[political-research] Michael Ledeen Plays the Antisemitism Card Against Ron Paul
[It's really difficult not to notice the core agenda driving Michael Ledeen, is it -- he screams it at the world in a jumble of emotionally excited and confused words. This guy is a militant ethnic nationalist, promoting an ideology whose values, interests and objectives are radically at odds with the vast majority of Americans. What he understands as his self-interest is on a collision course with the self-interest of Americans.] [File this under Neocon Attacks on Americans over Israel -- a gigantic database by now indeed.] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: *Neo-cons* must be running scared of Ron Paul via Google Blog Search: neocon OR neo-cons OR neoconservative OR neo-conservative OR neoconservatives OR neo-conservatives OR neoconservatism OR neo-conservatism by Gadfly on Jul 30, 2007 In National Review, AEI scholar Michael Ledeen fires a shotgun blast at Paul, including the old canard that anti-Zionism equates to anti-Semitism. With lies like that, neoconservatives have nobody to blame but themselves. ... Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on Google Blog Search: neocon OR neo-cons OR neoconservative OR neo-conservative OR neoconservatives OR neo-conservatives OR neoconservatism OR neo-conservatism - Subscribe to Google Blog Search: neocon OR neo-cons OR neoconservative OR neo-conservative OR neoconservatives OR neo-conservatives OR neoconservatism OR neo-conservatism using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
[political-research] On the Coprolalia/Tourette Syndome Front
[Notice the toilet imagery here, and check out recent posts on Little Green Footballs and Atlas Shrugs angrily defending Stanislav Shmulevich. Also check out Pamela Geller Oshry, with a stupid grin on her face, giving Cindy Sheehan the finger in a photo she posts with pride. There is a strong association among zealots of this particular variety between obscenity used as an instrument of sadism and brutality and messianic ethnic nationalism. The psychological/rhetorical syndrome is impossible to miss once you notice it.] [Now: what conceivable response do they imagine they will provoke with these obscene verbal attacks other than extreme disgust? What's the game plan here on their part? There is no plan: obsessive-compulsives operate robotically, with no strategic planning or calcuations of long-term cause and effect. They are venting.] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Pace University Mindcrime Update via Little Green Footballs on Jul 30, 2007 Stanislav Shmulevich, as you may know, was charged last week with two felony counts for dunking a Koran in a toilet at New York's Pace University when he was a student there. This morning, offers to help him fight this outrage have been pouring in. There are several attorneys involved, and as soon as there's a way for interested people to contact the defense team, I'll post it here. Thanks to everyone who's emailed and offered assistance; this story has really touched a nerve among Americans who value free expression and refuse to be bullied by CAIR and the MSA and their Wahhabist masters. I'm not going to be the coordinator (schedule's already insane!) but I'll let you know who is. Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on Little Green Footballs - Subscribe to Little Green Footballs using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
[political-research] Iraq: One in Seven Joins Human Tide Spilling into Neighbouring Countries
[The neocon objective from the outset was to destroy Iraq, not to bring democracy to the Middle East. The neocons despise democracy in the United States and are working to destroy it -- why would they value democracy in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world? They have the mentality of KGB bureaucrats on crack cocaine (messianic and apocalyptic ethnic nationalism).] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Iraq: One in Seven Joins Human Tide Spilling into Neighbouring Countries via CommonDreams.org by CommonDreams.org on Jul 30, 2007 SULAYMANIYAH - Two thousand Iraqis are fleeing their homes every day. It is the greatest mass exodus of people ever in the Middle East and dwarfs anything seen in Europe since the Second World War. Four million people, one in seven Iraqis, have run away, because if they do not they will be killed. Two [...] Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on CommonDreams.org - Subscribe to CommonDreams.org using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
[political-research] On War Profiteering in the Middle East
[Follow the money; who benefits. Bloodletting in the Middle East is a gold mine for the military-industrial complex -- blood translates to an enormous transfer of wealth from the common wealth to the arms manufacturers and dealers.] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: U.S. announces arms deals to Middle East countries (Reuters) via Yahoo! News: Most Viewed - Top Stories on Jul 30, 2007 Reuters - The United States on Monday announced a proposed $13 billion military aid package for Egypt and a $30 billion package for Israel, along with plans to provide such aid to Saudi Arabia and Gulf states. Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on Yahoo! News: Most Viewed - Top Stories - Subscribe to Yahoo! News: Most Viewed - Top Stories using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
