Friday, 24 August 2007

BLATANT DISHONESTY ABOUT JOHN WARNER

Ken Berwitz

Sometimes media do not even try to hide their bias, they just lie to your face.

I am talking specifically about the Today show this morning and the Associated Press headline for the article I have posted below.

On Today, there was a segment of 5 - 10 minutes' length (I didn't actually time it) during which the words "Warner For Withdrawal" were superimposed at the bottom of the screen.  For much of that time there was a sub-head that said something about him or the rest of the GOP turning against President Bush.  Within that 5 - 10 minute period the term "Defection" was stated maybe a dozen times or more.

The implication of this?  Clearly that John Warner had turned away from President Bush on Iraq - that's what a "defection" is - and now wants the troops withdrawn - that means removing all or most of them - which is what harry reid and nancy pelosi want.

Here is the AP article I referenced above.  Before you read its content, please think a bit about what the headline says, thus what casual readers of a newspaper who scan through the headlines would walk away with.  Then pay special attention to the segment I have put in bold print, which is buried deep within the article, long after most readers will think they have the nut of the story:.

Warner: Bush Should Bring Troops Home
Aug 23, 7:02 PM (ET)

By ANNE FLAHERTY

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush should start bringing home some troops by Christmas to show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended, a prominent Republican senator said Thursday.

The move puts John Warner, a former Navy secretary and one-time chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, at odds with the president, who says conditions on the ground should dictate deployments.

Warner, R-Va., said the troop withdrawals are needed because Iraqi leaders have failed to make substantial political progress, despite an influx of U.S. troops initiated by Bush this year.

The departure of even a small number of U.S. service members - perhaps 5,000 of the 160,000 troops in Iraq - would send a powerful message throughout the region that time was running out, Warner said.

(AP) Sen. John Warner, R-Va., discusses his recent trip to Iraq during a news conference on Capital Hill...
Full Image
"We simply cannot as a nation stand and continue to put our troops at continuous risk of loss of life and limb without beginning to take some decisive action," he told reporters after a White House meeting with Bush's top aides.

Warner's new position is a sharp challenge to a wartime president that will undoubtedly color the upcoming Iraq debate on Capitol Hill. Next month, Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker are expected to brief members on the war's progress.

A White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, declined to say whether Bush might consider Warner's suggestion.

Asked whether Bush would leave the door open to setting a timetable, Johndroe said: "I don't think the president feels any differently about setting a specific timetable for withdrawal. I just think it's important that we wait right now to hear from our commanders on the ground about the way ahead."

Republicans, including Warner, have so far stuck with Bush and rejected Democratic proposals demanding troops leave Iraq by a certain date. But an increasing number of GOP members have said they are uneasy about the war and want to see Bush embrace a new strategy if substantial progress is not made by September.

(AP) Sen. John Warner, R-Va., discusses his recent trip to Iraq during a news conference on Capital Hill...
Full Image
Warner, known for his party loyalty, said he still opposes setting a fixed timetable on the war or forcing the president's hand.

"Let the president establish the timetable for withdrawal, not the Congress," he said.

Nevertheless, his suggestion of troop withdrawals is likely to embolden Democrats and rile some of his GOP colleagues, who insist lawmakers must wait until Petraeus testifies.

His stature on military issues also could sway some Republicans who have been reluctant to challenge Bush.

Warner said he came to his conclusion after visiting Iraq this month with Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the Armed Services Committee chairman; Warner is the committee's second-ranking Republican. Levin said this week that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki should be replaced. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., followed suit and told reporters Thursday that Maliki has been "a failure."

Warner said he "could not go that far" to call for Maliki's resignation. But he said he did have serious concerns about the effectiveness of the current leadership in Baghdad, which a U.S. intelligence report released Thursday also cited. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq does not anticipate a political reconciliation in the next year and predicts the Iraqi government will become "more precarious" because of criticism from various sectarian groups.

"When I see an NIE which corroborates my own judgment - that political reconciliation has not taken place - the Maliki government has let down the U.S. forces and, to an extent, his own Iraqi forces," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the report confirms what most Americans already know: "Our troops are mired in an Iraqi civil war and the president's escalation strategy has failed to produce the political results he promised to our troops and the American people."

"Every day that we continue to stick to the president's flawed strategy is a day that America is not as secure as it could be," said Reid, D-Nev.  .

Now, for your further information, here is a small excerpt from www.bloomberg.com on what Warner said.  See if you find a bit of a different context after reading it.  Again, the bold print is mine:.

Aug. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Virginia Senator John Warner said President George W. Bush should begin withdrawing troops from Iraq on Sept. 15 to show the Iraqi government that the U.S. commitment there isn't open-ended.

Bush should announce that ``we will start an orderly, carefully planned, thought-out redeployment,'' said Warner, 80, a Republican and former Navy secretary who three times chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The number of troops to be withdrawn and the timing would be up to the president, he said.

The president should ``send a sharp and clear message, throughout the region, the United States, and one that people can understand'' -- that the U.S. will not stay in Iraq indefinitely, he said.

He suggested that Bush pick a few thousand soldiers out of the 162,000 U.S. combat troops now in Iraq, or ``whatever number he wants,'' Warner said.

`Important' Development

``Say 5,000 could begin to redeploy and be home not later than Christmas of this year,'' Warner said.  .

Well well well.  What Warner REALLY said therefore is that we should bring home a token number of troops to reassure the public and to push the Iraqi government.  Maybe "a few thousand", maybe 5,000 (that is a 3% reduction, thus 97% of the troops would remain in Iraq).   

And Warner retains full support for the president - not congress - to decide if and when this is done.

Does this come across as someone demanding a "troop withdrawal"?  Or defecting from President Bush?

