact there ARE Islamic radicals – clerics who exploit people for their own purposes, Islamics who feel victimized by a godless secular West who HAVE exploited THEM in return.
    There are lies and hypocricies on both sides – the WEST and Islamic extremists.
    But 9/11 is proof we cannot be asleep about this danger – it is very real.
    That does not necessarily mean we nuke Iran or any other country.
    It DOES mean we don’t scoff at this very real threat in a knee jerk fashion.
    Yes, the Fox report was exploitation, but exploitation with grains of truth.
    So let’s keep that in mind.

    Reply

  41. ckrantz says:

    Finest piece of propaganda i’v seen since D.r Goebel. I noticed most of the material came from MEMRI yet again. Fits nicely with this ad campaign laura rozen reported on a while back.
    http://www.afpc.org/IranAds.shtml

    Reply

  42. gq says:

    Let’s just have Hagel show up on Fox. That will certainly make it oh so much better

    Reply

  43. Dennis says:

    Just to be fair to’em, I watched the whole episode. Then emailed FOX and E.D. (?) and told’em it “stunk”.
    Go and do thou likewise.
    You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

    Reply

  44. ET says:

    Dear The “I” Word,
    I have started Impeachment Watch on my blog at TPM Cafe. My February edition has over three dozen resources on impeachment. Stop by and browse when you have a free moment.
    Would love to see you, Ticia
    http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/ticia/2007/jan/23/impeachment_watch_blogroll_january_update

    Reply

  45. The "I" Word says:

    Noteworthy:
    http://www.amazon.com/United-States-George-Bush-al/dp/1583227563
    United States v. George W. Bush et al. (Paperback)
    by Elizabeth de la Vega (Author

    Reply

  46. JoMoHo says:

    This is a sad reflection on human nature itself. If there were no market for it then Fox would not put it out there. The God-guns-and-guts Nascar-loving dimension of our society is real. The great irony is that these simpletons crave a Manichaean presentation of things (ironic because of the Persian origins of Manichaeism) — there is good and evil and nothing in between — and harbor the desire to strongly embrace the “good” on the one hand and violently annihilate the “bad” on the other. This is inherently a human trait. It taxes the brain to think in shades of gray; codification is unavoidable, though the degree of categorical granularity varies from person to person.
    What is especially pathetic is the fact that the executives and editors who should know better take advantage of the dolts who consume their dualistic crap. They package their message(s) like microwave ovens or Barbie dolls: products are created with a very specific target consumer in mind then marketed, packaged and distributed to those consumers. What makes the US so special is the unmatched efficiency of its media companies to do this.
    The market-centered consumer-seller milieu that has spread over the globe like CO2 only serves to expose this human weakness. As long as the average human operates at the level of a Big Mac chowing, Lazy Boy lounging, car crash and Nascar craving, Bush loving, bible thumper how can it be surprising to see such transparently obvious propaganda on the “peoples channel”, Fox News? If these troglodytes are out there the market will find them.

    Reply

  47. Marcia says:

    First Fox then the NYT…It looks as though they are pulling a “Foxy” on us. This cannot possibly be a coincidence. They are starting a new campaign of fear and a “good guys-bad guys” offensive. The exact way they started beating the war drums for Iraq. Why change a winning gambit?

    Reply

  48. FormerJourno says:

    To weigh in on Murdoch’s Zionist tendencies (including the Fox network’s fictional show “24”) — I worked as a journalist in Australia 20 + years ago. At that time I heard from a few Australians of a certain age who had known her as a young woman that Murdoch’s mother, Elisabeth Greene, was Jewish.
    Who knows, but it is not exactly unheard of for prominent people’s families to hide their religions or ethnicities, especially Jewish ones — gee — John Kerry, Wes Clark, Christopher Hitchens, George Allen, Madeleine Albright — spring immediately to mind.
    In any case, the media empires of Murdoch, Haim Saban, Conrad Black and the European conglomerate, Axel-Springer, exert a very real, and very deliberate, pro-Zionist influence on the world. One that is marching us into WW III.
    P.S. John Howard, Australia’s PM, is a wanker in general — he’s a joke in his own country. By attacking Obama, Howard’s pandering once more to Australia’s very powerful pro-Israel lobby.
    Hey, but Rahm Emanuel is going to be directly involved with Obama’s campaign, and the EU now has its own pro-Israel lobby, so all is well in the Israel Lobby’s world, so let’s just kiss our Earth good-bye.