[political-research] YubNub
[Indispensable tool -- a Web-based Slickrun. The command line lives.] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: YubNub via About Web Search on Jul 30, 2007 YubNub is a treasury of user-submitted shortcuts that enable you to search the Web more quickly and efficiently. I use YubNub constantly throughout the day for my most frequent Web... Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on About Web Search - Subscribe to About Web Search using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
[political-research] Was Pat Tillman Murdered? Absolutely Yes, According to A Nam Vet
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Was Pat Tillman Murdered? Absulutely Yes, according to A Nam Vet via OpEdNews - OpEdNews.Com Progressive, Tough Liberal News and Opinion on Jul 30, 2007 Bill Perry knows a lot about shooting people in the head. He did it in Viet Nam, and he knows how the ballistics work. He's pretty sure about Tillman Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on OpEdNews - OpEdNews.Com Progressive, Tough Liberal News and Opinion - Subscribe to OpEdNews - OpEdNews.Com Progressive, Tough Liberal News and Opinion using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
[political-research] Coming of Age in Bush's America!
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Coming of Age in Bush's America! via TvNewsLIES.org by Reggie on Jul 30, 2007 By Reggie, Contributing Editor, TvNewsLIES.org Imagine being on the brink of adolescence in the year 2000, - only minimally aware of the world around you, and really not into the foibles of politics or politicians. Life was what it was, and you took it pretty much for granted. In fact, for you and other young teens in 2000; things seemed pretty good and getting better, because you were growing up in the richest and most powerful nation in the whole damn world. It wasn't a perfect place, for sure, but it had potential. There were wrongs to be righted, but there was real hope that things would only get better as the years went on. All in all, in the year 2000, being a kid in America was a good thing to be. Now imagine that it is seven years later and you have just grown into adulthood, and you gradually realize that in a frighteningly short a time your entire world has become unraveled. In just seven years, everything good that once was there is gone, and your country has come apart at the seams before your very eyes. Really think about these last seven years and recoil at what it actually means to have come of age in Bush's America, To assist your reality check, here's a short list the mind-boggling transformations that have become standard operating procedure in the good old USA. Read them carefully:* * The outcome of an a presidential election can be decided by a handful of Supreme Court Justices rather than the people. * A President of the United States need not speak honestly, coherently or intelligibly when not reading from a prepared text. It is acceptable for the President to be reviled around the globe and to be unable to travel anywhere without extraordinary protection from huge protests against his visit and his policies. * Where it was once highly respected, the United States of America is now the most feared nation on Earth. The US can murder more civilians than all the world's terrorists combined and claim its actions are meant to liberate people. * The major tools of executive governance are lies, secrecy and the abuse of executive privilege. These methods are implemented under the guise of national security in order to thwart any and all departmental oversight. * Voting machines can be privately owned by members of one political party, and need not have paper trails for verifying results. It is irrelevant to the election process that voting machines have been shown to be easily hacked, and that voting irregularities have prevented many thousands of people from voting or having their votes counted. * Elected leaders and their cohorts can lie with impunity to the American people, to the Congress, to the UN and to the world. There is no oversight; there are no checks and balances, and no mainstream media to act as watchdogs for the people. * The President can quietly override the will of the people by the use of signing statements. He can claim the authority to disobey hundreds of laws enacted by Congress, thereby asserting the power to set aside any statute when it conflicts with his personal interpretation of the Constitution. * The 2001 attack on American soil need not be fully investigated, and the causes of the attacks as explained by the President must be believed without question. * Any questions raised about that attack, and all the evidence exposing the anomalies of the official story of what happened are nothing more than 'conspiracy theories' raised by deranged people or those who sympathize with terrorists. * Pre-emptive and preventive attacks on other nations that include use of nuclear weapons are legal tools of American foreign policy. * Wars can be waged against benign nations that have never harmed the US or posed any threat whatever to Americans or their allies. * The reasons for invading and occupying non-threatening nations