There is an old saying, often attributed to Mark Twain, that "there are three types of lies:  lies, damned lies and statistics"  Maybe that should be updated from "statistics" to "media reporting on President Bush and Iraq".

One last thing:  If you were a propagandist for al-qaeda, how would you have handled John Warner's statement?  Any differently than Today or the AP did?

Whose side are they on anyway?


SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY & GLOBAL WARMING

Ken Berwitz

"It must be true.  A lot of scientists with great academic and professional credentials say so."

How's that for an all purpose reason to believe whatever a majority within the scientific and/or academic community is pushing these days?  Pretty good, huh?

The only problem?  All those scientists and academics are often 100% wrong.  And how do I know this?  Because THEY tell me so.  

To illustrate, please read the following article.  Afterwards, please think about how many other instances there have been when new information is uncovered which changes conventional wisdom.  Then, think long and hard about the virtual lockout of opposing views for issues such as global warming:.

Fossil find pushes human-ape split back millions of years

 

Aug 24 08:17 AM US/Eastern

Ten million-year-old fossils discovered in Ethiopia show that humans and apes probably split six or seven million years earlier than widely thought, according to landmark study released Wednesday.

The handful of teeth from the earliest direct ancestors of modern gorillas ever found -- one canine and eight molars -- also leave virtually no doubt, the study's authors and experts said, that both humans and modern apes did indeed originate from Africa.

The near total absence to date of traces on the continent of apes from this period had led many scientists to conclude that the shared line from which humans and living great apes emerged had taken a long evolutionary detour through Eurasia.

But the study, published in the British journal Nature, "conclusively demonstrates that the Last Common Ancestor (of both man and ape) was strictly an African phenomenon," commented paleoanthropologist Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University in Ohio. 

Well, ok, all those scientists were wrong.  But hey, they were only off by a few million years.  On the other hand, if you asked them before this paper was published, they'd have told you they were right.  Right?  Of course right. 

And what happens when the next paper comes out which changes THIS finding.  Won't the scientists then be wrong again?  With all their degrees and doctorates and other credentials.

This, folks, is why we should not take scientific opinion as immutable fact and why we should not stifle opposing views about science. 

Today's heresy is often tomorrow's reality.  Never forget that.  And never forget that it includes global warming. 

---------------------------------------------------------

P.S.  A reader has brought to my attention that this blog could conceivably be construed as an argument for intelligent design.  FYI, I never thought about intelligent design at all when writing it. My focus was entirely on the global warming issue.

.


A TASTE OF THE FUTURE: PART 21

Ken Berwitz

Here is another installment of how your world will be if radical islam wins the global war it is fighting and ends western civilization.  This story comes to us from the BBC:..

Iran shuts 'Western' barber shops

Iranian police have closed more than 20 barbers' shops in the capital Tehran.

The authorities say the barbers were encouraging un-Islamic behaviour by offering Western hairstyles, tattooing and also eyebrow-plucking for men.

Police say they have inspected more than 700 shops during a two-week crackdown in the city.

The move is part of an annual campaign against what is known locally as bad hijab, or un-Islamic clothing, that this year is also targeting men.

Hundreds of women and men have already been cautioned.

Police say that as well as avoiding Western hairstyles and make up, barbers should not pluck customers' eyebrows.

The closure of the shops comes several months after barbers were warned that they could lose their licences if they did not comply.

However, police have denied a report that they have ordered barbers not to serve customers wearing ties.

Some young boys in Iran sport very wild hair styles, using gel to make their long hair stand on end in a fashion not seen in other countries, correspondents say.  .

Take a good look.  Because this is what will replace western civilization if we allow it to.  And it will be the way YOU live.

If we fight against radical islam we may win and we may lose.  If we do not, we will most assuredly lose because, either way, they will continue fighting.  And if they win, our culture and our civilization is over, to be replaced by what?  A society that shuts down any business which will offer individual human beings an option to look different than everyone else?  To look "un-islamic"?         

God help the people who want to live this way.  I know I'm not one of them.  Are you?

We play political games with this lunacy at our own peril.

.


ANTI-SEMITIC PROPAGANDA FROM CNN & CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR

Ken Berwitz

That title, which is wholly accurate, says it all. 

It references a CNN BS-umentary, called "God's Warriors" which has been hosted by its star "journalist" christiane amanpour.

Further down, I have copied an analysis of this BS-umentary which was issued by CAMERA (the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America).  CAMERA is an invaluable organization which seeks to inform the world about exactly the kind of anti-semitic vomit that CNN and amanpour have spewed to their viewers.

I normally apologize when something is longer than what I usually post here.  But not this time.  You need to read every word.

Also, I usually put the key facts in bold print.  But since every word of the CAMERA analysis is important, I decline to do so. 

Read it and see the face of anti-semitic propaganda:


God's Jewish Warriors -  CNN's Abomination

CNN's "God's Warriors," hosted by Christiane Amanpour, is a three-part series intended to examine the growing role of religious fundamentalism in today's world. Unfortunately, the first program in the series, "God's Jewish Warriors," is one of the most grossly distorted programs to appear on mainstream American television in many years. It is false in its basic premise, established in the opening scene in which  Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency is equated with that of Muslims heard endorsing "martyrdom," or suicide-killing. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe, either in numbers of perpetrators engaged or in the magnitude of death and destruction wrought.

While in reality Jewish "terrorism" is virtually non-existent, the program magnifies at length the few instances of violence or attempted violence by religiously-motivated Jewish individuals - including having to go all the way back to 1980, for example, to explore a bombing campaign by a small group of Israeli Jews on West Bank Arab mayors. By dredging up such an old incident Amanpour unintentionally undermines her own thesis.