    Reply

  49. sdemetri says:

    Invading Iran might be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy. Iran has threatened to attack US interests around the world if it is attacked. Those “terrorist” attacks provide the justification for attacking Iran. A vicious cycle.
    Not feeling very hopeful today.

    Reply

  50. Pissed Off American says:

    “I wish to submit an answer to your quiz:
    Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton?”
    Bingo. She lied to us too.

    Reply

  51. Tony Foresta says:

    Before you start nuking people Robert Morrow I challenge you to define exactly who or what are these socalled islamofascists, or do you condone the slaughter of anyone, or everyone, including you fellow Americans who believe in islam, and/or call themselves muslim?
    Most Americans, and I am one of them – have no issue with hunting, capturing, or killing every single jihadist mass murderer and all those who aid and abet them on the planet. This is an issue against gangbangers, and mass murderers, – not a religion.
    The problem with your fundamentalist position is in who does the defining of exactly who and what are socalled islamofascists.
    By any definition of the term islamofascist the duplicitous American haters, al Quaida supporters, wahabi sharia proselytizing shatians, and those who are directly and/or indirectly responsible for the horrors and mass murder of 9/11 and who are abundantly funded and nutured with our petro dollars by elements of the Bush government “good friends” in the House of Saud fit perfectly into this definition,
    Of course we all know the chickenhawk fascists and oleaginous warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government will never confront their “good friends” in Saudi Arabia. –
    So – either you are ignorant of factbasedreality, or simply bloviating and parroting the fascist Bush government sloganeering and chickenhawk saber rattling against “evildoers”
    Look up fascism, examine the Bush governments policies, ideologies, and machinations and get back to me.
    Then take a close look at the fascist freaks in the evangelical fundamentalist socalled christian churches and zionist jews who are both cut from the exact same perverted malignant unholy cloth as the jihadists.
    All three malignant perversions of religion hold the exact same underlying beliefs though each freakish cult worships different books, and bows to different prophets, – all are fascists ideologies and entities perverting and bastardizing religion for their own respective political and economic gains – period.
    Each fascist religion proclaims thier perverted conjuring of god is better than every other human beings’ idea of god, – and that thier perverted conjured god sanctions the beheading, the burning at the stake, the nailing to the tree, or the nuking of anyone who does not abide by their perverted malignant FASCIST ideologies or repugnant interpretations.
    Let’s remove the fascists in our own government and society, and the mote in our own eye before wa start nuking anyone….. please.

    Reply

  52. Neil says:

    Neil Maydom
    Howard licks Bush and Israel lobby’s boots in public – again.
    Desperate enough to clutch at any convenient straw to deflect criticism of his lack of credibility on the home front, the PM has lashed out at Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s pledge to withdraw US troops from Iraq by March 2008. Obama’s pledge is a pathetically timid response to redneck bullying and Lobby blackmail & purchasing power. It is also a complete betrayal of the people who voted Democrat in order to put the Mock War in Iraq out of its misery by pulling the Congressional funding plug.
    Mr Howard’s excuse for his dramatic but irrelevant outburst is that such a plan would encourage the terrorists who wanted to completely destroy Iraq, having apparently failed to notice that it is Bush who is destroying Iraq and staying there will only give his liars and lunatics more time to finish The Job.
    Despite the hysterical bluster, what Mr Howard hasn’t the balls to tell Oz yet is that there is tri-partisan agreement between the Dems, the Repugs and the Israel Lobby in America, that when the Job is Done, and the destruction of Iraq is complete, everyone will just walk away, blame the Iraqis, and pretend it never happened – except for the oil and 100,000 dead and maimed ‘expendable’ Americans, and well over 1 million ‘expendable’ Iraqis, of course

    Reply

  53. Easy E says:

    Since we’re all being manipulated by the corporate media, here’s another one. A little off topic, but it all relates…….
    THE BIG CLUE EVERYONE MISSED
    http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/80.html

    Reply

  54. ET says:

    POA,
    I wish to submit an answer to your quiz:
    Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton?

