ISRAEL DESTROYS GAZA

What is happening?

November 5th, 2008 Israeli Defense Forces broke the truce with Hamas, killing 5 in an assault on a "kidnapping tunnel." Over the past three days the IAF massacre from above killing hundreds as it supposedly attacks terrorists. Israel claims the right to defend itself under Article 51 of the UN charter. But are Gazans not supposed to respond to the 40 year occupation, 4 year siege, and intermittent attacks and blockades from Israel? What can possibly result from this overwhelming assault on a defenseless people?

What will happen?

It is clear that peace is further away than ever in Palestine. How will this affect the Muslim world's approach to the West? Maybe the world's Muslims will think "there is not too much glory and valor involved in flying over a giant prison and firing at its people using helicopters and fighter jets." Maybe this and not the Koran has something to do with Islamic terror? At least that's what the 9-11 Commission said.

How did it happen?

Since the withdrawal in 2005, Israel has maintained a siege on Gaza turning on and off power at will, illegally freezing vital funds, blocking passage at Rafah and Gaza crossings in and out at will. All this as it tells the world it has withdrawn from Gaza. We are not too far from summer 2006 and the bloody assault on Gaza ( a supposed rescue mission for one soldier kidnapped in a reprisal - Gilad Shalit) that preceded the killing of 1,000 in Lebanon.



Expressing the democratic wishes of Gazans, Hamas has consistently demanded to see such restrictions lifted and seemed reluctant to renew the ceasefire without such guarantees. Despite Israeli attacks on alleged militants and seven to ten rockets fired from Gaza, by Sunday December 22nd it looked like a restoration of the truce was possible with Turkish and Egyptian mediation.

Israel had bigger plans and seemingly used the expiration of the truce as a time to implement them. Again, civilian deaths are a part of the plan or at least not considered. Even an Israeli newspaper admits that " little to no weight was apparently devoted to the question of harming innocent civilians."

However, after months of a successful truce, by now Israel is determined not to treat the democratic representatives of Palestinians as equals or treat the Palestinians as deserving of any rights or liberties. So says Israeli historian Tom Segev as he sees Israel "striking at the Palestinians to 'teach them a lesson.'
This wont work, he says. Afterall, Israel's mass killing leaves a people with nothing to lose and no way out. The real solution would have come with efforts to refine and restore the truce last week. When this mass killing is over, there will still be one alternative says Segev: "Ending the siege of Gaza and allowing freedom of movement between Gaza and the West Bank [that] could rehabilitate life in the Strip."



Samira Balousha carries her son, Muhammed, while crying over the body of her 4-year-old daughter, Jawaher, during the funeral for Jawaher and her four sisters, who died in an Israeli airstrike on the mosque next to their house in Gaza.

Disappearing pages at WBSM sites

WBSM Race bait amid financial scandal

"High cost to racial hyping" says WBSM host

The Lie:

1. WBSM have been peddling a youtube video that allegedly shows black Dems in 2004 preventing reform of of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
2. WBSM have claimed that "social engineering" and affirmative action have helped fuel the mortgage crisis.
3. WBSM have claimed that McCain and the GOP stepped up to save the financial system from Fan and Fred.

The Truth:

1. The 2004 video has no relation to sub prime market failure. It shows a committee hearing with Housing regulators critiquing accounting systems at Fan and Fred. Sub prime mortgages are not at issue in the '04 hearing, not a big part of Fannie and Freddie in 2004, and not even mentioned in the whole 7 hours of hearings.
2. Directing loans to minorities and the CRA has no relation to crisis.
3. Fan and Fred are a small or secondary domino of the crisis. Dems were at the forefront of reform, being the only ones to successfully pass reform acts.


The Details:
1420 White Male Angst Radio has been spending numerous hours slamming Bill Clinton's actions on Redlining and the Carter era Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) as "Social engineering" i.e. affirmative action. They forget that redlining was a real issue with real prosecutions and evidence of bias. A bigger gaffe is the assault on the Community Reinvestment Act as a sort of "social engineering" to direct loans to African Americans.