Settlements are likewise a key focus of the program, their residents and adherents being deemed "God's warriors" along with those Americans, Jewish and Christian alike, who support them. American presidents and Members of Congress are said to be held hostage to the so-called "Israel Lobby," ostensibly dark forces consisting of AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups who supposedly enable the nefarious expansion of West Bank communities.

Disproportionate reliance on partisan voices, some extreme figures, skews the message dramatically. Jimmy Carter and John Mearsheimer, chief proponents of the discredited canards about Jews subverting American national interests to those of Israel, are repeatedly and respectfully interviewed. Carter, for example, claims that no American politician could survive politically while calling for settlement-related aid cuts to Israel: "There's no way that a member of Congress would ever vote for that and hope to be re-elected."

That would be news to politicians like Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, who has long been a critic of aid to Israel and opposed loan guarantees to Israel in 1992. As well, contrary to Amanpour and Carter, Representatives James Trafficante, Dana Rohrabacher, Nick Smith, Fortney Pete Stark, Neil Abercrombie, David E. Bonior, John Conyers Jr, John D. Dingell, Earl F. Hilliard, Jesse L. Jackson Jr.,  Barbara Lee, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Jim Moran, David R. Obey, Ron Paul and  Nick J. Rahall II, have voted against aid to Israel and/or opposed other resolutions favoring Israel.

Amanpour ignores all this, and turns instead to former Senator Charles Percy, who joins in denouncing Jewish political influence. Only Morris Amitay is presented as balance on this critical issue.

Whether wittingly or not, Amanpour's program, with its reliance on pejorative labeling, generalities, testimonials, and a stacked lineup of guests, is a perfect illustration of classical propaganda techniques. Unfortunately propaganda is the opposite of journalism, the profession Amanpour is supposed to practice.

The program was misleading and inaccurate in many other ways as well:

Land

Amanpour says: "But it is also Palestinian land. The West Bank - it's west of the Jordan River - was designated by the United Nations to be the largest part of an Arab state." 

This is highly deceptive. The United Nations 1947 Partition Plan proposed dividing all the land west of the Jordan into a Jewish and an Arab state; the Arabs rejected the plan, choosing instead to launch a war to eliminate Israel. The land did not become "Palestinian land" via this UN Plan. Likewise, UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, underscored that territorial adjustments related to the West Bank were to be expected.

Settlements

 Amanpour suggests settlements are the cause of Arab anger: "the Jewish settlements have inflamed much of the Arab world," yet the Arab world was just as anti-Israel (actually more so) before the settlements were built.

She presents at length the views of Theodor Meron asserting the illegality of settlements as the definitive word, but makes no mention of more senior Israeli experts such as former Supreme Court Chief Meir Shamgar, who disagreed with Meron. Nor does Amanpour mention such foreign experts such as Professors Julius Stone and Eugene Rostow who also argued for the legality of settlements. (See for example CAMERA BACKGROUNDER: The Debate About Settlements and  From "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories" by Dore Gold.)

She grossly misleads about America's position on settlements in the following sequence:

WILLIAM SCRANTON, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N. UNDER JIMMY CARTER: My government believes that international law sets the appropriate standards.

AMANPOUR: From the earliest days of the settler movement, even the United States, Israel's closest ally, blasted Israel's settlement policy.

SCRANTON: Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal.

AMANPOUR: Ever since American presidents both Democrat and Republican have spoken from virtually the same script. They consistently oppose settlement growth.

RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT: The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements.

In fact, while the Carter administration did deem settlements illegal, President Reagan very much did not speak from the "same script." He explained: "As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements there I disagreed when the previous Administration referred to them as illegal, they're not illegal" (NYTimes, Feb. 3, 1981). Other presidents, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, also did not term settlements "illegal."

 Amanpour does not discuss Jewish habitation in the West Bank and Gaza in post-Biblical times, before 1948for example, in Hebron, Kfar Etzion, Kfar Darom (See: CAMERA BACKGROUNDER: The Debate About Settlements) but instead portrays Jewish settlement in the West Bank as an encroachment on "Arab" landrepeatedly referring to disputed territories as "Arab" or "occupied" land (22 times throughout the program).

 Amanpour continuously discounts the context of the Arab world. She says with regard to the post Six-Day War period: "But the Israeli government was divided - trade the captured land for peace or keep it and build Jewish settlements." Unmentioned is the Arab refusal to "trade" anything for peace as embodied in the three "no's" delivered delivered by Arab leaders at a summit in Khartoum shortly after the Six-Day War, declaring there would be no negotiation, no recognition and no peace with Israel.

Jerusalem/Temple Mount, and The Holy Places

 Amanpour says: "It was from here, according to Muslim scripture, that the Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven around the year 630. But Hebrew scripture puts the ancient Jewish Temple in the same location, destroyed by the Romans in the year 70. For the next 1,900 years, even the last remnant of the temple known as the Wailing Wall, or the Western Wall, was lost to the Jews."

a) Muslim scripture refers to Mohammed ascending to heaven from the "farthest mosque," which could not have been on the Temple Mount, since the mosque there wasn't built until well after the death of Mohammed. 
b) The Western Wall is part of the Temple Mount complexnot the actual Temple.  It is a remnant of the retaining wall built to extend and flatten the Temple Mount.  There are indeed actual remains of the First and Second Temples on the Temple Mount.
c) Although Amanpour notes the holiness of the Temple Mount to Jews and Muslims, and some Jews in clips say that it is the holiest site for Jews, she never points this out herself, nor does she mention that Hebron is Judaism's second holiest city with its second holiest shrine.
d) Amanpour interviews the Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to give a Muslim perspective on the Al Aqsa Mosque, but no Jewish Rabbinical figure is presented to discuss the paramount religious importance of the Temple Mount to Jews.