    Reply

  55. ... says:

    boycott myspace which is owned by the same bozo.

    Reply

  56. Easy E says:

    Let’s here it for the DIXIE CHICKS!
    Maybe ‘Nascar Joe Six-Pack’ will finally wake up.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/02/11/grammys-dixie-chicks-win_n_40981.html

    Reply

  57. TRT says:

    We have always known that Fox “News” is the propaganda outlet for the radical Republican elements, run by a former Republican media and tobacco company consultant.
    True, this is outrageous trash worthy of Goebbels in laying a groundwork of fear, hatred and paranoia. That’s how the rightwingers have worked for decades, centuries.

    Reply

  58. Easy E says:

    Let’s here it for the DIXIE CHICKS!
    Maybe ‘Joe Six-Pack’ will finally wake up.

    Reply

  59. Easy E says:

    Here is an example of how “Radical Islam” is perpetuated by Corporate Media (i.e. Faux News, CNN/Wolf Blitzer, etc.) through neocon Likudniks that have infested U.S. Government.
    A Dangerous Appointment
    By James Zogby, iViews, 16 April 2001
    Douglas J. Feith has been appointed Undersecretary of Policy at the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). This is one of the Pentagon’s four senior posts, charged with “all matters concerning the formulation of national security and defense policy and the integration and oversight of DOD policy and plans.” Additionally, among his many areas of responsibility according to the DOD, the undersecretary of policy has the responsibility to:
    “Develop policy on the conduct of alliances and defense relationships with foreign governments, their military establishments and international organizations;
    “Develop, coordinate, and oversee the implementation of international security strategy and policy… on issues…that relate to foreign governments and their defense establishments; and
    “Provide oversight of all DOD activities related to international technology transfer.” This is a powerful position with great influence. Feith’s appointment to this post is a matter of great concern.
    Feith has had a long career in both government service and the private sector. During the Reagan Administration he served as the White House National Security Staff and in the Defense Department as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy. He also served as Special Counsel to Richard Perle, then Assistant Secretary of Defense.
    Feith is an attorney with the Washington firm of Feith and Zell. His own biography says that he specializes in “technology transfer, joint ventures and foreign investment in the defense and aerospace industries.”
    On the political front, Feith has been associated with the Cold War “neo-conservative” school of thought. What is of concern here is the extent to which Feith has transposed the neo-conservative worldview onto the Middle East. As his fellow cold warriors defined the world in ideological dualistic terms–the forces of absolute good confronting the forces of absolute evil–Feith defines the Arab-Israeli conflict in similar terms.
    A prolific writer, Feith has left a long paper trail of anti-Arab tracts and diatribes against those who challenge or seek to compromise Israel’s strength and as he defines it, “moral superiority” over the Arabs.
    As was the case in the Cold War battle against Communism, in Feith’s view, there can be no place for compromise between Israel and the Arabs. Since he defines the Middle East conflict in absolute terms, the only option for Israel is to confront its Arab enemies until they are defeated, which, in his worldview, means when they submit and accept Israel’s legitimacy and sovereignty over all of mandatory Palestine.
    Since Israel represents the “good” and “our values,” in Feith’s view, it is necessary for the United States to identify with Israel in its struggle against the forces of “darkness,” the Arabs. This means providing Israel with superior military strength and political support. It also means that the United States should never pressure Israel either to surrender land or to compromise its hegemonic position in the region.
    Throughout his career, Feith has articulated views such as these.
    In the late 1970s, for example, he criticized then President Jimmy Carter’s Camp David effort to bring about a “comprehensive peace”–a concept he decried as false since it required Israel to weaken itself by surrendering “Judea and Samaria” to the Arabs. Feith’s logic was that:
    Arabs have no legal rights in Palestine; Palestinians are not a “national group as such” and, therefore, have no special claim to Judea and Samaria; Jordan is the Palestinian state for the Arabs; and No pressure should be brought against Israel for building settlements in Judea and Samaria, since it is their right to do so.
    Operating from this framework, Feith argues that the notion that “the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the issue of the stateless Palestinians” is a clever Arab trap designed solely to weaken Israel by threatening its relationship with the United States and its hold over Judea and Samaria.
    He, therefore, condemned the Carter Administration for its opposition to Israel’s settlement policy since, in his view, this “only encouraged Arabs to believe that they could win benefits from the United States by refusing to make concessions to Israel.”
    For Feith, Arab objections to Zionism were at the core of the conflict. Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories would not solve the conflict, only Arab acceptance of and submission to Israel would end it. Summarizing his recommendations to the Carter Administration, Feith suggested in a 1979 article that they, ”
    (1) abandon the view that Judea-Samaria is the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict,
    (2) acknowledge that the crux is really the Arab refusal to accept a Jewish state in Palestine,
    (3) renounce quarreling over Israel’s rights in Judea-Samaria, which encourages Arab inflexibility and damages valuable U.S.-Israeli ties,
    (4) confine itself to the role of mediator, rather than party, to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and thus
    (5) inform Damascus, Amman, the Palestinian Arabs, and Riyadh that if they want an alteration in Jerusalem’s policies they had best start negotiating with Jerusalem, as Sadat has done, and quit relying on Washington to ‘deliver’ the Israelis.”
    In the 1980s and 90s, Feith continued his criticism of any U.S. policy that deviated from his view. He criticized the Bush Administration for denying Israel loan guarantees and for pressuring the Shamir government to come to the Madrid peace conference.
    His advice to the Bush Administration in 1991 echoed his earlier recommendations to the Carter White House. The U.S. governmentshould, he suggested, require the Arabs to:
    “Drop the slogan of ‘land for peace,’ which skeptical Israelis must suspect is a program for dismantling Israel in stages, and simply offer peace. That is, they could put forward an open, unqualified, non-grudging and sincere acknowledgement that the Jewish people are entitled to a state in a Jewish homeland;” and
    “Aba,ndon the name game by which they apply the label ‘Palestine’ only to the 20 percent of the British Mandate Palestine that lies west of the Jordan Rive,r. So long as one’s goal is the elimination of Israel, one does well to pretend that the Kingdom of Jordan, which occupies the other 80 percent of Mandate Palestine, is not a Palestinian state. That makes it possible to propagandize that the Jews control all the land and the Arabs of Palestine are ‘stateless.'”
    During the Clinton years, Feith continued to oppose any agreement negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinians: Oslo, Hebron and Wye.
    At one point he defined Oslo as, “one-sided Israeli concessions, inflated Palestinian expectations, broken Palestinian solemn understandings, Palestinian violence…and American rewards for Palestinian recalcitrance.”
    His objection to the Hebron and Wye understandings, however, is more interesting because it was his ideological soul mate, then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had agreed to them.
    In 1996, Feith, together with Richard Perle wrote an advisory paper for the newly elected Likud Prime Minister. In that piece, entitled “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” they advised Netanyahu to: “make a clean break from the peace process;” reassert Israel’s claim to its land by rejecting “land for peace” as the basis of peace; strengthen Israel’s defenses to better confront Syria and Iraq; and forge a new and stronger relationship with the United States based on self-reliance and mutual interest.