On the CRA

Truth is, the CRA doesn't even apply to the loans made and bought by the main firms in trouble on Wall St. It applies mainly to depository institutions, and is working just fine. Despite the local GOP defending the poor folks on Wall St from minorities, there is no evidence that those investing in, selling, and repacking sub prime loans were motivated in any way by fear of redlining or the non applicable CRA. There's about as much evidence for that as the Michelle Malkin race bait that illegal alien mortgages are behind the crisis ( also pushed out on WMAR).

Black, like Obama


The hosts have repeatedly played a snappily edited youtube video , which shows various African American democrats grilling investigators, as proof of Democrats blocking reform of Fannie and Freddie and hence failing to avert the current crisis. This emulates the racism of the McCain campaign ads (where Franklin Raines and Kwame KIlpatrick are linked to Obama by virtue of the fact that they are African American).


Trouble is, the House hearing being played in the clip has nothing to do with subprime mortgages. And sub prime mortgages are the root cause of the current bust. In the video an Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight report is discussed, a report that had NOTHING TO DO with sub prome mortgages. In fact
an old SEC report filing by Fannie says of the 2004/2005 period:

We did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005.

The video is full of other falsehoods, claiming Fan and Fred themselves made mortgages ( to minorities of course), that Franklin Raines was criminally implicated ( that's a new one). Once again, committee members are talking about an entirely different matter - accounting reform at Fan and Fred. Accordingly:

Although under Raines, Fannie Mae invested in some securities backed by subprime loans, it didn't start buying subprime and Alt-A loans directly (and bundling them into securities) until late 2004 AFTER the accounting scandal.

Misreading the calendar
If you understand the legislative process you would get this focus on accounting.In fact, the first clue comes shortly into the video when Chris Shays mentions that Fan Mae, Fred Mac were not subject to the accounting reform Sarbanes-Oxley act.

If you understood Wall St, you would get that Fan and Fred assumed, but did not originate, bad mortgages.

If you understood the common Gregorian calendar you would understand that 2004 is not 2005, is not 2008. Mortgage reliability was violated elsewhere and later on, and is not relevant to the video.

And yet, a quote or two from Barney Frank in '03 is supposed to seal the sub prime indictment on the Democratss? When one actually looks at the Democrat approach to reform and regulation of Fan and Fred, what do we see?

On Democrats




We see that Democrats, including those featured in the video, were strongly pro reform and eventually succeeded despite GOP opposition. That's quite a contrast to the WMAR 1420 youtube fairy tale.

Of the African Americans attacked in the youtube clip:

Arthur Davis actually voted for a successful house bill (HR 1461) to improve regulation of Fannie and Freddie in 2005.

Gregory Meeks ( also set up in the video) praised the same 2005 bill (HR 1461) as "true bipartisanship" and, like Barney Frank, regretted that the "excellent bill" had been sunk by a GOP amendment that prohibited many non profits from participation.

Maxine Waters ( selectively edited in the video) praised, in 2005, the "bipartisan support for this legislation" and was explicit in claiming that HR 1461 "was a good bill...because..it was going to bring about reform of the GSEs."

So when the Dems are actually on record discussing the actual issue, they are fully backing reform!!

On HR 1461
And guess what? HR 1461 passed the House without much trouble. The only trouble was GOP attempts to keep non profits from potential applicants for competitive housing grants ( causing Meeks, Frank and Waters to vote no).

So with praise and/or support of Democrats the bill went to the Senate , where, WBSM tells us it died in a Senate committee because of Dems. This is another lie, unfortunately. Although WBSM did merely borrow this lie from Amanda Carpenter of the Boston Herald.

On McCain
On his web blog, Ken Pittman lies by saying that McCain "introduced The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005." Trouble is S190 ( Senate version of HR 1461) was not introduced by McCain at all -although he did sign on as a co sponsor. Senators co sponsor hundreds of bills annually.

So what did happened to CHUCK HAGEL'S bill? Well, contrary to Pittman's tale, it actually did make it out of the senate committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs -but too late for congressional action in the GOP's 109th Congress.


On GOP culpability
So why the urge to blame Dems for the "death" of this reform?

Two other developments add to the mystery:

* Ohio Republican Rep. Michael Oxley says that White House ideology scuppered the bi-partisan bill because Bush wanted to kill off Fan and Fred completely.
* Also, we have a Colorado Republican Wayne Allard writing a letter to Senate Majority leader Bill Frist in May 2006 urging that the bill be brought to the Senate floor for a vote. No response came.


Conclusion - Shelby or Frist held up the bill for the White House???

Either way, James B. Lockhart of the FHE Oversight was dismayed that the GOP senate killed the bill and appealed that it be revisited in the next Congress. And so it was, Barney Frank passed it next time round as HR 1427, co sponsored by those very Dems attacked in the video - Clay, Meeks, and Waters!!!!!!!!! ( strangely, McCain the regulator didn't sponsor this Senate version).

So why the coverup?

Why the exclusive focus on Barney Frank and Fan and Fred, when the 800 Billion bailout is actually going to Wall St players?

Why do Amanda Carpenter of the Herald and her loyal readers in the southcoast GOP claim that John Kerry, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton were against the Hatch reform bill when it never reached the Senate in 2005/2006?

Right Wing Losing grip on electoral race

It must be tough for members of the MassGop and their national heroes this week. Starting on Monday Holly Robichaud of the Boston Herald uses the WRKO's Tom Finneran show to say that "Obama refuses to acknowledge "the success of the surge." Clearly Holly read talking points instead of actual Obama quotes, missing the much cited statement from Obama that the surge "succeeded beyond anyone's " expectations.

Blood Libel**

Today on WBSM, Fall River GOP committee woman Linda Rapoza says that by Barack Obama beating Hillary Clinton in the primaries "we got affirmative action." Ken Pittman disagreed, to his credit, but quickly moved to a long running lie of his about Obama's vote on babies born after failed abortions. Obama voted against a bill that supposedly protected such babies. Obama felt that some of the wider bill aimed at abortion rights and , more importantly that the practice WAS ALREADY ILLEGAL in Illinois!!!!!!!

Not enough for Ken however, as he qucikly moved to say that Obama "voted to destroy human babies on the table."

Nice Image, huh?

Obama's an affirmative action baby killer . Only on WBSM.

**The myth of the blood libel was that Jews killed Christian babies in ritual fashion. "On tables" perhaps.

Palin's Troopergate Hunt

.....she really likes Walt a lot but she doesn't know why there's been no action for a year on this issue. Its really troubling to her and the family......"

So says Gov. Palin's top aide to a police lieutenant as he tries to get the Alaska governor's brother in law fired from his state trooper job. Palin has already flipped and flopped on the issue and is under active investigation, even hiring a private attorney.

-Listen to the call here-

Walt is Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan, who felt that the trooper case had been resolved in official process. The Palin camp didn't think so and there were at least two dozen subsequent contacts with Walt. One of the first was Palin's husband who met Walt Monegan "right after the Governor was elected." Talis J. Colberg is the state Attorney General and also contacted Walt about the trooper.

On July 11, 2008, four months after the call above, Walt Monegan was fired.

Obviously the issue did not endear Walt to Sarah. No doubt her team felt that her perception of the trooper should determine his status. Was he a threat to her? Was he one of the many corrupt state officers she sought to slay? In any case, others disagreed with the governor and had credible grounds to refute the Palin team's wishes.

With a report due in October, the Alaskan legislature's independent investigation could find enough of a trail of rising pressure, inappropriate contacts, and even serious data breaches to justify some action against Palin.

Now tell me again what Jerome Corsi ( interviewed recently 0n 1420 WBSM) said about the Obama staffer whose roommate had a USSR flag when he was a freshman in Cambridge?

Constantines sword- Paul's word

It seems that for those local radio mavens who are fond of googling select pieces of the Koran to lie about Muslims, a closer examination of the Bible and Christian practice is needed.

There is little point putting forward claims that Muslims are deceptive killers based on Koran quotes. After all, it's hardly a new revelation that the Bible has bee used in an equally selective manner. Throughout history, many Christian missionaries justified modifying Christian doctrine by quoting St. Paul, who had made himself "all things to all men for the winning of souls to Christ."

Newest WBSM lie about Iraq

The Lie
You may have noticed the recent movement of hundreds of tons of Yellowcake from Iraq to a Canadian disposal outlet. Or you may not have, as, according to 1420 WMAR hosts the liberal media have been covering up the newest and best rationale for the invasion and perpetual occupation of Iraq.

Phil Paleologos maintains that this material is the WMD that Bush went to war to secure and the commander in chief has "been vindicated."

Ken Pittman has investigated. He goes one better and says that Bush could've slammed his critics and "vindicated" himself but chose to keep the transport under wraps and "secret" in case Al Queda's super force swooped on the material.

There you have it. According to WMAR, everything your liberal media has been telling you about the war is false.
Heck, even the excuses Pittman and co have made ( Osama had an Iraq operation pre war) are false.
The real reason has surfaced at last, and we need not feel guilt over the death of troops, Iraqis, or the US economy as a result of Bush's three trillion dollar war of choice.

The Truth
Of course, over in the real world, it is reported that these materials were those documented and sealed by the UN weapons inspectors and dates back to before the first Gulf war in 1991. And the movement of the yellow cake was as much a commercial transaction as a national security measure:

".... U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."

Further proof that the invasion was the fraud Jeff Beatty says it was. And another reason to dismiss the White Male Angst Radio apologist machine at 1420.

The proof for the invasion that Bush relied on was concocted, exaggerated, and cherry picked. Thats why it is important for our local outrage radio to deny even their own former "proofs" and focus on this obsolete pre-Gulf I yellowcake.

Hilariously, this is the same 500 plus tons of yellowcake that Hannity and GOP Rep Hoekstra pointed to two years ago as "vindication" of Bush corp. I can recall a certain radio host touting the same information back then. As the laughs got louder and the months went by, he instead pointed to some op eds as "proof" of Osama-Saddam links. Thats right, because some editorialist (Rich Hood who went on to work for Ashcroft) said it was true, it was proven. That's some quality investigation and a good reason to kill off 4000 troops.

Now, he alone has found vindication for Bush and knows that Bush kept his own vindication super secret to save us all from the Al Queda yellow cake fairy.

Right wing radio's all about tha' money

Playboy magazine has a product, McDonalds has a product. Both are gratuitous and in much demand. The slick and fast product at 1420 WMAR is outrage and anti intellectualism. Let's face it, everyone likes to be outraged. That's what so called Republican radio peddles: outrage. Like a toxic sludge factory in a kid's movie, they don't care what the side effects are or who they hurt.

Spend a week on a teacher in Indiana who said something bad about Israel. Cut Wesley Clark's recent statement in half to reverse its very meaning. Claim Rachel Ray supports terrorists( see this wonderful letter on Rachel Ray ). Claim someone, somewhere is attacking God, slam a college newspaper for slandering Pat Tillman ( ignore Pentagon cover up of Tillman's death), fight the noble defense in a war on Xmas and the Easter bunny.

Right wing outrage is the new political correctness. Pathetic premises and pitiful targets are the key. Locally, you can beat up on illegals (as diseased deadbeat dads) and even the local symphony orchestra - based on your own misunderstandings.

Of course , it's all about the money.

WMAR 1420 hosts sell restaurant menus ( after the 8 minute commercials) and retirement homes. Bill O'Reilly sells mattresses, and Rush Limbaugh admits that his "first goal is to attract the largest possible audience so I can charge confiscatory ad rates. I happen to have great entertainment skills, but that enables me to sell airtime." The New York Times also reports that "at a much higher rate he will weave a product into his monologue."

Push the hate, consolidate the market, and press squeeze for profit.

Jack Spillane so wrong on Iraq

Dear Jack,

Just a few thoughts on your outrageous Iraq claims. Bizzarely, one cant get a comment posted on your "local" blog if it dares critique:


You said that most Americans are more concerned with "the way the war has been fought" rather than standing in opposition to the war per se. One wonders where you got this from, given that you said it a day or two before the longshoremen shut down the Pacific coastline in opposition to the war. Of course, this event was strangely underreported by your owner NewsCorp as opposed to 24 -7 coverage of Rev. Wright and Obama's real estate**. Are you saying that Americans are unconcerned with the costs in blood, treasure, and US legitimacy that Bush's unnecessary war has prompted? Are Americans willing to forget the blatant pre-war deception* ( of course your slogan is that Bush didn't lie ...and they died) , the shifting rationales, the perpetual recourse to "six more months", the backing of various ethnic factions in Iraq, the ongoing sabre rattling and threatmaking, the debilitating health of the military?

I guess not. I guess it's just a minor strategic quandary that Americans find themselves in. If only we had won, caught all the bad guys and created Utopia then it would have been the right decision. After all, millions of pre-war protesters, a majority of elected democrats, US Mayors and former National Security officials, 2006 voters, Nobel prize winners and soldiers who have been steadfastly against invading and occupying Iraq in polls, press and protest are easily ignored when you stress over those Iraqis "waiting us out."

And as for polls, who cares if, in 2006, Zogby found that 90%, almost all, US troops thought the war was retaliation for the Iraqi role in 9-11. Where did they get that from? Any ideas who spent millions in a slick propaganda campaign ( your owner News Corp didn't really cover the Pentagon Pundits scandal) to spread these lies? Where would Harry Truman have the buck stop for these lies? Let's find out with some Cartesian logic:

They died, were dismembered or had brain trauma by the thousands. 90% died believing a lie. So, quod erat demonstrandum, Bush fed them that lie.

The best thing you can do is disregard and devalue troops, Arab lives or the health of the US and just claim that "Iraq was probably a good number 2 in the War on Terrra" ( WMAR 1420 Host).



__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* Despite your favorite WaPo columnist finding "substantiations" for some Bush WMD claims, the Downing Street, Aznar and Sands memos all show that Bush was building a case for war versus responding to a discovered threat. As the recent ( and long delayed) Senate report showed and substantiated, countervailing evidence was buried and ignored. That's deception, lying. When its costs the skin, limbs, brains, lives of 19 year olds it's a crime. Get it?

** You have, apparently, solved the Obama real estate riddle and we will not require a $70 million Whitewater type investigation. Despite Obama buying a million dollar plus house after he secured a million dollar book deal, you claim there was likely "a loan" from some Countrywide folks in the mix. In a 'case closed' style, you also claim, falsely, that Obama purchased the place at 30% below the ask. In fact, a closer look would reveal that , in submitting the highest bid, Obama came in at 15% under the ask. I'm sure your clarifications will come with your searing and comparable analysis of McCain.

Jeff Beatty says Iraq war was a fraud.

While the national media tries to make a new story from Scott McClellan's non-revelations, Newbedford360.com has video of Jeff Beatty ("a man Tom Clancy would have eventually created ") telling of how, in the weeks before the war , he was invited to the the Pentagon for a briefing. The vid shows him saying:

" I went to Rumsfeld's conference room......met the Secretary..nice coffee, good china."

Jeff describes how an under-secretary showed them a mobile weapons lab slide show. So after all the formalities and patriotic hooplah, Jeff decides to ask a question.

"excuse me sir, great briefing, loving drawings [but] ..when i was in Delta force as operations officer under Ronald Reagan, we used to have a rule that no US troops would be committed to battle without US eyes on the target"

Beatty then asked whether a Delta force member had "crawled across the desert floor", or had collected a scoop of testable soil for evidence, or had a sample mobile weapons lab been airlifted out as evidence?

"or are we basing this on the reporting of some foreign agent who the more fantastic a tale he tells us, the better we compensate him?"

Beatty says the Pentagon gave an unconvincing answer about a "virtual certainty."

The proof presented for war was BS, says Beatty."Virtual certainty" was a lie. I knew "right then and there we didnt have it", he says.

It's shame that he waited almost as long as Scott McClellan and the US Senate to produce this knowledge to an audience.

See more at approx 6.30 minutes:

Mr. Obama goes to AIPAC

Last week, the three remaining presidential candidates made the compulsory visit to AIPAC's conference in Washington. Barack Obama was the star attraction, closing in on the inevitable Democratic nomination and eager to boost his "pro-Israel" bona fides as he looks toward beating John McCain in November. From the start, he didn’t disappoint his audience. Having refreshingly called US flag pins a sign of "fake patriotism," Obama had a cute Israeli-US pin on display.

-story continues after video.



Eager to smother the fact that Hamas had said some complimentary things about him, Obama bowed in assent to the list of demands of the Israeli far right. He began by promising to "not forget" the "three Israeli soldiers still held by Hezbollah." No time for any reflection on the circumstances of Israel's attack on Lebanon, cluster munitions, civilian casualties, or the hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinians held without contact or charge by Israel. Time only to make the first of many inaccurate statements, forgetting that Hezbollah hold two IDF soldiers, not three, Hamas holding Gilad Shalit.

Forgetting, or remembering to forget AIPAC's controversial recent history of running spy rings in Washington, Obama said he admired AIPAC for its grassroots organization. Presumably, it is not the Lobby members under current federal indictment, but these humble organizers "on college campuses around the country" who inspire his commitment to pledge an additional "$30 Billion" to Israel along with sharing of military technology, missile defense, up to and beyond the levels of NATO partnerships. Despite fears of prominent academics, security officials and even presidential candidates that this is not in the US national interest, Obama praised US-Israeli military cooperation as "a model."

Forgetting or ignoring the narrowest dimensions of the Gaza ghetto and its child prisoners, Obama remarked on the state of Israel, a wondrous "narrow strip of land" where its children "must summon uncommon courage." Mentioning a Palestinian state, he was sure to confirm that it would be "alongside a Jewish state of Israel." The description passes unnoticed by many but it is code for a guarantee on the second class status of Israeli Arabs and the Apartheid regime in occupied territory.


Believe it or not, Palestinian rights were treated as very important matters. They were crucial to AIPAC's agenda and Barack assured that they would be dealt with. Palestinian elections are to be manipulated, delayed, ignored, and punished. Obama said he had and would oppose any elections "with Hamas on the ballot." The unelected like Abbas's Prime Minister Salam Fayyad were to be elevated and "supported" as the true voices of Palestine. In short, Palestinian rights are to be withheld until, as he put it, "unless and until Hamas recognizes the state of Israel", "renounces terrorism" and "abides by past agreements." The fact that Hamas has done all of these things and Israel has not done any of them is irrelevant. They are not meant to be taken at face value. They are, again, coded references to "recognition" of illegal Jewish settlements, "renoucement" of any resistance, and acceptance of agreements as Israel perceives them.



Obama went on to say that Israel must abide by promises made at Annapolis in 2007 -nothing before. This year, Israel has defied even Bush, and continued expansion beyond Annapolis promises. What are the chances that Obama will attempt to move expansion back to any past level?



That Palestinians (even Abbas) hold East Jerusalem as their capital ( as per "past agreements") is a "right" no more. Obama was happy to dispense with numerous UN resolutions and state that "Jerusalem must remain Israel's capital and it must remain undivided." This position was even backed away by a Bush spokesperson. The UN and its resolutions are a trifling matter it seems. Obama pledged explicitly to place Israel's "right to defend itself" above UN obstructions. Little obstructions forbidding assaults on neighboring states or civilian infrastructure with prohibited weapons. And while a recent Israeli attack on a Syria was an "action that was entirely justified", Syria should shape up and stop its "reckless" opposition to UN resolutions!!!



This backing of pre-emptive strikes and mocking of the international legal frameworks are eerily reminiscent of the Bush administration, not least when it comes to Iran. Despite being the primary anti-Iraq war candidate, Obama was happy to re-package Bush's Iraq war arguments and apply them to Iran. Apparently, he opposed the Iraq war in 2002/03 because he " knew Iran had an elicit nuclear program." Despite the fact that Israel refuses to governed by the NPT and has the region's strongest military, Iran "pursues a nuclear capability" that could spur "an arms race." hasn’t Obama criticized those who "knew" Saddam had or pursued WMDs?



Obama rightly laughs at Bush's Saddam-Al Queda links but is happy to predict that Iran might take its imaginary weapons for a "transfer...to terrorists." After all, he said, hasnt the Iranian president said that Israel needs to be 'wiped off the map' and denied the Holocaust? Well, no is the answer to both. However Barack's threats were more explicit: "the danger from Iran is grave , it is real and my goal is to eliminate the threat." Anyone with any doubts about the word ‘eliminate’ hadn’t long to wait for clarification:


"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon....everything in my power ....everything.


Clearly, Obama wanted to be doubly and triply sure that the message was received. "Do not be confused," he said, he is committed to keeping military options on the table.




Search Obama - AIPAC on youtube. The video is prominently and proudly hosted by Barack's own youtube page.

Spillane's WMD evidence

Jack Spillane has discovered a real WMD or a Ticking Time Bomb for Obama. Apparently, angry women will not vote for Barack versus John McCain.

Rush Limbuagh too has spent the week predicting that Hillary will not back Obama. And so, because one woman shouts out "McCain in 08" at the recent Dem meet on Fla and Mich, the punditocracy get a new spin: " Clinton backers will vote McCain" or "stay at home."

{Now, let's ask, is that sexist? "stay at home"? Or "angry women"?). Let's remember that Jack has said Barak is sexist for using the term 'periodically' and Clinton in the same sentence. }

Pundits love to predict. It sells. It thrills. Of course, they need no real evidence for their dire predictions. None, beyond linking to a story where another pundit says the same thing. Jack has already proved plenty this way.

That's the "evidence." Pundits need no evidence because they have been paid by someone ( or some news corp) to offer their opinion. Their opinion must have gravitas as a result.

Pundits suuure dont need evidence like Hillary Clinton's thousand strong rally cheering for the election of Obama today:

"I endorse him and throw my full support behind him," Clinton just said that "the way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand, is to take our energy, our passion and our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States!"

Robert Spencer is an Anti Semite

The continued replication of old world anti Semitism ( this time focused on Muslims) is the expected outcome of Jihadwatch and the associated propaganda instruments like Front page mag. It is also dangerous to any true campaign against terrorism.

The line that "Muslims are hate machines who hate freedom" and so on is a dangerous misreading of those who want to harm Americans. In any war on terrorism we should look at who they are, who funds them, and what their motivation is. The fact that US policy in the Mideast provokes various reactions is covered up by the lie that Islam inherently produces maniacally virgin obsessed machines who hate pop music and therefore want to attack the US.

Jihadwatch takes every conflict or incident where there is or may be some semblance of Islamic involvement and tries to paint a coherent, global Jihad based solely on religion. In truth, violence in Kashmir is territorial, Mujahadeen in the 80s (Reagan's 'freedom fighters')were resisting occupation, Darfur is about secession - as is Chechnya and Dagestan, the Philippines' Abu Sayaff are pirates and profiteers, Palestine is about occupation and annexation, Kurdish doctors in the UK were clearly reacting to the invasion of Iraq.

In truth the only glue which binds these various groups together is that provided by Bush co who make every conceivable effort to promote Bin Laden corp beyond logic and reality. This is a smokescreen to permit preordained policies like Israeli annexation, Pakistani tyranny, and "friendly" Mid East plutocracies as dictated by elite planners for decades.

Like ordinary Americans, I worry about counter terror, rights, and safety. I refuse to believe that Bush puts my interests over those long running elite interests or puts terrorism over hegemony and power.

After all, he has marshaled our resources to brutally invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and facilitate heinous wars on Lebanon and Palestine : all guaranteed to lead us away from the 9-11 attackers and , in fact, increase the standing and support for the Bin Laden gang.

Jihad Watch and the local radio folks who promote it are pushing a propaganda device to ignore this.