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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