    Feith was, therefore, deeply disappointed when Netanyahu appeared to accept the basis of Oslo and sign two additional agreements with the Palestinians that turned more land over to them. In a lengthy piece written in 1997 “A Strategy for Israel,” Feith returned to his neo-conservative roots arguing that “land for peace” was a fabrication designed to weaken Israel. Peace would only come when Arab and specifically Palestinian society was transformed into a democratic, law-abiding and peaceful one. Since Oslo had created unrealistic expectations and rewarded bad Palestinian behavior, the only solution for Israel was to repudiate Oslo and “reestablish an effective security and intelligence policy in the areas under Palestinian Authority control” (i.e. reoccupy the West Bank and Gaza). He went on to note that “the price in blood would be high,” but would be, a necessary form of “detoxification–the only way out of Oslo’s web.”
    Despite his apparent obsession with the Arab-Israel conflict, Feith has written about a number of other Middle East-related topics. In all cases, inspired by the same pro-Israel, anti-Arab Manichean worldview.
    He has written condemning U.S. politicians for estranging themselves from Israel in order to accommodate Arab oil states. He has associated himself with a controversial strategy paper that suggested, among other options, that the U.S. might lead a Kuwait-style invasion and war of liberation to oust Syria from Lebanon. And he has been one of Washington’s strongest advocates supporting the Iraq Liberation Act.
    As disturbing as Feith’s views may be, his political associations cause even greater concern. In recent years, Feith has frequently been featured in the activities of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Known for its virulent anti-Arab incitem,ent, the ZOA regularly attacks all Arab American political activity and demonizes politicians who hire Arab Americans or even associate with community organizations. The ZOA also frequently attacks American Jews whom they feel are not in line, with their extremist pro-Likud philosophy.
    In just the past few years, Feith was the Guest of Honor at ZOA’s
    100th Anniversary Gala Banquet. He served as Master of Ceremony at
    two other major ZOA functions and has been a frequent participant at ZOA sponsored policy briefings on Capitol Hill supporting that organization’s anti-Palestinian legislative initiatives.
    Feith’s law practice in Washington sheds further light on the one-sided nature of his work. His small law firm has one international affiliate, in Israel. Over two-thirds of all their reported casework involves representing Israeli interests. And, in light of Feith’s new appointment, one of these cases deserves some attention. As described on the firm’s website, Feith “represented a leading Israeli armaments manufacturer in establishing joint ventures with leading U.S. aerospace manufacturers for manufacture and sale of missile systems, to the U.S. Department of Defense and worldwide.”
    Feith has long been a strong advocate for Israeli military technology. In a 1992 article, he wrote that the U.S. should deepen its military cooperation with Israel noting that, “Israel has a number of unique military technologies that it behooves the U.S. armed forces to acquire, such as unmanned aircraft and air-to ground missiles. With shrinking U.S. defense budgets, it is less expensive for the Defense Department to acquire these technologies from the Israelis than to pay to have them reinvented.”
    He also observed in the same piece that, “It is in the interest of the U.S. and Israel to remove needless impediments to technological cooperation between them. Technologies in the hands of responsible, friendly countries facing military threats, countries like Israel, serve to deter aggression, enhance regional stability and perhaps also promote peace thereby.”
    In the private sector, Feith is free to hold whatever views he wishes to hold, associate with whomever he wishes to associate, and do whatever legitimate business comes his way. But serious questions must be asked whether or not someone with his views and associations can fairly serve in a critical post at the Department of Defense. I, for one, am terrified at the prospect. He is ideologue with an extreme anti-Arab bias, and his role in the sensitive position of chief architect of U.S. defense policy can, I believe, have grave consequences for the United States and its relations with the entire Arab world.
    http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/feb/11/doug_feith_reinventing_history#comment-206213