must not be challenged, even if they change dozens of times throughout the years of waging such a war. * Soldiers can be sent into an immoral and unjust war with little planning and inadequate armor, and unending redeployment. At the same time, veterans' health care is unimportant and can be shamefully administered. * Terror threats can be fabricated at will to keep the public in a state of constant fear. Creating an illusory 'war on terror' can be used to gain public support for a costly and failing war that reaps huge profits for private contractors. * Americans and others living in the US can be spied upon without probable cause and without the acquisition of warrants in defiance of existing FISA laws. * Anyone can be declared an enemy combatant at the whim of the administration and can be confined indefinitely without being charged or having access to counsel. * Torturing detainees in violation of the Geneva Convention is acceptable, and if in doubt, rendition to countries that will do the torturing is a viable
[political-research] Kombat Kagan
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Kombat Kagan via ePluribus Media Community on Jul 30, 2007 Fred Kagan wants you to have faith in the Iraq surge strategy. You might expect that he would. Kagan is, after all, the strategy's chief architect. A darling of the neoconservative elite, Kagan is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and was associated with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) which his brother Robert co-founded... Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on ePluribus Media Community - Subscribe to ePluribus Media Community using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
[political-research] The Real Washington Post
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Josh Marshall (Talking Points Memo): As Bad as Bush via FAIR Media Views by Josh Marshall (Talking Points Memo) on Jul 30, 2007 The blogger finds a rare opportunit[y] for mirth in watching Fred Hiatt, czar of the Washington Post editorial page, try to kick up enough dust to wriggle out of his own position on the war. Noting that because of its reputation as a non-conservative paper, the Post's fatuous and frequently mendacious editorializing has without doubt had a greater role in pushing the public debate into the war camp than any other editorial page in the nation, Marshall sees in a July 21 editorialMr. Hiatt's desire to take a nominal and meaningless, a purely semantic point of agreement--that everyone would like to have most U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq--and stretch it so thin that it can cover most members of the Senate [and] the president Meanwhile the key questions that are the meat of the debate become points of detail that the members of the grand consensus still need to hash out Hiatt and the Post editorial crew...want to twist and distort and most of all stretch the terms of the debate so far as to appear to come out on the prevailing side of the public debate even as they never actually change their position. Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on FAIR Media Views - Subscribe to FAIR Media Views using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
Re: [political-research] The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op, trying to pass itself off as a liberal institution -- the algorithm couldn't be more simple.] Elsewhere, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, I never assert as fact that which isn't backed up by irrefutable proof. Why would anyone want to appear to the world as someone who cannot distinguish fantasy and speculation from hard fact? REPLY Can you provide the irrefutable proof for your statment above re: The New York Times? [The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op, trying to pass itself off as a liberal institution -- the algorithm couldn't be more simple.] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda via Consortiumnews.com on Jul 30, 2007 The Bush administration is gearing up its Iraq War propaganda again, with the New York Times back in its role as credulous straight man. On its op-ed page, the Times published a pro-surge article by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, allowing the pair to present themselves as harsh critics of the Iraq War grudgingly won over by the promising facts on the ground. Left out of this happy tale of conversion was that O'Hanlon and Pollack have long favored a beefed-up occupation of Iraq. July 30, 2007 Things you can do from here: Visit the original item on Consortiumnews.com Subscribe to Consortiumnews.com using Google Reader Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites - Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
Re: [political-research] The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda
I can think of six major items of proof off the top of my head: 1. A.M. Rosenthal 2. David Brooks 3. Judith Miller 4. Michael Gordon 5. Thomas Friedman 6. William Safire The New York Times has prominently promoted the neoconservative agenda for decades now, including most recently the Iraq War, by offering leading neocons a prominent voice on its pages, both in reporting (Miller and Gordon) and in the op-ed section (Rosenthal, Safire and Brooks). Please don't try to make the argument that the Times is simply being balanced by presenting both liberal and conservative views -- the Times rarely publishes the views of traditional conservatives. The predominant weight of the New York Times was behind the Iraq War -- at no time did this supposedly eminent journalistic institution perform due diligence in questioning the neocons about their crackpot logic for the war. They were given a free ride. Compare the Times on the run-up to the war with the honest reporting and analysis at Knight Ridder. The New York Times and the Washington Post are two neocon peas in a pod. No matter: mainstream media outlets are history. If they hadn't burned themselves with dishonest journalism, and ruined their credibility on the rocks of the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history, the Internet would have taken them down anyway. No loss here whatever; all gain. New York Times hirelings are not competitive in the free marketplace of ideas. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op, trying to pass itself off as a liberal institution -- the algorithm couldn't be more simple.] Elsewhere, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, I never assert as fact that which isn't backed up by irrefutable proof. Why would anyone want to appear to the world as someone who cannot distinguish fantasy and speculation from hard fact? REPLY Can you provide the irrefutable proof for your statment above re: The New York Times? [The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op, trying to pass itself off as a liberal institution -- the algorithm couldn't be more simple.] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda via Consortiumnews.com on Jul 30, 2007 The Bush administration is gearing up its Iraq War propaganda again, with the New York Times back in its role as credulous straight man. On its op-ed page, the Times published a pro-surge article by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, allowing the pair to present themselves as harsh critics of the Iraq War grudgingly won over by the promising facts on the ground. Left out of this happy tale of conversion was that O'Hanlon and Pollack have long favored a beefed-up occupation of Iraq. July 30, 2007 Things you can do from here: Visit the original item on Consortiumnews.com Subscribe to Consortiumnews.com using Google Reader Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites - Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
Re: [political-research] The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda
To understand just deep the anger against the New York Times runs in American politics these days, follow the reaction in the blogosphere to the O'Hanlon and Pollack article on Iraq: Google Blog Search [New York Times Pollack] http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?q=New+York+Times+Pollackscoring=d Color the New York Times finito. You can follow the discussion and commentary in real time with an RSS feed. People have had enough of this scheiss from neocon ne'er-do-wells who should find another line of work entirely. It's difficult to understand why Arthur Sulzberger Jr. still hasn't gotten the message. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op, trying to pass itself off as a liberal institution -- the algorithm couldn't be more simple.] Elsewhere, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, I never assert as fact that which isn't backed up by irrefutable proof. Why would anyone want to appear to the world as someone who cannot distinguish fantasy and speculation from hard fact? REPLY Can you provide the irrefutable proof for your statment above re: The New York Times? [The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op, trying to pass itself off as a liberal institution -- the algorithm couldn't be more simple.] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda via Consortiumnews.com on Jul 30, 2007 The Bush administration is gearing up its Iraq War propaganda again, with the New York Times back in its role as credulous straight man. On its op-ed page, the Times published a pro-surge article by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, allowing the pair to present themselves as harsh critics of the Iraq War grudgingly won over by the promising facts on the ground. Left out of this happy tale of conversion was that O'Hanlon and Pollack have long favored a beefed-up occupation of Iraq. July 30, 2007 Things you can do from here: Visit the original item on Consortiumnews.com Subscribe to Consortiumnews.com using Google Reader Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites - Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
[political-research] The Sounds of Silence -- How Sweet It Would Be