 Amanpour ignores the devastation of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the expulsion of its residents by the Jordanians in 1948, as she does the Jordanian destruction and desecration of synagogues and cemeteries in eastern Jerusalem .Nor does she discuss the denial of Jewish access to holy sites and restriction of Christian religious freedom after Jordans illegal annexation of eastern Jerusalem in 1950. Instead she redefines the history of the conflict over Jerusalem with a new timeline, alleging, "the 40-year tug of war over Jerusalem began when Israel bulldozed the Arab neighborhood next to the Western Wall and built a plaza where Jews now pray." 

Carter and Mearsheimer

Amanpour states: " Most recently, former President Carter was criticized for criticizing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. In his book, "Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid." 

Carter was, of course, "criticized" for purveying multiple false statements about Israel and the Palestinians. See, for example, A Comprehensive Collection of Jimmy Carter's Errors.

Professor John Mearsheimer is also invited on to explain to viewers the allegedly pernicious effects of the "Jewish Lobby," with no mention by Amanpour of the extremely serious flaws that critics have identified in Mearsheimer's work.

Israel Lobby

 Amanpour also grossly misleads the public about a dispute in the early 1990s between then president George Bush and Israel's prime minister at the time, Yitzhak Shamir. President Bush decided to withhold American loan guarantees to Israel unless that country froze settlement activity. In CNN's version of events, the Israel lobby kicked into gear, and "Congress got the message." (For Amanpour, it seems, it is a given that members of Congress were responding to "the message" sent by the lobby as opposed to acting on their own convictions.) Then, "just a few months later, the very week of the Republican National Convention, the pro-Israel lobby had something to celebrate." President Bush announced his support for the loan guarantees. Clearly, according to Amanpour, the lobby forced Bush's hand.

What is absent from Amanpour's version of events is the reason why the Bush administration eventually reversed its position. A new Israeli government, willing to compromise on the issue of settlements, had come to power. The new prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, backed down from previous Israeli Prime Minister Shamir's positions by promising to curtail settlement growth. Israeli-American relations subsequently improved.

 In addition, Amanpour uses inflammatory language unbecoming of a journalist to describe fundraising efforts by American Jews to help Israeli settlers. Not only does she take sides in the dispute over the legality of the settlements, she evokes negative stereotypes, stating:

Six thousand miles from Israel's settlements, in the heart of Manhattan, defiance of international law comes dressed in diamonds.

Muslim "Anger"

Interviewed by Amanpour, Gershom Gorenberg states: "You can't understand the anger of radical Islam unless you understand the conflict between you know, the Jews and the Palestinians."  The false implication is that such "anger" is primarily rooted in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, disregarding the far greater forces driving radical Islam, including the titanic struggle between Shiites and Sunnis triggered in large measure by the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, the Khomenist revolution and the expansion of Saudi Wahabism, Saudi-sponsored mosques and schools built all over the globe inculcate vast numbers of Muslims with extreme, supremacist views. 

As even the Ayatollah Khomeini put it, the United States was the "Great Satan," while Israel was only the "Small Satan."

And of course, the rise of the Internet and satellite TV has greatly amplified the false and misleading information put out by Muslim supremacist propagandists, inflaming the Muslim masses.

You can reach CNN's online comments page by clicking here.

.

If what you've just read doesn't convince you of what a sick, anti-semitic propaganda piece "God's Warriors" is, I don't know how to get through to you. 

To equate contemporary Christianity and Judaism with Islam on terrorism and/or religious violence is so incredibly dishonest it makes you question anything else this sorry network tells you. 

To be lectured about it by people like jimmy carter, byrd, abercrombie, rahall, dingell, lee etc.?   That's like the CEO of McDonald's reviewing Burger King's menu.  

And to have this "equation" reported by the leftwing Jew-hating christiane amanpour makes it that much more sickening.  When has this "journalist" ever had a good word to say about Jews or Israel?    

Simply stated, the "God's Warriors" BS-umentary is a Jew-hating hit piece.


A TASTE OF THE FUTURE: PART 21

Ken Berwitz

Here is another installment of how your world will be if radical islam wins the global war it is fighting and ends western civilization.  This story comes to us from the BBC:..

Iran shuts 'Western' barber shops

Iranian police have closed more than 20 barbers' shops in the capital Tehran.

The authorities say the barbers were encouraging un-Islamic behaviour by offering Western hairstyles, tattooing and also eyebrow-plucking for men.

Police say they have inspected more than 700 shops during a two-week crackdown in the city.

The move is part of an annual campaign against what is known locally as bad hijab, or un-Islamic clothing, that this year is also targeting men.

Hundreds of women and men have already been cautioned.

Police say that as well as avoiding Western hairstyles and make up, barbers should not pluck customers' eyebrows.

The closure of the shops comes several months after barbers were warned that they could lose their licences if they did not comply.

However, police have denied a report that they have ordered barbers not to serve customers wearing ties.

Some young boys in Iran sport very wild hair styles, using gel to make their long hair stand on end in a fashion not seen in other countries, correspondents say.  .

Take a good look.  Because this is what will replace western civilization if we allow it to.  And it will be the way YOU live.

If we fight against radical islam we may win and we may lose.  If we do not, we will most assuredly lose because, either way, they will continue fighting.  And if they win, our culture and our civilization is over, to be replaced by what?  A society that shuts down any business which will offer individual human beings an option to look different than everyone else?  To look "un-islamic"?         

God help the people who want to live this way.  I know I'm not one of them.  Are you?

We play political games with this lunacy at our own peril.

.


SPEAKING AGAIN OF BLATANT BIAS....

Ken Berwitz

ABC News has an article online this morning that details the frontal attack now being waged by the human oil slick, John Edwards, on frontrunner Hillary Clinton.  I blogged just yesterday that this was inevitably going to happen, because the way to beat a frontrunner is to tear him/her down.