    Reply

  60. Easy E says:

    Regarding my prior post, all the more reason we need to reform U.S. media system in order to help INFORM AND PREVENT IGNORANCE.
    http://www.freepress.net/content/mission

    Reply

  61. Jimmy says:

    Hate to say it, but this is standard fare for Fox News

    Reply

  62. steambomb says:

    John Taylor is on Cspan2 right now talking about his book Global Financial Warriors. Good Stuff. This is a re-run from the 9th.

    Reply

  63. steambomb says:

    Perhaps you felt “awkward” about posting my post on the conincidence between the Saudis’ interest in Iraqi Sunnis and the rash of helocopter incidents in Iraq in the previous thread?

    Reply

  64. Robert Morrow says:

    Radical Islam is a very real threat to the USA. Frankly, I am sick of most Muslims – especially the ones who believe in sharia. We need to expel those folks – Islamofascists – from the USA. And the ones overseas who threaten us, we need to kill every last one of them by any means necessary including atomic warfare. Here is a good by Robert Spencer on Islam
    http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Muhammad-Intolerant-Religion/dp/1596980281/sr=8-1/qid=1171249243/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2503676-2452101?ie=UTF8&s=books

    Reply

  65. Bob Reid says:

    I think that by not posting your comments on the YouTube site, you are passing up an opportunity to educate others.
    I believe that some well aimed and accurate facts would go a long way here to combat the propaganda. Perhaps, simply to help others be aware of it.

    Reply

  66. Tony Foresta says:

    The gospel according to Fox in a propaganda, disinformation, and slime arm of the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and fanaticus religious zealots in the Bush government.
    Foxspeak is the Bush government message, framed in Bush government constructs and language, presented in the Bush government faux patriotic splendor, and articulated in the Bush government fundamentalist evangelical rhetoric of fascists in the Bush government.
    Like the Bush government, – nothing bruted by the sloganeers, disinformation warriors, carnival entertainers, and partisan mouthpieces of Fox has any semblence of, or connection with truth, or one nanoparticle of credibility, legitimacy, or – honesty.
    Like the Bush government, the parrots preaching the gospel according to Fox propaganda and disinformation are pathological liars, drowning in oceans of lies.
    http//www.mediatransparency.org/pdastory.php?storyID=18

    Reply

  67. Pissed Off American says:

    Check out this UK media piece. It examines the claims of the Bush Administration, then applies logic to tear those claims apart. A shame these bastards in the American media cannot display the same honesty.
    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2261526.ece

    Reply

  68. Pissed Off American says:

    BTW, speaking about “propaganda”, heres a quiz…
    Who said…(?)…
    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

    Reply

  69. Pissed Off American says:

    “It is the single worst piece of television journalism engaging in hyperbolic fear-mongering that I have seen”
    Amazing, isn’t it? Yet when a statesman such as Jimmy Carter seeks to bring the truth to the American people about the terrible abuses being inflicted upon the Palestinians, he is called a liar, branded as anti-semitic, and accused of being “pro-terrorist”.
    In Bushworld, in league with the Israelis, it is OK to be openly rascist, as long as its the Arabs that are demonized.
    BOO! The those nasty brown evildoers are out to get us!

    Reply

  70. Pissed Off American says:

    Gee, Fox News lying to us? Feeding us propaganda? Who woulda thunk it?
    The real amazing part of this whole thing is that I know people that lead seemingly normal lives, who seem reasonably intelligent, who watch Fox News, and base their world view upon what they see there.
    Wouldn’t it be wonderful to follow this horseshit up through the channels, to uncover the chain of control that extends from the White House out to Fox News? Who is the liason between the propaganda arm of Cheney’s office that feeds the lies to the Fox nwsroom writers?
    But one thing is for sure, this kind of propaganda is not put out there for no reason. We are going to attack Iran, make no mistake. But, in today’s climate, such an attack cannot be lodged, there is simply too much distrust of the Bush Administration. They need another 9/11 type of event, that can be blamed on Iran, to create the public “shock and awe” that will enable them to justify such an attack. And this pissed off American has absolutely no doubt they intend to give us just such an event.
    http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/22798.php

    Reply

  71. havoc says:

    Grand isn’t it? This is the best rated news station in the US, isn’t it? You’ve come a long way: from great statesmen and thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, who said, I’ll paraphrase: “It does me no injury whether my neighbour worships ten gods or no god at all.”
    If the democrats don’t impeach this lot, the US will become a nation without a message. The US has always been a dream, an idea, something to aspire to despite its contradictions. Today, more than five years after Le Monde proclaimed: “We are all Americans now”, the US have traded its great legacy of justice for all for justice for the righteous.
    And justice to them who seek oil rather than justice.