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: The Sounds of Silence -- How Sweet It Would Be via Antiwar.com Blog by Justin Raimondo on Jul 30, 2007 Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon, two top Democratic party foreign policy mavens, were instrumental in bringing around the Democrats in the run-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Now they're back, with more advice: we're winning and the surge needs to go on until at least 2008. And we should listen to them ... exactly why? Their predictions weren't all that great last time around. Here's Pollack on the eve of the invasion: I believe that we are going to have to go war with Iraq sooner rather than later. The reason that it has to be sooner rather than later is because of Iraq's development of nuclear weapons. ... the problem is that containment was a good policy when it was put in place, but by 1996, '98, we realized that it really was failing. The inspectors weren't finding anything. The Iraqis had gotten so good at hiding their weapons of mass destruction that the inspectors just couldn't find anything. The reason they weren't finding anything is because nothing was there. But that wasn't an option for Senor Pollack. After all, he had an agenda ... O'Hanlon had -- has? -- an identical agenda, and was similarly completely, utterly, and totally wrong about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction: What we know for a fact from a number of defectors who've come out of Iraq over the years is that Saddam Hussein is absolutely determined to acquire nuclear weapons and is building them as fast as he can. And this nonsense, uttered in the winter of 2003: Democrats implicitly assume that Iraq will still be as big a national problem come election time next fall. That assumption is probably wrong. For one thing, a number of trends in Iraq today--in the education and health sectors, in electricity levels, in availability of fuels for cooking and heating, and in market activity--are more positive than commonly appreciated. Perhaps most crucially, U.S. troops in Iraq will almost surely be fewer in number--and less exposed to attack--come next fall. Tell me this: why in the name of all that's holy should anybody listen to these guys -- about anything? What this warmongering duo needs to do is take a vow of silence for the next decade or so. Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on Antiwar.com Blog - Subscribe to Antiwar.com Blog using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
[political-research] Max Blumenthal
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Max Blumenthal via Antiwar.com Blog by Scott Horton on Jul 30, 2007 Download audio file (07_07_30_blumenthal.mp3) Max Blumenthal discusses the theology and politics of John Hagee's Christians United for Israel as he documented for the Huffington Post. MP3 here. (20:17) Max Blumenthal is a Puffin Foundation writing fellow at the Nation Institute based in New York City. His work has appeared in The Nation, Salon, The American Prospect, The Huffington Post and the Washington Monthly. He is a research fellow for Media Matters for America. Click here to read his blog. Related: Bill Barnwell from March 27th. Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on Antiwar.com Blog - Subscribe to Antiwar.com Blog using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
Re: [political-research] The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda
Still waiting for the irrefutable proof that The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op. I'm not sure how listing names amounts to irrefutable proof that a major newspaper is an operation of a foreign government. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can think of six major items of proof off the top of my head: 1. A.M. Rosenthal 2. David Brooks 3. Judith Miller 4. Michael Gordon 5. Thomas Friedman 6. William Safire The New York Times has prominently promoted the neoconservative agenda for decades now, including most recently the Iraq War, by offering leading neocons a prominent voice on its pages, both in reporting (Miller and Gordon) and in the op-ed section (Rosenthal, Safire and Brooks). Please don't try to make the argument that the Times is simply being balanced by presenting both liberal and conservative views -- the Times rarely publishes the views of traditional conservatives. The predominant weight of the New York Times was behind the Iraq War -- at no time did this supposedly eminent journalistic institution perform due diligence in questioning the neocons about their crackpot logic for the war. They were given a free ride. Compare the Times on the run-up to the war with the honest reporting and analysis at Knight Ridder. The New York Times and the Washington Post are two neocon peas in a pod. No matter: mainstream media outlets are history. If they hadn't burned themselves with dishonest journalism, and ruined their credibility on the rocks of the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history, the Internet would have taken them down anyway. No loss here whatever; all gain. New York Times hirelings are not competitive in the free marketplace of ideas. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op, trying to pass itself off as a liberal institution -- the algorithm couldn't be more simple.] Elsewhere, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, I never assert as fact that which isn't backed up by irrefutable proof. Why would anyone want to appear to the world as someone who cannot distinguish fantasy and speculation from hard fact? REPLY Can you provide the irrefutable proof for your statment above re: The New York Times? [The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op, trying to pass itself off as a liberal institution -- the algorithm couldn't be more simple.] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda via Consortiumnews.com on Jul 30, 2007 The Bush administration is gearing up its Iraq War propaganda again, with the New York Times back in its role as credulous straight man. On its op-ed page, the Times published a pro-surge article by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, allowing the pair to present themselves as harsh critics of the Iraq War grudgingly won over by the promising facts on the ground. Left out of this happy tale of conversion was that O'Hanlon and Pollack have long favored a beefed-up occupation of Iraq. July 30, 2007 Things you can do from here: Visit the original item on Consortiumnews.com Subscribe to Consortiumnews.com using Google Reader Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites - Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. - Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
Re: [political-research] The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda
Op doesn't mean a formal Israeli operation. What it means is that the New York Times is obsessively preoccupied with the problems and interests of Israel compared to those of other foreign governments around the world. This obsession explains why it went along with neocon schemes for an Iraq War with nary a peep of protest or any honest investigative journalism, such as that conducted by Knight Ridder. Most of us who are regular readers of the Times, and who know well the specific content of the writers I mentioned, don't need to perform a content analysis of the paper for a few decades to understand precisely from where they are coming. But a content analysis could be done, that's for sure. Taking a close look at the affiliations of all those journalists and pundits who promoted the Iraq War in the pages of the New York Times and Washington Post in the years 2002 and 2003 would be revealing indeed. Most of them were not associated with the India lobby or the Japan lobby or the France lobby. Most of them were in fact associated with neocon think tanks and research centers. You might start with Judith Miller's connections to Lewis Libby, Laurie Mylroie and the AEI (American Enterprise Institute). tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still waiting for the irrefutable proof that The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op. I'm not sure how listing names amounts to irrefutable proof that a major newspaper is an operation of a foreign government. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can think of six major items of proof off the top of my head: 1. A.M. Rosenthal 2. David Brooks 3. Judith Miller 4. Michael Gordon 5. Thomas Friedman 6. William Safire The New York Times has prominently promoted the neoconservative agenda for decades now, including most recently the Iraq War, by offering leading neocons a prominent voice on its pages, both in reporting (Miller and Gordon) and in the op-ed section (Rosenthal, Safire and Brooks). Please don't try to make the argument that the Times is simply being balanced by presenting both liberal and conservative views -- the Times rarely publishes the views of traditional conservatives. The predominant weight of the New York Times was behind the Iraq War -- at no time did this supposedly eminent journalistic institution perform due diligence in questioning the neocons about their crackpot logic for the war. They were given a free ride. Compare the Times on the run-up to the war with the honest reporting and analysis at Knight Ridder. The New York Times and the Washington Post are two neocon peas in a pod. No matter: mainstream media outlets are history. If they hadn't burned themselves with dishonest journalism, and ruined their credibility on the rocks of the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history, the Internet would have taken them down anyway. No loss here whatever; all gain. New York Times hirelings are not competitive in the free marketplace of ideas. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op, trying to pass itself off as a liberal institution -- the algorithm couldn't be more simple.] Elsewhere, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, I never assert as fact that which isn't backed up by irrefutable proof. Why would anyone want to appear to the world as someone who cannot distinguish fantasy and speculation from hard fact? REPLY Can you provide the irrefutable proof for your statment above re: The New York Times? [The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op, trying to pass itself off as a liberal institution -- the algorithm couldn't be more simple.] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda via Consortiumnews.com on Jul 30, 2007 The Bush administration is gearing up its Iraq War propaganda again, with the New York Times back in its role as credulous straight man. On its op-ed page, the Times published a pro-surge article by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, allowing the pair to present themselves as harsh critics of the Iraq War grudgingly won over by the promising facts on the ground. Left out of this happy tale of conversion was that O'Hanlon and Pollack have long favored a beefed-up occupation of Iraq. July 30, 2007 Things you can do from here: Visit the original item on Consortiumnews.com Subscribe to Consortiumnews.com using Google Reader Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites - Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. - Fussy?