I'll get to Edwards' attack in a moment.  But first I want to show you how the writer, Rick Klein, started this piece.  See if you can detect a teeny weeny nuanced sliver of bias here:.

President Bill Clinton is his wife's not-so-secret weapon -- the single most popular Democrat on the planet, a campaigner who ranks with the all-time greats, and one of the best political minds in the country.

But, as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is learning every week, his legacy can be a mixed blessing -- a reminder of peace, prosperity and Democratic victories, but also of scandal, gridlock and "triangulation" that frustrated many liberals.  .

Holy excrement.  If Klein were a woman, Hillary would be checking to see if he bought kneepads recently.  This is someone who is supposed to be giving you UNBIASED INFORMATION??????

That speaks for itself, so I'll move on to the Edwards attack.  See if you can find an ever-so-slight departure from the friendly, collegial manner displayed in the approximately 2,834 debates Democrats have had so far:.

On the campaign trail Thursday, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards delivered a speech filled with coded language aimed at reminding Democratic voters of the less-than-pleasant aspects of the Clinton administration. "The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate," Edwards said in Hanover, N.H., in a not-so-subtle reference to a famous fundraising scandal.

"The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't," Edwards continued. "It's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today -- it's that the system that produced them was corrupt."  .

Now THAT looks like a political campaign. 

Expect more of the same, and expect hillary's flying monkeys, led by Howard Wolfson, to give back at least as much as they get. 

And just wait until the second tier candidates who have nothing to lose start in too.  This is going to make wrestlemania look like a friendly little hug.


ANTI-SEMITIC PROPAGANDA FROM CNN & CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR

Ken Berwitz

That title, which is wholly accurate, says it all. 

It references a CNN BS-umentary, called "God's Warriors" which has been hosted by its star "journalist" christiane amanpour.

Further down, I have copied an analysis of this BS-umentary which was issued by CAMERA (the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America).  CAMERA is an invaluable organization which seeks to inform the world about exactly the kind of anti-semitic vomit that CNN and amanpour have spewed to their viewers.

I normally apologize when something is longer than what I usually post here.  But not this time.  You need to read every word.

Also, I usually put the key facts in bold print.  But since every word of the CAMERA analysis is important, I decline to do so. 

Read it and see the face of anti-semitic propaganda:


God's Jewish Warriors -  CNN's Abomination

CNN's "God's Warriors," hosted by Christiane Amanpour, is a three-part series intended to examine the growing role of religious fundamentalism in today's world. Unfortunately, the first program in the series, "God's Jewish Warriors," is one of the most grossly distorted programs to appear on mainstream American television in many years. It is false in its basic premise, established in the opening scene in which  Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency is equated with that of Muslims heard endorsing "martyrdom," or suicide-killing. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe, either in numbers of perpetrators engaged or in the magnitude of death and destruction wrought.

While in reality Jewish "terrorism" is virtually non-existent, the program magnifies at length the few instances of violence or attempted violence by religiously-motivated Jewish individuals - including having to go all the way back to 1980, for example, to explore a bombing campaign by a small group of Israeli Jews on West Bank Arab mayors. By dredging up such an old incident Amanpour unintentionally undermines her own thesis.

Settlements are likewise a key focus of the program, their residents and adherents being deemed "God's warriors" along with those Americans, Jewish and Christian alike, who support them. American presidents and Members of Congress are said to be held hostage to the so-called "Israel Lobby," ostensibly dark forces consisting of AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups who supposedly enable the nefarious expansion of West Bank communities.

Disproportionate reliance on partisan voices, some extreme figures, skews the message dramatically. Jimmy Carter and John Mearsheimer, chief proponents of the discredited canards about Jews subverting American national interests to those of Israel, are repeatedly and respectfully interviewed. Carter, for example, claims that no American politician could survive politically while calling for settlement-related aid cuts to Israel: "There's no way that a member of Congress would ever vote for that and hope to be re-elected."

That would be news to politicians like Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, who has long been a critic of aid to Israel and opposed loan guarantees to Israel in 1992. As well, contrary to Amanpour and Carter, Representatives James Trafficante, Dana Rohrabacher, Nick Smith, Fortney Pete Stark, Neil Abercrombie, David E. Bonior, John Conyers Jr, John D. Dingell, Earl F. Hilliard, Jesse L. Jackson Jr.,  Barbara Lee, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Jim Moran, David R. Obey, Ron Paul and  Nick J. Rahall II, have voted against aid to Israel and/or opposed other resolutions favoring Israel.

Amanpour ignores all this, and turns instead to former Senator Charles Percy, who joins in denouncing Jewish political influence. Only Morris Amitay is presented as balance on this critical issue.

Whether wittingly or not, Amanpour's program, with its reliance on pejorative labeling, generalities, testimonials, and a stacked lineup of guests, is a perfect illustration of classical propaganda techniques. Unfortunately propaganda is the opposite of journalism, the profession Amanpour is supposed to practice.

The program was misleading and inaccurate in many other ways as well:

Land

Amanpour says: "But it is also Palestinian land. The West Bank - it's west of the Jordan River - was designated by the United Nations to be the largest part of an Arab state." 

This is highly deceptive. The United Nations 1947 Partition Plan proposed dividing all the land west of the Jordan into a Jewish and an Arab state; the Arabs rejected the plan, choosing instead to launch a war to eliminate Israel. The land did not become "Palestinian land" via this UN Plan. Likewise, UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, underscored that territorial adjustments related to the West Bank were to be expected.

Settlements

 Amanpour suggests settlements are the cause of Arab anger: "the Jewish settlements have inflamed much of the Arab world," yet the Arab world was just as anti-Israel (actually more so) before the settlements were built.

She presents at length the views of Theodor Meron asserting the illegality of settlements as the definitive word, but makes no mention of more senior Israeli experts such as former Supreme Court Chief Meir Shamgar, who disagreed with Meron. Nor does Amanpour mention such foreign experts such as Professors Julius Stone and Eugene Rostow who also argued for the legality of settlements. (See for example CAMERA BACKGROUNDER: The Debate About Settlements and  From "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories" by Dore Gold.)

She grossly misleads about America's position on settlements in the following sequence:

WILLIAM SCRANTON, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N. UNDER JIMMY CARTER: My government believes that international law sets the appropriate standards.

AMANPOUR: From the earliest days of the settler movement, even the United States, Israel's closest ally, blasted Israel's settlement policy.

SCRANTON: Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal.

AMANPOUR: Ever since American presidents both Democrat and Republican have spoken from virtually the same script. They consistently oppose settlement growth.

RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT: The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements.

In fact, while the Carter administration did deem settlements illegal, President Reagan very much did not speak from the "same script." He explained: "As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements there I disagreed when the previous Administration referred to them as illegal, they're not illegal" (NYTimes, Feb. 3, 1981). Other presidents, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, also did not term settlements "illegal."

 Amanpour does not discuss Jewish habitation in the West Bank and Gaza in post-Biblical times, before 1948for example, in Hebron, Kfar Etzion, Kfar Darom (See: CAMERA BACKGROUNDER: The Debate About Settlements) but instead portrays Jewish settlement in the West Bank as an encroachment on "Arab" landrepeatedly referring to disputed territories as "Arab" or "occupied" land (22 times throughout the program).

 Amanpour continuously discounts the context of the Arab world. She says with regard to the post Six-Day War period: "But the Israeli government was divided - trade the captured land for peace or keep it and build Jewish settlements." Unmentioned is the Arab refusal to "trade" anything for peace as embodied in the three "no's" delivered delivered by Arab leaders at a summit in Khartoum shortly after the Six-Day War, declaring there would be no negotiation, no recognition and no peace with Israel.

Jerusalem/Temple Mount, and The Holy Places

 Amanpour says: "It was from here, according to Muslim scripture, that the Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven around the year 630. But Hebrew scripture puts the ancient Jewish Temple in the same location, destroyed by the Romans in the year 70. For the next 1,900 years, even the last remnant of the temple known as the Wailing Wall, or the Western Wall, was lost to the Jews."

a) Muslim scripture refers to Mohammed ascending to heaven from the "farthest mosque," which could not have been on the Temple Mount, since the mosque there wasn't built until well after the death of Mohammed. 
b) The Western Wall is part of the Temple Mount complexnot the actual Temple.  It is a remnant of the retaining wall built to extend and flatten the Temple Mount.  There are indeed actual remains of the First and Second Temples on the Temple Mount.
c) Although Amanpour notes the holiness of the Temple Mount to Jews and Muslims, and some Jews in clips say that it is the holiest site for Jews, she never points this out herself, nor does she mention that Hebron is Judaism's second holiest city with its second holiest shrine.
d) Amanpour interviews the Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to give a Muslim perspective on the Al Aqsa Mosque, but no Jewish Rabbinical figure is presented to discuss the paramount religious importance of the Temple Mount to Jews.

 Amanpour ignores the devastation of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the expulsion of its residents by the Jordanians in 1948, as she does the Jordanian destruction and desecration of synagogues and cemeteries in eastern Jerusalem .Nor does she discuss the denial of Jewish access to holy sites and restriction of Christian religious freedom after Jordans illegal annexation of eastern Jerusalem in 1950. Instead she redefines the history of the conflict over Jerusalem with a new timeline, alleging, "the 40-year tug of war over Jerusalem began when Israel bulldozed the Arab neighborhood next to the Western Wall and built a plaza where Jews now pray." 

Carter and Mearsheimer

Amanpour states: " Most recently, former President Carter was criticized for criticizing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. In his book, "Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid." 

Carter was, of course, "criticized" for purveying multiple false statements about Israel and the Palestinians. See, for example, A Comprehensive Collection of Jimmy Carter's Errors.

Professor John Mearsheimer is also invited on to explain to viewers the allegedly pernicious effects of the "Jewish Lobby," with no mention by Amanpour of the extremely serious flaws that critics have identified in Mearsheimer's work.

Israel Lobby

 Amanpour also grossly misleads the public about a dispute in the early 1990s between then president George Bush and Israel's prime minister at the time, Yitzhak Shamir. President Bush decided to withhold American loan guarantees to Israel unless that country froze settlement activity. In CNN's version of events, the Israel lobby kicked into gear, and "Congress got the message." (For Amanpour, it seems, it is a given that members of Congress were responding to "the message" sent by the lobby as opposed to acting on their own convictions.) Then, "just a few months later, the very week of the Republican National Convention, the pro-Israel lobby had something to celebrate." President Bush announced his support for the loan guarantees. Clearly, according to Amanpour, the lobby forced Bush's hand.

What is absent from Amanpour's version of events is the reason why the Bush administration eventually reversed its position. A new Israeli government, willing to compromise on the issue of settlements, had come to power. The new prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, backed down from previous Israeli Prime Minister Shamir's positions by promising to curtail settlement growth. Israeli-American relations subsequently improved.

 In addition, Amanpour uses inflammatory language unbecoming of a journalist to describe fundraising efforts by American Jews to help Israeli settlers. Not only does she take sides in the dispute over the legality of the settlements, she evokes negative stereotypes, stating:

Six thousand miles from Israel's settlements, in the heart of Manhattan, defiance of international law comes dressed in diamonds.

Muslim "Anger"

Interviewed by Amanpour, Gershom Gorenberg states: "You can't understand the anger of radical Islam unless you understand the conflict between you know, the Jews and the Palestinians."  The false implication is that such "anger" is primarily rooted in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, disregarding the far greater forces driving radical Islam, including the titanic struggle between Shiites and Sunnis triggered in large measure by the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, the Khomenist revolution and the expansion of Saudi Wahabism, Saudi-sponsored mosques and schools built all over the globe inculcate vast numbers of Muslims with extreme, supremacist views. 

As even the Ayatollah Khomeini put it, the United States was the "Great Satan," while Israel was only the "Small Satan."

And of course, the rise of the Internet and satellite TV has greatly amplified the false and misleading information put out by Muslim supremacist propagandists, inflaming the Muslim masses.

You can reach CNN's online comments page by clicking here.

.

If what you've just read doesn't convince you of what a sick, anti-semitic propaganda piece "God's Warriors" is, I don't know how to get through to you. 

To equate contemporary Christianity and Judaism with Islam on terrorism and/or religious violence is so incredibly dishonest it makes you question anything else this sorry network tells you. 

To be lectured about it by people like jimmy carter, byrd, abercrombie, rahall, dingell, lee etc.?   That's like the CEO of McDonald's reviewing Burger King's menu.  

And to have this "equation" reported by the leftwing Jew-hating christiane amanpour makes it that much more sickening.  When has this "journalist" ever had a good word to say about Jews or Israel?    

Simply stated, the "God's Warriors" BS-umentary is a Jew-hating hit piece.


SPEAKING AGAIN OF BLATANT BIAS....

Ken Berwitz

ABC News has an article online this morning that details the frontal attack now being waged by the human oil slick, John Edwards, on frontrunner Hillary Clinton.  I blogged just yesterday that this was inevitably going to happen, because the way to beat a frontrunner is to tear him/her down.

I'll get to Edwards' attack in a moment.  But first I want to show you how the writer, Rick Klein, started this piece.  See if you can detect a teeny weeny nuanced sliver of bias here:.

President Bill Clinton is his wife's not-so-secret weapon -- the single most popular Democrat on the planet, a campaigner who ranks with the all-time greats, and one of the best political minds in the country.

But, as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is learning every week, his legacy can be a mixed blessing -- a reminder of peace, prosperity and Democratic victories, but also of scandal, gridlock and "triangulation" that frustrated many liberals.  .

Holy excrement.  If Klein were a woman, Hillary would be checking to see if he bought kneepads recently.  This is someone who is supposed to be giving you UNBIASED INFORMATION??????

That speaks for itself, so I'll move on to the Edwards attack.  See if you can find an ever-so-slight departure from the friendly, collegial manner displayed in the approximately 2,834 debates Democrats have had so far:.

On the campaign trail Thursday, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards delivered a speech filled with coded language aimed at reminding Democratic voters of the less-than-pleasant aspects of the Clinton administration. "The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate," Edwards said in Hanover, N.H., in a not-so-subtle reference to a famous fundraising scandal.

"The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't," Edwards continued. "It's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today -- it's that the system that produced them was corrupt."  .

Now THAT looks like a political campaign. 

Expect more of the same, and expect hillary's flying monkeys, led by Howard Wolfson, to give back at least as much as they get. 

And just wait until the second tier candidates who have nothing to lose start in too.  This is going to make wrestlemania look like a friendly little hug.


SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY & GLOBAL WARMING

Ken Berwitz

"It must be true.  A lot of scientists with great academic and professional credentials say so."

How's that for an all purpose reason to believe whatever a majority within the scientific and/or academic community is pushing these days?  Pretty good, huh?

The only problem?  All those scientists and academics are often 100% wrong.  And how do I know this?  Because THEY tell me so.  

To illustrate, please read the following article.  Afterwards, please think about how many other instances there have been when new information is uncovered which changes conventional wisdom.  Then, think long and hard about the virtual lockout of opposing views for issues such as global warming:.

Fossil find pushes human-ape split back millions of years

 

Aug 24 08:17 AM US/Eastern

Ten million-year-old fossils discovered in Ethiopia show that humans and apes probably split six or seven million years earlier than widely thought, according to landmark study released Wednesday.

The handful of teeth from the earliest direct ancestors of modern gorillas ever found -- one canine and eight molars -- also leave virtually no doubt, the study's authors and experts said, that both humans and modern apes did indeed originate from Africa.

The near total absence to date of traces on the continent of apes from this period had led many scientists to conclude that the shared line from which humans and living great apes emerged had taken a long evolutionary detour through Eurasia.

But the study, published in the British journal Nature, "conclusively demonstrates that the Last Common Ancestor (of both man and ape) was strictly an African phenomenon," commented paleoanthropologist Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University in Ohio. 

Well, ok, all those scientists were wrong.  But hey, they were only off by a few million years.  On the other hand, if you asked them before this paper was published, they'd have told you they were right.  Right?  Of course right. 

And what happens when the next paper comes out which changes THIS finding.  Won't the scientists then be wrong again?  With all their degrees and doctorates and other credentials.

This, folks, is why we should not take scientific opinion as immutable fact and why we should not stifle opposing views about science. 

Today's heresy is often tomorrow's reality.  Never forget that.  And never forget that it includes global warming. 

---------------------------------------------------------

P.S.  A reader has brought to my attention that this blog could conceivably be construed as an argument for intelligent design.  FYI, I never thought about intelligent design at all when writing it. My focus was entirely on the global warming issue.

.


BLATANT DISHONESTY ABOUT JOHN WARNER

Ken Berwitz

Sometimes media do not even try to hide their bias, they just lie to your face.

I am talking specifically about the Today show this morning and the Associated Press headline for the article I have posted below.

On Today, there was a segment of 5 - 10 minutes' length (I didn't actually time it) during which the words "Warner For Withdrawal" were superimposed at the bottom of the screen.  For much of that time there was a sub-head that said something about him or the rest of the GOP turning against President Bush.  Within that 5 - 10 minute period the term "Defection" was stated maybe a dozen times or more.

The implication of this?  Clearly that John Warner had turned away from President Bush on Iraq - that's what a "defection" is - and now wants the troops withdrawn - that means removing all or most of them - which is what harry reid and nancy pelosi want.

Here is the AP article I referenced above.  Before you read its content, please think a bit about what the headline says, thus what casual readers of a newspaper who scan through the headlines would walk away with.  Then pay special attention to the segment I have put in bold print, which is buried deep within the article, long after most readers will think they have the nut of the story:.

Warner: Bush Should Bring Troops Home
Aug 23, 7:02 PM (ET)

By ANNE FLAHERTY

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush should start bringing home some troops by Christmas to show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended, a prominent Republican senator said Thursday.

The move puts John Warner, a former Navy secretary and one-time chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, at odds with the president, who says conditions on the ground should dictate deployments.

Warner, R-Va., said the troop withdrawals are needed because Iraqi leaders have failed to make substantial political progress, despite an influx of U.S. troops initiated by Bush this year.

The departure of even a small number of U.S. service members - perhaps 5,000 of the 160,000 troops in Iraq - would send a powerful message throughout the region that time was running out, Warner said.

(AP) Sen. John Warner, R-Va., discusses his recent trip to Iraq during a news conference on Capital Hill...
Full Image
"We simply cannot as a nation stand and continue to put our troops at continuous risk of loss of life and limb without beginning to take some decisive action," he told reporters after a White House meeting with Bush's top aides.

Warner's new position is a sharp challenge to a wartime president that will undoubtedly color the upcoming Iraq debate on Capitol Hill. Next month, Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker are expected to brief members on the war's progress.

A White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, declined to say whether Bush might consider Warner's suggestion.

Asked whether Bush would leave the door open to setting a timetable, Johndroe said: "I don't think the president feels any differently about setting a specific timetable for withdrawal. I just think it's important that we wait right now to hear from our commanders on the ground about the way ahead."

Republicans, including Warner, have so far stuck with Bush and rejected Democratic proposals demanding troops leave Iraq by a certain date. But an increasing number of GOP members have said they are uneasy about the war and want to see Bush embrace a new strategy if substantial progress is not made by September.

(AP) Sen. John Warner, R-Va., discusses his recent trip to Iraq during a news conference on Capital Hill...
Full Image
Warner, known for his party loyalty, said he still opposes setting a fixed timetable on the war or forcing the president's hand.

"Let the president establish the timetable for withdrawal, not the Congress," he said.

Nevertheless, his suggestion of troop withdrawals is likely to embolden Democrats and rile some of his GOP colleagues, who insist lawmakers must wait until Petraeus testifies.

His stature on military issues also could sway some Republicans who have been reluctant to challenge Bush.

Warner said he came to his conclusion after visiting Iraq this month with Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the Armed Services Committee chairman; Warner is the committee's second-ranking Republican. Levin said this week that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki should be replaced. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., followed suit and told reporters Thursday that Maliki has been "a failure."

Warner said he "could not go that far" to call for Maliki's resignation. But he said he did have serious concerns about the effectiveness of the current leadership in Baghdad, which a U.S. intelligence report released Thursday also cited. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq does not anticipate a political reconciliation in the next year and predicts the Iraqi government will become "more precarious" because of criticism from various sectarian groups.

"When I see an NIE which corroborates my own judgment - that political reconciliation has not taken place - the Maliki government has let down the U.S. forces and, to an extent, his own Iraqi forces," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the report confirms what most Americans already know: "Our troops are mired in an Iraqi civil war and the president's escalation strategy has failed to produce the political results he promised to our troops and the American people."

"Every day that we continue to stick to the president's flawed strategy is a day that America is not as secure as it could be," said Reid, D-Nev.  .

Now, for your further information, here is a small excerpt from www.bloomberg.com on what Warner said.  See if you find a bit of a different context after reading it.  Again, the bold print is mine:.

Aug. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Virginia Senator John Warner said President George W. Bush should begin withdrawing troops from Iraq on Sept. 15 to show the Iraqi government that the U.S. commitment there isn't open-ended.

Bush should announce that ``we will start an orderly, carefully planned, thought-out redeployment,'' said Warner, 80, a Republican and former Navy secretary who three times chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The number of troops to be withdrawn and the timing would be up to the president, he said.

The president should ``send a sharp and clear message, throughout the region, the United States, and one that people can understand'' -- that the U.S. will not stay in Iraq indefinitely, he said.

He suggested that Bush pick a few thousand soldiers out of the 162,000 U.S. combat troops now in Iraq, or ``whatever number he wants,'' Warner said.

`Important' Development

``Say 5,000 could begin to redeploy and be home not later than Christmas of this year,'' Warner said.  .

Well well well.  What Warner REALLY said therefore is that we should bring home a token number of troops to reassure the public and to push the Iraqi government.  Maybe "a few thousand", maybe 5,000 (that is a 3% reduction, thus 97% of the troops would remain in Iraq).   

And Warner retains full support for the president - not congress - to decide if and when this is done.

Does this come across as someone demanding a "troop withdrawal"?  Or defecting from President Bush?

There is an old saying, often attributed to Mark Twain, that "there are three types of lies:  lies, damned lies and statistics"  Maybe that should be updated from "statistics" to "media reporting on President Bush and Iraq".

One last thing:  If you were a propagandist for al-qaeda, how would you have handled John Warner's statement?  Any differently than Today or the AP did?

Whose side are they on anyway?


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!