    Reply

  72. John says:

    Unfortunately, demonizing Iran and hyping the nuclear threat will continue until reasonable people start articulating what the US’s real ambitions are. What I find sad is that most of the foreign policy and national security mafia along with much of Congress are sympathetic to Bush’s ambitions. They only disagree on tactics.
    As I have said many times without convincing rebuttal, US ambitions appear to center on controlling ME energy. Why are the foreign policy and national security mafia so afraid to engage in an honest discussion? How many Muslim dead is our extravagant life style worth? How much debt? How much global warming?

    Reply

  73. Freedom says:

    Iranian author Hamid Dabashi asks us to think beyond the US invasion of Iran and this is what he had to say: “Something far more serious is the matter with the world.”
    “[…] As the world is waiting to see if US/Israel will or will not attack Iran, we can begin to think through the state of war that this waiting game has generated and sustained. The laundry list of US/Israel litany against the Islamic Republic is long and tiresome: they sponsor terrorism, they do not support the Arab-Israeli peace process (never mind that Israelis are murdering Palestinians in Gaza on an hourly basis), they are fomenting trouble in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, and on top of it they intend to develop nuclear arms. But how this old and banal list is revamped and brought to a crescendo is the way that the state of war — while both Afghanistan and Iraq are burning and the US is heavily engaged in Somalia — is kept apace. […]
    The catastrophe that faces the whole world — Americans included — is not limited to this level of psyop chicanery. Something far more serious is the matter with the world. For five years now, every one to two years, George W Bush has perceived a new source of menace in the world, and launched a massive new war against Arabs and Muslims while telling them that he is really shooting at them, in order to save them from their own evil. The normative vacuity of these identical terms of fear and warmongering has reached incomprehensible proportions, to the point that except for the lives of yet another few hundred thousand waiting to be annihilated in the region, if the US/Israel attack Iran, it no longer makes any difference if they will or will not actually do so. What matters, and what remains a corrosive force in the soul of an entire nation, is the state of war in which the US/Israeli ideologues are determined to keep themselves and the world which they systematically endanger.”
    http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/831/focus.htm

    Reply

  74. Dan says:

    “It is the single worst piece of television journalism engaging in hyperbolic fear-mongering that I have seen.”
    They have journalists at Faux News?

    Reply

  75. SomeOtherDude says:

    Happy Valentine’s Day
    ON TO IRAN!!!

    Reply

  76. profmarcus says:

    it’s all part of being mentally and emotionally manipulated to support the endless war required by the administration to retain and increase their power and to insure that rivers of cash keep flowing into the “right” pockets… even as a thoughtful and discerning viewer, i could feel my emotions being played on as i watched… slick stuff and definitely propaganda…
    http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  77. SomeOtherDude says:

    Happy Valentine’s Day
    ON TO IRAN!!!

    Reply

  78. Marcia says:

    Why is this on promotion? Fox is always used by Cheney for preparation and then for back-up. This must be the build-up to Iran.
    Is there nothing we can do to stop this insanity that is leading to calamity?

    Reply

  79. Steve O says:

    The whole piece was very lopsided as you note. There was a section not referred to on the You Tube clip that had an Islamic representative making some salient points about the perpective of moderates who see through the hypocrisy of the political leadership in Arab countries as well as our own. A point that Brzezinski has made many time is the increasing radicalization of large groups of alienated populations that goes unmentioned in pieces like this other than to call attention to inflammatory rhetoric that is clearly upsetting. Thank Fox for again adding fuel to the fire. The march to greater conflict and violence goes on.

    Reply

  80. selise says:

    sorry, i can’t watch the whole thing… too horrifiying for words. especially in these days of iran-war-mongering. dangerous lies.
    all americans need to read robert pape’s, “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism”…. and stop this stupid and evil fixation on islam.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *