Glenn Greenwald…

"One of the most astounding feats in propaganda is how we've managed to take people who live in a country which we invade, bomb and occupy — and who fight against us because we're doing that — and call them "Terrorists," thereby "justifying" continuing to bomb and occupy their country further."

That sentence may not sound all that profound at first reading, but it is.

When the U.S. arbitrarily invaded Iraq, al-Qaeda "terrorists" were not there. Some came later to Iraq, especially following the release of the Abu Ghraib picnic photos. Neo-conservative propagandists, cheerled by Fox and Fiends, did their best to brainwash Americans into believing that shadowy Sunni figures or Shi-ite rebels (al-Sadr) or (Saddam's former) Baath Party remnants were each interchangeable surrogates for al-Qaeda. Even though Iraq had no al-Qaeda presence, no "terrorists", U.S. media quickly transplanted Sunni, Shi-ite, and/or Baath members into the role of the "terrorists."

America had attacked a sovereign nation where "terrorists" were not harbored, where al-Qaeda had no significant, if any, presence,….and within short-order of occupying a country that posed no threat to America, we were told that we were fighting the "terrorists" inside Iraq. Amazingly, Iraq had become the "central front of the war on terror." The lines were purposely blurred in explanation of who those "terrorists" were. Were they Sunni, were some Shi-ite, were they the remnants of Saddam's old political party? No one was sure…..and that, of course, was the point.

The same is true in Afghanistan, and has been for…..what is it now?…..over EIGHT years. al-Qaeda is a stateless, borderless group….so, in order to justify bringing the enormous U.S. military machine to the region in preparation for the already-determined plan to attack and occupy Iraq…..we needed a nation state as an enemy. The Taliban-ruled Afghanistan fit the bill. Those camel-riding Taliban were "harboring" those al-Qaeda, by god….quickly a whole new group of "terrorists" were created.

As Greenwald said, America attacks a country, occupies that country with it's military….an action that creates a resistance from natives of that country, whom we then quickly declare the "enemy" or the new "terrorists", which, completing the circle, justifies us continuing with our occupation.

The Reverend has often stated without apology that there is no "war on terror" and never has been. The U.S. "enemy" was/is al-Qaeda. After 9-11, the "war" America declared under Commander Guy, more appropriately, should have been called a "war on al-Qaeda"….but see?, that's too narrow, too specific. This American musical chairs style, changing-enemies game in Iraq and Afghanistan is often called a part of a non-existent "war on terror", but in all honesty, all it is, is an ongoing faux-justification to defend U.S. neo-conservative ideological and imperialistic goals for the region.
……….
Greenwald also writes about "why they hate us." The hopelessly incompetent Decider insisted that "they" hated us "because of our freedoms", a childish non-sequiter at best. A neo-conservative propaganda tool, at worst.

Overnight, a Fox and Fiends-led cottage industry developed complete with nonsensical "Islamofascist" name-calling and ridiculous notions of Islam's "real" goal to overthrow the "free" world. Americans were repeatedly told that Islamic radicals killed themselves in order to kill Americans because, somehow, America's freedom just drove them insane with rage. The Villagers all nodded, knowingly, in agreement.

Here's why "they" hate us…..

I also saw how some of the consequences of Washington’s antiterrorism policies had galvanized the Taliban. Commanders fixated on the deaths of Afghan, Iraqi and Palestinian civilians in military airstrikes, as well as the American detention of Muslim prisoners who had been held for years without being charged.

Here's why "they" hate us….

In 1996, Israeli jets bombed a UN building where civilians had taken refuge at Cana/ Qana in south Lebanon, killing 102 persons;…..

"On April 11, 1996, when Atta was twenty-seven years old, he signed a standardized will he got from the al-Quds mosque.l It was the day Israel attacked Lebanon in Operation grapes of Wrath. According to one of his friends, Atta was enraged,and by filling out his last testamentd during the attack he was offering his life in response."

A little over 5 years later, Atta led a group of hijackers who crashed planes into American buildings, killing 3000.

And here's why "they" will continue to hate us…

The 25 lines edited out of the court papers contained details of how Mr Mohamed's genitals were sliced with a scalpel and other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, "is very far down the list of things they did," the official said.

A British High Court has just ruled that those 25 lines describing what CIA officials told British officials that they had done to an innocent Muslim detainee, Binyam Mohamed,…must be released to the world. Both George W. Bush and, now, Barack Obama, have tried, (up until now successfully) to keep examples of U.S. depravity and torture, like this one, secret.

But many middle eastern Muslims already know about U.S. torture and depravity. Many middle eastern Muslims know that we attack and occupy their countries with our military, then declare any subsequent native resistance, "enemies" and "terrorists." Many middle eastern countries already know that we will block any investigations into war crimes perpetrated against Gazans by Israelis…..or perpetrated by U.S. officials against Muslim detainees.

"They" already know all of this.

"They" are, just now, learning about this.

And that's why "they" hate us….and unless we change policy course….that's why "they" will continue to hate us.

A call to, at least, investigate….

The U.N. Human Rights Council voted Friday to endorse a Gaza war crimes report that calls on Israel and Hamas to investigate alleged abuses, or face possible referral to international war crimes prosecutors.

What was the U.S. position?

The move — which was opposed by six nations, including the United States — means Israel could find itself facing a request at the U.N. Security Council to refer the case to prosecutors at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, a move likely to be blocked by Washington.

If you recall, a highly sophisticated Israeli military attacked a trapped civilian population in the Gaza Strip to allegedly stop homemade rockets from being launched into Israel from Gaza. The nature of the slaughter is witnessed in these fatality numbers….

Almost 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed during the Dec. 27-Jan. 18 conflict.

Homemade rockets simply can't compete with helicopter gunships. By my math, I come up with over 100 Palestinian deaths for each Israeli death. Might be a revised Israeli take on the "eye for an eye" thing, it's difficult to tell.

The U.N. report found….

The 575-page document concluded that Israel used disproportionate force, deliberately targeted civilians, used Palestinians as human shields and destroyed civilian infrastructure during its incursion into the Gaza Strip to root out Palestinian rocket squads.

"deliberately targeted civilians"….half of the Gaza dead were women and children. Half.

The report is not simply one sided…

It also accused Palestinian armed groups including Hamas, which controls Gaza, of deliberately targeting civilians and trying to spread terror through years of rocket attacks on southern Israel.

The U.S. voted against endorsing the report which recommended this…

The report recommends that the 15-member Security Council require both sides in the conflict to show within six months that they are carrying out independent and impartial investigations into alleged abuses.

How will the U.S. stand up for transparency and justice over this matter?…..

The United States is likely to use its veto (on U.N. Security Council) to block any call to get the International Criminal Court involved in the dispute over Gaza or to take action against Israel.

The last paragraph of the AP news piece includes this "no sh*t Sherlock" sentence….

Arab and African countries will likely point to any U.S. efforts to block referral to the international court as an example of double standards,

Why would "Arab and African countries" call U.S. efforts to block referrals by the U.N. to an international court a "double standard?"….

…it was Western countries that referred Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir to the International Criminal Court in March for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes…

Although George W. Bush often insisted, incredulously, that "they hate us because of our freedoms"….you needn't look any further than this action by the U.S. to understand what might cause some Muslims to hate America.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration is taking the same misguided path, protecting and defending Israeli aggression and potential war crimes from being investigated and adjudicated, as the Obama administration has taken in protecting and defending the two American war crimes leaders, Bush and Cheney, from investigation and adjudication.

Neither decision, in the long run, will work out well.

I'm sure that inherent American and Israeli "exceptionalism" is the justification for blocking investigations into war crimes.

Today I continue with Part 2 of my appraisal of President Obama's speech from Cairo, Egypt….

To those Muslims in Hamas, Hizbollah, al-Qaeda, or Iran,…Obama spoke honestly and directly about Israel…

Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

And to Jews and Christians, Obama made it clear that the Palestinians' plight was "intolerable"…..

So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

What Palestinians must do…

Palestinians must abandon violence.

What Israel must do…

Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's.

But take note of something new from an American president. Obama spoke directly to the "settlement" problem created by radical extremist Israelis. Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post and the typical cast of American radical extremist neo-cons began hyperventilating the moment these words left Obama's mouth….

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs.

That's what true world leadership sounds like. A recognition of the problem from each side's perspective and an acknowlegment of wrongs from both sides. Community organizing…on a world stage.

I've never heard an American president own up to America's role in the overthrow of Iran's government in the 1950's. Obama's bold comments on Iran….

In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians.

And note that Obama did not avoid confronting Iran's wrongdoing.

The president denounces nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranians, but in so doing, he draws a new nuclear line in the sand for not only middle eastern countries, but all countries….

There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

On Bush, cowboy-imposed democracy….

So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

Backhanding American exceptionalism, again, Obama criticizes, indirectly, the previous administrations willingness to promote elections in Gaza, when the outcome was "presumed" to be favorable to anti-extremist forces. Instead Hamas won that election…

America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.

Obama shreds the childish notion that elections alone make a democracy…

…you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

An American president calls for Muslim reform, something Amerian evangelicals could take to heart, as well…..

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. ….fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

But without denying all people freedom of religion…

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together.

Human rights, women's rights….

…it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.

Americans can choose to be "bound by the past". Americans can choose to be afraid all the time. Americans can easily be swayed, if we choose to be, encouraged to be afraid by radical extremist opportunists from the conservative movement in America.

And so can Muslims…

There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

Obama's speech was historic and monumental….and that's why American media, for the most part, will ignore its content.

Finally, a postscript on something I blogged about this week.

Note today's AB Journal opinion page. Michael Gerson, former Bush, the Younger speechwriter, bashes Obama for his health care proposals. Jim Hoagland, Washington Post Villager, bashes Obama on American automakers…..AND….without any sense of irony, E.J. Dionne's column about how the corporate media's conservative bias shuts out any liberal policy discussions.

Questions.

Does the United States have any "settlements" that are, like, ongoing? Do our citizens use the word "settlements" to describe standard condo building? When U.S. real estate companies advertise their listings, do they print stuff like, "3 bedroom, 2 bath settlement, cheap"? Ever seen something like that?

Washinton Post writer David Ignatius' column is reprinted in the Beacon today. Demonstrating that he has earned his rightful place in the Village, Ignatius uses the word "settlements" twelve times, and the word, "settlers", twice, in a very short piece pooh-poohing that silly Obama for thinking he can stop the ongoing Israeli theft of Palestinian lands.

Words mean something. When you want words, like, stealing, or theft, to not be applied to what you are doing…..and you are familiar with the arts of deception…..you simply make up a new word to describe what it is you are doing….and then repeat it a zillion times. In the case of radical Israeli's continuing to steal Arab and Palestinian land, the words 'theft', and 'stealing', have been replaced with the more acceptable-yet-meaningless words, "settlements" and "settlers".

You see, radical Jews who confiscate Palestinian land to then build houses for Jews to live in…..are "settlers" moving into their new "settlements." Sounds like "Little House on the Prairie" doesn't it? Visions of covered wagons moving west to stake their "settlement" come to mind. All Norman Rockwell-ish.

Smugly dissing President Obama, Villager Ignatius says…

"He has a rare gift for seeking the middle ground — on race, on national security, even on abortion. But it will be hard to stay in the middle on this one."

Those sentences highlight the way of the Village. First comes the assertion that Obama is a centrist middle-grounder. In just a tad over four months, Obama has declared an end to Gitmo, the Iraq occupation, torture,…..led the Congress to pass an $800 billion stimulus, a huge budget, the Lily Ledbetter Act…..blazed a middle eastern reconciliation trail…..but all of that to Village Dave is part of Obama's "rare gift for seeking the middle ground."

Ignatius is a living, writing example of what's wrong with our corporate media-led discourse. Consider the reasoning here….

Obama said this….

"He has demanded that Israel freeze these settlements, including a loophole for "natural growth," as it's called. "Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward," he said last month at a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Ignatius says this…..

"But it will be hard to stay in the middle on this one (settlements)."

Reread Obama's words. Do those words sound like Obama is holding the "middle" position on the illegal theft of Palestinian lands? Does, "have to be stopped" sound like some centrist, 'I don't care one way or the other' viewpoint on the topic?

When Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton, says this about Jews stealing Palestinian land…..

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that the Obama administration wants a complete halt in the growth of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory, with no exceptions.

President Obama "wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions," Clinton said.

….does Villager Dave Ignatius believe that Hillary is reflecting on a "stay in the middle" position concerning Jewish theft of land that doesn't belong to Jews?

No, Ignatius doesn't believe his own bullsh*t…..he just wants his readers to believe in it. Ignatius is representative of the blighted mindset of those in D.C. who have no idea how the world works. To Ignatius, no American president has been able to stop Israel from stealing Palestinian lands,…..Obama is a non-committal, lukewarm centrist without special distinction who can't take any firm positions….and therefore, no matter what he tells the extremist Jewish prime minister, Netanyahu…..Obama won't stop Israel's ongoing theft of Palestinian lands.

Thanks Dave….it's always fun to read about the incest-riddled thinking of the experts from Washington. The same thinking that led to unanimous Villager cheerleading for the historically-brilliant event of invading Iraq. Stay just as smart as you are….don't ever change.

Last week I blogged about the Pope's astonishly out-of-touch statement about AIDS. Pope Benedict said that "condoms increase the problem" of AIDS in Africa.

Here are a few international responses to what the Vicar said…

A New York Times editorial said the pope 'deserves no credence when he distorts scientific findings' about condoms.

A French foreign minister expressed 'very strong concern'.
He said: 'While it is not up to us to pass a judgement on the doctrines of the Church, we consider that such remarks put in danger public health policy and imperative needs regarding the protection of human life,' a foreign ministry spokesman said.

Belgian Health Minister Laurette Onkelinx said the pope's comments '…reflect a dangerous doctrinaire vision. His declarations could demolish years of prevention and education and endanger many human lives.'

In last weeks' posting I mentioned how the Pope's comment was an example of what Christopher Hitchens said in his book, "God is Not Great". "Religion poisons everything."

Here is another example of the very same truth…..this time concerning the religious doctrines of conservative Jewish leaders….
Reuters, March 20, 2009…

Rabbis in the Israeli army told battlefield troops in January's Gaza offensive they were fighting a "religious war" against gentiles, according to one army commander's account published Friday.

"Their message was very clear: we are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land and now we need to fight to expel the gentiles who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land," he said.

….leaked from a Feb 13 meeting of armed forces members to share their Gaza experiences.

Some veterans, alumni of an Israel Defense Force (IDF) military academy, told of the killing of civilians and their impression that deep contempt for Palestinians pervaded the ranks of the Israeli forces.

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) has put the Palestinian death toll during the war at 1,417 — 926 civilians, 236 fighters and 255 police officers. Israeli officials have disputed those figures. Thirteen Israelis were killed.

One week after the Gaza offensive ended on January18 Israeli human rights group Yesh Din called on Defense Minister Ehud Barak to dismiss the chief chaplain, Rabbi Avichai Rontzki, who holds the rank of brigadier general.

It said he had distributed a booklet to soldiers fighting in the Gaza conflict quoting an ultra-nationalist Israeli rabbi as saying that showing mercy toward a "cruel enemy" was "terribly immoral" and advising soldiers they were fighting "murderers."

Yes, Israel has a perfect right to defend itself. My point here doesn't have anything to do with that right. Instead, the point here is the "poison" that the Jewish religion, at least ultra-nationalist Jewish religion, poured into the Israeli attack of Gazan Palestinians.

Religious poison that resulted in barbaric behaviour, like this….

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) accused Israel on Thursday, January 8, of blocking medical assistance to wounded Palestinians, amid shocking scenes of starving children and dead bodies in the bombed-out Gaza Strip.

"The Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but did not assist the wounded," Pierre Wettach, ICRC chief for Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, said in a statement on the group's website.

"Neither did they make it possible for us or the Palestinian Red Crescent to assist the wounded."

And this….

A United Nations human rights investigator has accused Israel of committing war crimes of the greatest magnitude in Gaza during a deadly offensive in the strip.

"On the basis of the preliminary evidence available, there is reason to reach this conclusion," Richard Falk, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, wrote in an annual report to the UN Human Rights Council cited by Reuters on Thursday, March 19.

In this case, religion was used to justify, or even encourage, barbaric treatment of Palestinians. To what end? To "poison" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even more.

Potent poison….

"Rules of Engagement: Open fire also upon rescue," was handwritten in Hebrew on a sheet of paper found in one of the Palestinian homes the Israel Defense Forces took over during Operation Cast Lead.

As I see it, America, the nation of 300 million, is being held hostage.

It is as if specific and powerful interests have kidnapped the population, placed knives against our collective throats, and then have continually sent ranson notes warning that the kidnappers will slit those throats if the proper authorities do not do exactly as the kidnappers demand.

AIG…

While this morning's "news" is about AIG doling out taxpayer bailout monies to other banks from whom they were taking bookie bets ….here's a piece from one of many ransom notes AIG officials have sent …..

An AIG report to the Treasury Department last month warned that if the government didn't come to its rescue again, its collapse would trigger a "chain reaction of enormous proportion" that would "potentially bankrupt or bring down the entire system" and make it impossible for AIG to repay the billions it already owed the U.S. government.

Four days later, AIG was given $30 billion in federal aid on top of the $130 billion it had already received.

A draft of the report, obtained by ABC News, was marked "strictly confidential." It said, "The failure of AIG would cause turmoil in the U.S. economy and global markets and have multiple and potentially catastrophic unforeseen consequences."

Paraphrasing AIG's kidnapping justification….

'Yeah, we f*cked everything up, we admit that, but if the taxpayers don't give us all the cash we need to pay off our irresponsible gambling debts to all our Big Bank Gambling Buddies, then we can't help it if the nation's collective throat gets slashed. We don't want to do the slashing, but if we don't get the money soon, we have no choice.'

We're being held hostage by huge financial industry giants who are "too big to fail." Huge financial industry players, though totally bankrupt on paper and seemingly powerless, still control the nation. The ransom notes are the evidence.

Foreign policy….

Last week I blogged on the Israeli Lobby's successful 'kidnapping' of American foreign policy interests made manifest in the blackballing of Charles Freeman, named by President Obama to work directly under DNI Director Dennis Blair. Freeman spoke to CNN's Fareed Zakaria yesterday…..

3:35

American foreign policy discussions and decisions, and who is allowed to do the discussing and the deciding, is being held hostage by the extremist right wing Israeli Lobby in America. It's as if the Israeli Lobby in our country has a knife to our collective throats threatening to scream anti-semitism at the top of their lungs if anyone the least bit objective about Israeli policies is allowed to hold an official foreign intelligence position.

The Dick…yesterday….

The Dick, and those who think like the Dick, are still holding the nation for ransom using fear. For 7 years, their ransom note to all of us amounted to….'if we are not permitted to do as we please, including savagery, denying basic rights, extraordinary rendition kidnapping for savage torture purposes, wiretapping Americans at will, establishing secret assassination squads, wars of choice even though fraudulently ginned up, no oversight or accountability of our actions or decisions, and all of this to be done in total secrecy…..if we are not permitted to carry out all these activities…..the nation we're holding hostage, will be harmed, possibly fatally.'

Yesterday, The Dick held up his own ransom note for Obama to read, 'You, President Obama, by your challenging of all of our evil, lying and illegal actions, have made America "less safe."

Schrub and The Dick have been out of power for a couple months, yet they continue to send threatening ransom notes to the nation, and naturally, Village media continue to post those ransom notes.

Media….

In spite of massive public opinion stating opposition to honoring the kidnapping tactics and ransom notes of those mentioned above, (complete with a total rejection in the last election of the tactics used by these same kidnappers)….the Village corporate media has doubled down with their own ransom notes to all of us.

There's the laughable, "average American", Rick Santelli media ransom note, the astonishingly un-self aware "Obama started the fight with lunatic Rush Limbaugh" ransom note, the '2 Republicans for every Democrat' voices heard in the runup to the Obama stimulus bill ransom note, the Obama is doing too much too soon, ransom note, the fashionable 'Obama is a socialist' ransom note that's still circulating…..and on and on I could go.

The corrupt corporate media's ransom note, in real terms, reads like this….

'We know what's best, 300 million Americans do not. Our job is not to investigate and find out what is the truth. Our job is to do the bidding of the most powerful monied interests in our nation. We daily write a "kinder and gentler" ransom note to all of our American captives. We don't want to harm anyone, really, but silly Americans just don't know what they're asking for when they demand that we tell the truth. That's not our role. We can't tell Americans the genuine truth, that would simply be too dangerous.'

The official (whatever that could possibly mean) position of the U.S. government when faced with hostage situations has been to NEVER pay ransom.

Ironically, that's all America ever does.

America still conducts witchhunts after all these years.

You may or may not have been aware of the contrived controversy over the man selected to be the nation's National Intelligence Council head, Charles Freeman. Catch up here, here and here.

Freeman withdrew himself from consideration to the post yesterday after the well organized Israeli Lobby had conducted a successful firewood search to burn Freeman at the public smear stake.

This is of course no surprise. In the U.S. first amendment rights of free speech have been suspended for the sake of Israeli interests.

First, a couple comments from 2 U.S. senators who happen to be Jewish….

Chuckie Schumer (D-NY)

“Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position. His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration. I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing.”

Joementum Lieberman (Asshole-CT)

"…. Freeman is "inclined to lean against Israel or too much in favor of China."

My own sense is that this controversy is not going to go away until you (Dennis Blair) or Ambassador Freeman find a way to resolve it," Lieberman said.

The two circumcised senators say that Charles Freeman is just "way over the top", and "inclined to lean against Israel". Here's a bit of Charles Freeman's "over the top" Israel bashing….

Tragically, despite all the advantages and opportunities Israel has had over the fifty-nine years of its existence, it has failed to achieve concord and reconciliation with anyone in its region, still less to gain their admiration or affection. Instead, with each decade, Israel's behavior has deviated farther from the humane ideals of its founders and the high ethical standards of the religion that most of its inhabitants profess. Israel and the Palestinians, in particular, are caught up in an endless cycle of reprisal and retaliation that guarantees the perpetuation of conflict in which levels of mutual atrocities continue to escalate. As a result, each generation of Israelis and Palestinians has accumulated new reasons to loathe the behavior of the other, and each generation of Arabs has detested Israel with more passion than its predecessor. This is not how peace is made. Here, too, a break with the past and a change in course are clearly in order. Link

Yep….that's some really "over the top", unbalanced stuff alright.

Steven Rosen, a former director of the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC) due to stand trial this April for espionage for Israel, is the leader of the campaign against Freeman’s appointment. See here and here.

It's all about the NIE's (National Intelligence Estimates). Israeli interests don't want honest evaluations from American foreign policy experts about Iran, Syria, etc……..instead, they want to control the content of those NIE's to favor Israel's interests…..

As NIC director, Freeman would oversee the production of National Intelligence Estimates, the consensus judgment of all 16 intelligence agencies—essentially the official analysis of the U.S. government on global realities.

“It’s clear that Freeman isn’t going to be influenced by the lobby,” Jim Lobe, the Washington bureau chief of Inter Press Service, remarked to me. “They don’t like people like that, especially when they’re in charge of products like the NIE. So this is a very important test for them.” Link

A test that America failed and the Israeli Lobby passed.

Josh Marshall on what's acceptable and unacceptable debate topics in the Village…

The real rub, the basis of the whole controversy, however, is that [Freeman] has been far more critical of Israeli policy than is generally allowed within acceptable debate in Washington. . .

The whole effort strikes me as little more than a thuggish effort to keep the already too-constricted terms of debate over the Middle East and Israel/Palestine locked down and largely one-sided. . . . But the gist is that campaigns like this are ugly and should be resisted. Not just on general principles, but because the country needs more diversity of viewpoints on this issue right now.

Chris Nelson, of the Nelson Report, warns of the danger to the Obama administration if they give in to the Israeli Lobby and dismiss Charles Freeman (too late now)……

“If Obama surrenders to the critics and orders [Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair] to rescind the Freeman appointment to chair the NIC, it is difficult to see how he can properly exercise leverage, when needed, in his conduct of policy in the Middle East. That, literally, is how the experts see the stakes of the fight now under way.”

President Obama caved to the Israeli Lobby, choosing the interests of big mouthed Jewish screechers over the interests of the U.S.

Is Israel a strategic partner with the U.S….or….is the U.S. simply Israel's servant?

Gallup has come out with a new poll-map, by state, showing the importance of religion in Americans' daily lives. It seems that, on average, 65% of Americans consider religion important in their daily lives while 35% do not. Ohio ranks 25th, with Ohioans considering religion to be important in their daily lives by 65%.

Importance of religion by state

Now compare Gallup's poll findings on religious importance to the electoral map for the 2008 presidential election.

2008 presidential election by state

Those who read this blog regularly already know where The Reverend stands on the topic of religion. I will always champion the right of all Americans to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit. At the same time I believe that religion, when taken seriously, as 65% of Americans obviously do, is needlessly divisive and socially destructive.

The most religious states, in order, are Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas and Georgia. Those states, coincidentally or not, are also the same states that voted by the largest margins against President Obama. Of the top 15 most religious states according to Gallup, only North Carolina voted in the majority for Obama.

It is true, just as with religious practice, that Americans have the perfect right to vote for anyone they please, regardless of religious beliefs or state residency. Again, at the same time, it is hard to dismiss the correlation of Republican-voting states with the most religious states.

If you are part of the 65%, and usually bristle when reading criticisms of religion….or Republicans, you probably should stop reading about now.

During the presidential campaign, John McCain, representing the Republican Party, targeted, almost exclusively, the GOP base. The choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate was made with this same base in mind. That base, as we see from the maps, is concentrated in the most religious states.

Generally, McCain campaigned on "more of the same" Republican dogma, particularly on national defense and economic issues. Sarah Palin campaigned similarly, although her rhetoric was much more abrasive. More tax cutting primarily benefitting big business, anti-reproductive choice for women, tough, militaristic talk aimed at Muslim countries, even further deregulation for the benefit of corporations, particularly Big Oil, more Supreme Court Justices like Roberts and Alito who favor the powerful at the expense of the weak, a big business-favoring plan for health care, and an overall respect for capital's rights at the expense of labor.

States with a high percentage of religious voters voted overwhelmingly for that platform….in some cases even in higher percentages than they did for Bush in the two previous elections.

The Christian Saviour, whom these religious voters worship, taught, almost exclusively, contrary to the GOP platform. Jesus spoke out against the powerful, the wealthy, the religious, the warmongers, the intolerant, the hypocrites,…..but he ALWAYS taught his followers to help the powerless, society's marginalized, the unclean, the poor, the outcasts, the oppressed. Jesus taught peace, not violence and war. Jesus spoke his harshest words to the most religious, those who elevated in importance the trivial over basic human concerns.

The American states where religion is seen as extremely important in daily life are the same states that voted overwhelmingly against the teachings of their Teacher. The American states where religion is regarded as extremely important in daily life voted overwhelmingly for our nation's most powerful and against the common human concerns of our nation's, and the world's, powerless.

These religious voters seek to defend their support for the powerful, the militaristic, and the wealthy by reverting to old pious sounding arguments over zygotes, taboo sexual orientations, fears of the "Other", "Christian" nation sponsorship of religious symbols, loving the sinner and hating the sin, defense of the Chosen at the expense of the ghettoized, and the use of violence for peaceful(!) purposes.

Wouldn't the Christian Master, if he were alive today on earth, say the same words he spoke to the most religious in his day? Wouldn't Jesus, today, still speak the same words to those who ALWAYS favored the powerful over the powerless in his day?

Wouldn't he?

Londoners Saturday protesting self-censoring BBC

This is truly disgusting.

In more than 80 years as a publicly financed broadcaster with an audience of millions at home and around the world, the BBC has rarely been buffeted as severely as it has in recent days over its decision not to broadcast a television appeal by aid agencies for victims of Israel’s recent military actions in Gaza.

Was the "appeal" controversial? Was the "appeal" full of secret decoder ring nuances signaling the Islamofascists to strike?

The three-minute video, which was shown on several other channels in Britain on Monday night, was prepared by the Disasters Emergency Committee, an organization representing 11 relief agencies. Among them are many of Britain’s best-known charities, including the Red Cross, Oxfam, Save the Children, Help the Aged, Christian Aid and World Vision.

The committee has said the money it raises will buy food, medical supplies, tents, blankets and other necessities for those suffering in Gaza in the wake of the Israeli offensive and the military actions of Hamas, the militant Palestinian group that governs Gaza. Link

Seriously now….The Reverend is a peaceful person….but I would like to kick some BBC ass over this detestable action. Just think about the pressure the BBC must be under by Israeli influences for them to refuse to air a 3 MINUTE RELIEF APPEAL.

Israel planned their slaughter in Gaza for a year. Included in their plan were steps to co-opt media organizations. Journalists were not permitted into Gaza until after Israel's military left. No journalists were allowed in before Israel stopped it's vicious attacks, attacks which left over 1300 Palestinians dead, hundreds of them women and children.

While the Gazan cleansing was underway, Israel kept the borders sealed, only permitting humanitarian aid in when they said so. Gaza is in shambles now. Already ghettoized Gazans have seen their conditions deteriorate, life's necessities threatened.

But the f*cking BBC, the spineless, immoral f*cks that they are, threw out a few weasel words to justify their unjustifiable action….

But the BBC’s director general, Mark Thompson, denied Monday to reporters that he had been subjected to “arm-twisting” by pro-Israeli groups and said that the corporation had a duty to cover the Gaza dispute in a “balanced, objective way.”

“Of course, everyone is struck by the human consequence of what has happened,” he said. “And we will, I promise you, continue to report that as fully and compassionately as we can. But we are going to do that in a way where we can hold it up to scrutiny. It’s our job as journalists.”

You see, in today's world, airing a 3 f*cking minute long appeal for charitable donations for ghettoized Palestinians crushed by brutal Israeli military attacks wouldn't be "objective".

But the BBC has aired humanitarian appeals before…..

The BBC does not accept advertising but has shown humanitarian appeals on other issues, including the conflicts in Rwanda, Congo and Darfur.

The BBC has permitted advertising like this numerous times before….so what's the difference now?

But to broadcast the appeal for aid to Gaza, BBC executives said, might compromise the impartiality of its Middle East coverage.

“We worry about being seen to endorse something which could give people the impression that we were backing one side,” Mr. Thompson said on the BBC’s Web site.

To recognize the suffering of Gazans, to recognize the suffering of Gazans caused by the Israeli military using American weaponry, to even see pictures of what Israel's highly sophisticated killing machine did to a defenseless, cornered group of 1.4 million Palestinians…..
would be seen as "backing one side".

Jesus, where are the bolts of lightning when you really need them?

P.S. Wanna know who else refused to air the humanitarian appeal?

The BBC was joined in its refusal to carry the appeal by Sky News, an independent broadcaster with a widely watched news channel.

One third of Sky News' is owned by….wait for it….Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame. Fair and f*cking balanced propaganda.

Palestinian girl gathering up what's left.

Night after night during the Vietnam conflict, American news programs displayed pictures and gave firsthand reports from the quagmire there. Naturally, hawkish politicos complained that the media was skewing their coverage, turning Americans against the mindless conflict in the jungles of southeast Asia.

Karl Rove learned the Vietnam lesson. The way to conduct a war of choice was to co-opt the media. Control them in a different way. Get them on your side.

Judith Miller, formerly of the New York Times, was used as Cheney's bitch in the cock-up fraud leading up to invading the sovereign country of Iraq. She wasn't a Lone Ranger. Google "curveball" and follow the links.

Then came the "embedded journalists". Objectivity be damned. W's pasty-faced Turdblossom was able to guarantee favorable reports from that "grave and gathering danger" zone by following the old adage…."if you can't beat them, make them join you."

Seems as if Israel, in their three week butchery campaign in the Gaza Strip, learned a thing or two from Mr. Rove. Last night, Rachel Maddow, finally, had a piece on Israel's terror war against Palestinians in Gaza.

Start at about the 2:15 mark and listen to what Richard Engels, from Gaza City, had to say about Israeli control of media….

Engels said that Israel had this attack planned for A YEAR. The timing of Israel's pullout just before a new U.S. administration was sworn in was, "never a coincidence." Israel had a "window to operate" at the end of W's administration and just BEFORE Obama took office. Obama might take away Israel's "free hand", Engels said of Israel's motivation.

"The media plan that Israel put in effect was also very well studied. They knew that eventually reporters would get in…..It was also assumed that by the time there would be a massive amount of coverage of Gaza, news organizations would have already moved on…people would be covering events from where you are in D.C, Rachel….and there wouldn't be anything left to talk about", Engels said.

Engels spoke to a senior Israeli official "about ten days ago" who said, "we're going to need about ten more days" before journalists can go into Gaza, "there'll be a lot of damage" but "nobody will be interested anymore at that stage."

No one will care about the 1300 murdered Palestinians, most civilians, hundreds children…..no one will care about the massive destruction of everything Gazans depend upon for daily life.

"Nobody will be interested anymore."

That kind of planning…..whether done by Karl Rove or Israeli leaders….is what I call "wickedness in high places."

Too bad there's no hell.