Thursday, July 13, 2006

Bloglines - Announcing the "Conglomerate Book Club"

Business Law Economics & Society

Announcing the "Conglomerate Book Club"

By Gordon Smith

Mark your calendars!

In_the_shadow_of_the_lawOn August 16, we will inaugurate the Conglomerate Book Club with a discussion ofIn the Shadow of Law, a novel by Kermit ("Kim") Roosevelt. Kim is anAssociate Professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, where he specializes in constitutional law and conflict of laws. Prior to entering academe, Kim clerked with Associate Justice David Souter and worked as an associate at Mayer, Brown and Platt in Chicago. Kim will join us on August 16 for a discussion of his debut novel ... and perhaps some discussion of hisnext novel.

The Conglomerate Book Club will be an occasional feature on the blog, held whenever we find a book -- fiction or nonfiction -- that interests several of the bloggers and, we hope, our readers.In the Shadow of Lawis such a book, focusing on the lawyers inMorgan Siler, a fictional Washington, D.C. law firm. Kim offers some nice background on the novel inthis guest-blogging postover at Eric Muller'sIs That Legal?(Though I have read Kim's novel, it didn't occur to me until I read his post that "you can more or less map the characters fromIn the Shadow of the Lawonto the characters ofStar Wars." But now that he mentions it ...)

Here's how the Conglomerate Book Club will work. Each of the reviewers -- including some of us here atConglomerateand some guest reviewers -- will write a brief review of the book, about the length of a typical blog post. And we will post those reviews on the blog. Kim will respond to the reviews, and then we will carry on the discussion in the comments.

Any questions?

Ok, then go buy a copy of the book and read it before August 16! We look forward to hearing from you.

Bloglines - Who is Number One?

Joseph Cannon (

Who is Number One?

By Joseph

Now that Novak has partially 'fessed up, everyone is re-asking the ancient question: Who was the source? Rove, we are told, was a source, but not the source. As they used to say each week at the beginning of The Prisoner: Who is Number One?

emptywheel, in a characteristically fine piece of work, presumes that Mr. Unmentionable must be Richard Armitage. That's a pretty good guess, especially since his name fits into a redacted segment of a court document in the case. (Ah, that takes me back! Fit-the-name-into-the-redaction is an old game, which used to be easier in the days of monospaced fonts.)

Eric Alterman, on the other hand, thinks that Novak is making it all up: There is no primary source. If I understand Alterman aright, the idea here is that Novak and Rove (and maybe a lawyer or two) got together and stitched up a cohesive story.

Hm. Interesting, but... Not buying it. Where does this leave Fitz?

From the LAT:
"I don't believe there was a conscious effort to manipulate me," he told Fox News. "This official was not known as somebody who did a lot of political manipulations. He is more of a substantive person.
Could this refer to Armitage? He staked out an interesting position, with one foot planted firmly in the PNAC camp, the other standing next to Colin Powell.

I'm not convinced that Armitage is Number One, although I don't have a better suspect at the moment. But I do know who Number Two is: Robert Novak. He may be the biggest piece of number two in the history of journalism.

Bloglines - Kinapping and war

Joseph Cannon (

Kinapping and war

By Joseph

Israel has, in essence, declared war on Lebanon and the Palestinians in Gaza after the kidnapping of a few soldiers. But the real kidnappers in the region are the Israelis themselves, who have kidnapped hundreds of Palestinian "suspects":
Some people will say: The IDF doesn't "just" kidnap. These people are "suspects." There is no more perverse lie than this. In all the years I served, I reached one simple conclusion: What makes a "suspect"? Who, exactly suspects him, and of what?

Who has the right to sentence a 17-year-old to kidnapping, torture and possible death? A 26-year-old Shin Bet interrogator? A 46-year-old one? Do these people have any higher education, apart from the ability to interrogate? What are his considerations? I all these "suspects" are so guilty, why not bring them to trial?

Anyone who believes that despite the lack of transparency, the IDF and Shin Bet to their best to minimize violations of human rights is naïve, if not brainwashed. One need only read the testimonies of soldiers who have carried out administrative detentions to be convinced of the depth of the immorality of our actions in the territories.

To this very day, there are hundreds of prisoners rotting in Shin Bet prisons and dungeons, people who have never been –and never will be – tried. And Israelis are silently resolved to this phenomenon.
To which I will add: Are not the detainees at Gitmo really kidnap victims? They've been there for years without charges or evidence.

Incidentally, former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky has made brief reference to medical experiments being conducted on "detained" Palestinians. Ostrovsky's books are banned in Israel.


Summer, originally uploaded by Turms.

Summers Supporters Deny Harvard Donations

Major donations to Harvard, totaling $390 million, have been scrapped or put on hold since Lawrence Summers announced his resignation as president.

[political-research] Digest Number 1291

Bloglines - Writng about what you don't understand

The News Blog
A daily update and review of the news blog.

Writng about what you don't understand

Say nothing bad about Commander

Is the Daily Kos About to Implode?
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
By Noel Sheppard

It appears that the post-Yearly Kos month from hell is continuing for Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, the proprietor of the Internet's premier liberal blog Daily Kos. After receiving some extremely negative press from major publications such as The New York Times, The New Republic and Newsweek immediately following his seemingly successful bloggers' convention in Las Vegas, Kos is now faced with an even greater challenge: dissension within his ranks.

Such internal squabbling comes at the same time that many prominent Democrats seem to be privately expressing concern about the direction the "netroots" — the self-described Internet grassroots movement of liberal bloggers and their loyal followers — are taking the Party. This seemingly inconvenient planetary alignment is not only threatening the long-term viability of this crusade, but also is putting Kos in an uncomfortable position just as his notoriety is skyrocketing.

As reported here on June 30, revelations about Kos's friend and former business partner Jerome Armstrong — from stock fraud allegations to accepting consulting fees from not so liberal candidates — have cast a cloud over the blog and its leader. This pall has also undermined the stellar relationship Kos has had with the traditional media up to this point.

Yet, maybe more important, these revelations — along with the way Markos and his Kossacks reacted to them — have caused some prominent DKos bloggers to question the behavior of Zuniga and his devotees. Such a civil war within the liberal blogosphere certainly has the potential to further discredit it, while likely making the mainstream media as well as the candidates they revere less apt to associate with this developing train wreck.

The most prominent disgruntlement came in a "diary" written and posted Saturday by Maryscott O'Connor, who describes herself as a "contented and fulfilled ... denizen of the Daily Kos community," and is now the proprietor of My Left Wing, "a spin-off of Daily Kos."

O'Connor, who was actually the subject of a 2,181-word front-page Washington Post article about the liberal blogosphere published in April, began her July 8 diary entitled "Something is Rotten in Blogmark":

"Sometimes I am embarrassed to call myself a member of DKos. This is one of those times. There is a sort of groupthink, Lord of the Flies kind of behaviour at DKos over certain issues that absolutely makes me nauseated," she wrote.

O'Connor was referring to a diary by another Kossack, Richard Silverstein, published at DKos on June 26. It openly addressed some of the issues raised by The New Republic's Jason Zengerle as well as The New York Times' David Brooks.

In short, Silverstein was concerned about the propriety of a blogger accepting funds from a political candidate. His honesty was not well received by the Kossacks, and it appears their response has been eating at O'Connor ever since:

"Increasingly, I have begun to feel intimidated or wary about writing my thoughts and doubts about these issues, lest I be set upon by a pack of Defenders of the Kos," he wrote.

O'Connor then shared her concerns about recent hypocrisies demonstrated by Kos and his devotees.

"I was bowled over when Markos mentioned Paul Hackett in his keynote speech at YKos as an example of the power of the 'netroots' — not least because when Rahm Emanuel et al threw Hackett under the bus, Markos almost immediately declared that while he was loath to say it, Brown stood a far better chance at winning than did Hackett — mostly because Brown had the support of the powers that be in the Democratic Party," she wrote.

Hypocrisy in an organization is an awful thing for a devoted team member to recognize, but even harder to admit. To her credit, O'Connor expanded on another obvious contradiction — Kos's support for the seemingly moderate former governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, implicitly due to Armstrong's consulting arrangement with the presumptive 2008 presidential candidate — while elaborating on the Hackett affair.

"[A]bandoning Hackett, signing on with the candidate anointed by the DLC, seemed in complete contradiction to the ideas and ideals behind Markos's book," she wrote..

Sounds like real world Machiavellian politics have crashed the gates, doesn't it? Yet, O'Connor is not the only Kossack having such doubts. The day before she posted her personal revelations, Richard Silverstein wrote another blog — this one conspicuously not posted at DKos — entitled "Don't Cross the 'Cult of Kos' or You'll Live to Regret It." In it, Silverstein raised a very important question:

"[H]ow does a political blogger who endorses candidates at his site create a transparent environment when he may also be consulting for — or have some other undisclosed relationship with — some of these same candidates?" Silverstein asked

Silverstein also voiced his displeasure with how his June 26 blog on this subject was received by the Kossacks.

"In short, I expected some might not like what I wrote. But I simply wasn't prepared for the onslaught," he said.

After sharing some of the malicious attacks he received in the comments section of his blog, Silverstein addressed how the site's administrators appeared to be participating in the bashing rather than performing their prescribed tasks.

Why are there no stories about the lunacy which is Ass Clown Media? I mean, what about Jeff Goldstein's insane rants, the calls for the death of various members of the media and the Supreme Court? I know Fox has a vested interest in this, but it's bullshit.

First, why do none of these stories point out that Armstrong ran his own site, MyDD until he worked for Warner. He never wrote on Daily Kos, much less was a partner in it. It would be like saying The News Blog influenced Lindsay Beyerstein's opinions on feminism, because Jen and I are friends of hers. Which would be insane. Well, Jerome ran a very different site than DK and MyDD is a very different site today.

You would think Kos and Jerome lived with each other the way people like Zengerle of the fake e-mail writes. They are friends, like I'm friends with people. I'm friendly with Matt Stoller, but I sure as hell write about different things than he does.

Maryscott is a wonderful person, at least in my dealings with her, but she's a bit dramatic. I mean, everything with her is well, definiative. Doesn't make her a bad person, or her concerns unwarranted, but she's not going to start a "civil war" over shit people don't really care about. Daily Kos is about the diaries, not any friendship of Kos's.

If the site didn't implode over the Ohio voting fraud claims, when you had people at each other throats, some story about Jerome Armstrong's past is not exactly relevant to people who have family or like one regular poster, are overseas in combat.

Of course, not mentioning the numerous errors in Zengerle's posts is sloppy.

We didn't mention John Heilemann's sloppy, sad article in New York Magazine, but will note, he was once a respected journalist, writing in Wired and the New Yorker. But he too misses the point that nothing Zengerle or Suellentrop have written has any thing but conjecture behind it.

And the reason poor Richard Silverstein got hammered, despite Maryscott's dramatic post, was that he was repeating things which were simply untrue. Kos gives money to pols, he doesn't take it from them outside ads. He and Atrios have raised nearly a million dollars since 2003 and have not asked for a job or a contract or any kind of payoff which someone directing that kind of cash would expect.

So why pose a question which isn't reflecting reality?

Of course he got hammered and didn't much like it. Because he made a fundamental mistake in what he wrote, a matter which had been discussed openly. And then on his blog, tries to defend himself by saying Kos accepted ads and does he disclose what they cost?

Come on. You go to Blogads and you look up Daily Kos. End of story.

Heilemann writes another piece relying on TNR and this insane idea that Joe Lieberman is in trouble because of bloggers. He quotes Marshall Wittman who was eviscerated, not in the blogs, but by Matt Taibbi in a manner reminiscent of Hunter Thompson.

He also doesn't bother to mention that the DLC is the real root of the problem, as is their failed policies. Getting quotes, lies, from Newt Gingrich, without checking out the reality of them, is just sloppy. Why not ask how much money the Hackett and Busby races cost them? They don't think Daily Kos is a help to them. Ask how Redstate imploded over the King funeral.

The fact is that the right has tried to emulate Daily Kos and has failed badly.

And then the accusation that Kos reacted to "blind fury" at the nearly libelous and unproven allegations that he was taking payoffs from Mark Warner, or slanting posts because of Armstong's client. Which wasn't true. He was upset a falsehood was being spread by Jason Zengerle with no reporting. He then arrogantly suggests that using stolen e-mails, unconfirmed stolen e-mails, one of which was forged, was acceptable. Then has to churlishly apologize when caught, still pretending that the profitable Kos, who's costs run between $6-8K a month, and has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians, is hitting up a pol for a couple of grand a month?

Come on, the man just bought a new house. You think three grand from Mark Warner makes a difference to him?

As to the idea of a "civil war", Daily Kos is only one of 50 popular liberal sites, all run differently. If people tire of Daily Kos, they can go to or Democratic Underground. The media fixates on DK, because they're lazy, too lazy to interview people and get the real story of how bloggers and real world activists are coming together. They did in OH-2, CA-50 and now the Lamont run.

All a blog can do is direct money to a candidate. It takes a good team on the ground to make a run. As far as Lieberman goes? As Harold Meyerson wrote, Lieberman is out of step with his consituents, which matters more than offending the all wise and powerful Kos

The Screaming Ant » Blog Archive » Why Doesn’t Media Hold Bush Accountable?

The Screaming Ant » Blog Archive » Why Doesn’t Media Hold Bush Accountable?

Strong exports help to offset US trade deficit / World / US

Military Justice Idea Rejected for Alleged Terror Defendants - Los Angeles Times

Military Justice Idea Rejected for Alleged Terror Defendants - Los Angeles Times

"....military courts provide protections for defendants that are unwarranted in the war on terrorism."

Bloglines - is there a price tag on your ass? (Amy Goodman)

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
Here we discuss sex and politics, loudly, no apologies hence "screeds" and "attitude."

is there a price tag on your ass?

By Sex And Politics and Screeds and Attitude

is there a press tag on your ass, are you uninformed or just too tired?

that's my question amy goodman of democracy now.

and it's been my question for some time.

but i was waiting to see what would be the last straw?

the gaza coverage 2 weeks ago almost was the lost straw.

but now it's hit a new low so i'm blogging while on vacation as a result of this crap.

so democracy now sends out this little 'daily digest.' in it, it tells you what was on the show, what shows amy goodman's going to be on (and, as wally noted, tells you to write and say you enjoyed her appearance) and it gives you her upcoming appearances.

i came in late to the show. i had the book (exception to the rulers) as a gift from c.i. and, as it is with a lot of books from c.i., i let it sit and sit without opening it. then c.i. started up the common ills and kept linking to the show, so i started watching.

the quality's gone down hill for some time. but i'd probably keep my mouth shut if the 'daily digest' wasn't linking to a blog that is infamous for being sexist (and had a number of women leave and start their own community last summer), wasn't infamous for not including people of color (cedric wrote about this but i had already heard about it from t when i started blogging - the first thing she did was tell me about her own experience at that hideous blog - i'm white woman and i was out of the loop that this happened at all let alone that it was fairly common), infamous for rumors of play-for-pay ads/endorsements and in the midst of some scandal every other moment.

is it 'indymedia'? no, it's not. it's a partisan democratic site.

so why is democracy now urging you to go there repeatedly in each 'daily digest'?

the most obvious reason is that some 1 wants a little pay to play and thinks she can pay with 'traffic' and hopes that people will comment on the nonsense thread to make the operator realize how important she and her show are and maybe it will actually get some coverage.

now if it had been atrios, i don't think any 1 would have blinked. if it had been any other site (besides the blogfather that apparently birthed him out the ass - oh i said butt baby! i'll get slammed the same way janeane was!) it wouldn't have meant shit to anybody.

but to scrape and bow to that blog?

that's what this is and that's why the question is: is there a price tag on your ass, are you too tired or are you just uninformed?

i avoided speaking to c.i. about this for a number of reasons. mainly because i wasn't in the mood for an 'in fairness' conversation.

i don't care if it's an out of control intern.

i don't care if the cia infiltrated show with an intern.

that 'daily digest' represents the show, therefore it represents her.

now at common dreams, 2 writers wrote a wonderful thing about her a few months back (april) and there was no link provided to that story in the daily digest.

what she's providing a link to isn't anything worth linking to. what is it 2, 3 paragraphs and then a bunch of comments from people who don't follow the show?

every 1 knows about the bill clinton interview in november of 2000. if you know the title 'democracy now' then you know about that interview.

so when you see a thread where people mention that interview and (with few exceptions) only that interview, then you're not dealing with people who follow the show.

you're dealing with people who think 'better weigh in! i don't watch it! what do i know? oh, bill clinton!'

that was 6 years ago. if that's the only thing people can think of (and for most that is all) that's a sign of something. maybe that they don't watch it or maybe that it's just not memorable.

let's explore that thing above. kat didn't delink to the show today. she didn't have to, she never provided a link to on her blog roll. she would link to certain things if she felt they were worth noting (and she didn't feel that most of the time). that's been my approach here as well.

so here's the reason for that, noted with kat's permission. kat has no idea what happened on 9/11 but she has no reason to dismiss people from offering their take - after all that's all the so called public record is.

so amy goodman interviewed david ray griffin. he has a theory about 9/11 and it's a well known theory. his writing sells.

so what's the problem?

the problem is, she only brought him on after people showed up at her book tour and repeatedly put her on the spot asking her way she 'miss indymedia' refused to offer anything that challenged the official version of 9/11?

so under repeated and intense pressure she finally decides to have david ray griffin on the show.

now how does she thank her loyal fans?

does she probe him with an extended interview?

no, not really. because less than 1/2 way it become a 'debate.'

if she didn't want the man on the show, don't have him on the show.

it's that simple.

but she had him on the show, supposedly to talk about his book and his theories about 9/11.

now there's a whole back story to that interview and how it was supposed to be a joint interview with the woman who was suing bully boy for his alleged complicity in 9/11 (which amy goodman misrepresented on her show - the law suit) but they got split up. instead of being interviewed together, amy goodman split up the woman and griffin.

now that's a problem. she only brought the author on because fans of the show pressed her into doing so and then she practices ambush journalism which is somehow supposed to endear her to the fans she's attempting to please/satisfy by bringing on griffin?

(fyi, bonnie faulkner has interviewed david ray griffin many times on her show guns and butter and she's never felt the need to ambush him or make sure she did some sort of wink to the listeners to let them know she wasn't buying it. gore vidal's written about that nonsense and it is nonsense. if you're bringing them on your show and you're a journalist, you bring them on to hear their story, not to ridicule them or allow them to be ridiculed.)

she says there's a debate and the other guest is brought on in the 2nd segment. he hasn't heard griffing comments. how can be there a debate if he hasn't paid attention and 'rush transcript' doesn't excuse some of the points that don't make it in.

what is the 'okay!' amy goodman suddenly screams in the middle of david ray griffin's talk? who is she talking to? it's not in the transcript. but i remember, when kat told me about this bit of shit interview going online, and listening. i listened and read along (you can google it and do the same) and the 'okay!' reads 'okay' as though she's saying 'yes continue' but that's not what it is. the whole damn thing smacks of that moment in bullworth where warren beatty's telling the corporate newscaster to listen to the voice in her ear piece and save her job.

that being a movie, the woman doesn't.

in reality, on our brave show, amy goodman's screaming 'okay!' what is that about?

she needs to explain why she's so excited and who's she's speaking to in the middle of an interview while a guest is answering a question.

the whole thing played like a call in.

and i'm not aware of guests coming on to discuss their work and having people join the interview in the midst of it to refute the guest. that certainly didn't happen with thomas friedman when not only did no guest challenge him but the host appeared asleep for most of the interview.

and since she screams that 'okay!' some 1 needs to explain why it's 'okay' in the transcript.

that's bad and that's why kat had no interest in ever putting the show on her blogroll. but what's bad is what the hell is happening to the show?

bill richardson, who basically told amy goodman to go to hell at the dnc convention in 2004, gets his ass kissed this year by the same amy goodman. he doesn't want to talk to about wen ho lee, though his finger prints are all over that (and much worse, read greg palast). he wants to be president in 2008 and she's blowing verbal kisses to him. that's a problem.

it gets worse. betty wrote about thomas friedman's appearance on democracy now without having heard it. kat told her what he said while it was going on, they were on the phone, betty listens to it in the car during the evening.

betty hears the interview and can't believe it. she told herself that since betinna (the character in her online novel) would only hear thomas friedman's side (as he spoke into the phone), it was okay for her novel.

but exactly why did amy goodman let friedman trash hugo chavez in explicit terms and never challenge him?

why did she let juan gonzales do the heavy lifting with michael gordon when he (gordon) snapped at her?

i thought this was our brave voice. so why's she doing these softballs?

why is thomas friedman even on to begin with? he's not a brave left voice. so if you're not going to challenge him, why have him on?

i didn't need his spewing. that interview pissed me off.

then came gaza. where an israeli guest who used to be in the israeli government (ben-ami) gripes about the way he's treated on the show and she says she's sorry. on air.

what's up with that?

he's allowed to talk over the other guests, he's allowed to lecture and pick what's he's going to respond to and yet he still has to have his baby temper tantrum and she's saying 'i'm sorry'?

what she should have said was, 'too bad.' what she could have done was ignore his tantrum.

what is this ass kiss now?

that's not democracy now.

and the gaza reporting was flawed and remains so.

maybe she's tired.

maybe she's trying to make sure that all the npr stations that won't carry the show will carry it if she goes for 'balance.'

people shouting at each other is what we got on crossfire so why she thinks we benefit from listening to that is beyond me.

the interview with david ray griffin has to be heard to be believed.

personally, i believe the planes brought down the towers. i'm a recovering mainstream media junkie. but i'm not opposed to hearing some 1 present an alternative case. certainly the bully boy has lied about everything else and the mainstream press has given him plenty of cover.

i think that david ray griffin's theory is more valid than the laughable 'shit' (to use bob kerrey's term) that the official 911 commission churned out.

if you pay attention, you'll note that joan mellen's never been a guest, that the brave indy program won't go there or address jfk.

now it can mention on malcolm x's assassination, a line or 2 here and there. but they have no interest in the jfk assassination.

but to get back to 9/11, a guest presenting an argument and a caller (i use that for a reason and most are aware of another interview in which some 1 was invited on another program but decided not to appear only to show up on the phone in the midst of an interview to dismiss the claims) who trashes every 1 as a conspiracist (christic institue most famously), what was she thinking?

was she thinking there would be a dialogue?

no. she had to know it would be 'this is what i think' by 1 guest and another snorting (as he does during the interview) and going 'wrong!'

that's not a dicussion, it's not even a debate. that's bullshit debate. that's the sort of debate you see in middle school. it's not a real debate. it's a dog and pony show. and she didn't even know her facts accusing david ray griffin of saying that a reporter didn't exist when that was another author.

so i'm not a big fan of the so-called debates and discussions on that show.

but what about when they get facts wrong?

c.i. was very kind last week and waited until edward wong repeated a falsehood twice in print. only the 2nd time did c.i. call wong out. ('NYT: 'Facts is hard' Edward Wong demonstrates'). thing is, democracy now repeated that falsehood and they continue to do so. steven green wasn't arrested last week.

do your fucking research. good god, c.i. provided more details on that online than anyone except sandra lupien (i'm assuming that because c.i.'s given all credit in personal conversations to lupien's broadcast). last week, on monday, c.i. linked to the government press release and wrote about how steven green was arrested on june 30th.

the new york times ran a correction on wong's articles so why can't amy goodman get it right?

c.i. didn't call out that show on it (but did correct them in the highlight). they continue to get it wrong. even after the new york times corrected their own mistake.

democracy now, which mike pointed out 2 sundays ago wasn't interested in covering nancy a. youssef's explosive story that the us government was keeping a body count on iraqis, despite the lies and denials they issued, can't get their facts right.

now you can pin it on a new intern or new staff member, but really, get your fucking facts straight or just go off the air.

i'm not in the mood for crappy journalism.

we need real journalism and if the show provide some, fine and dandy. but this nonsense of not even knowing the right day for when someone was arrested when it's in a government press release? i mean come on.

worry a little less about kissing ass online to a big blogger and worry a little more about doing your damn job. get your shit together or pack it in.

i'm sick of the bullshit, i'm sick of the nonsense.

and when they want to promote a blog that's run women off, that's not friendly to african-americans and that's surrounded with rumors of how they drop endorsements of candidates for money (and forget the rumors, the fact that they're playing kid gloves with the likes of war hawk mark warner is disgusting enough).

now maybe, like when steven green was arrested, goodman doesn't know this.

well she needs to. and she needs to be providing a lot more supervision to that show because the quality has sunk. little less word of mouth, little more work.

this community is furious about the repeated blog link (which is an endorsement). cedric wondered how much that had to do with the fact that the common ills and mike promote the hell out of that show? i'm sure that's part of it, but it's a small part. the larger issue is that they do so much damage these days.

what was that coverage of the mexican elections?

it was encouraging advocacy. and let me tell you how that's playing out at the resort i'm in (not in mexico), welathy, old right-wingers are laughing at reports that, from america, mexicans or mexican-americans are going to stream into mexico for protests.


it damages the cause of the immigration issue here.

forget the flags of mexico at the protests, that's a totem, that's honoring your ancestors.

but when you're leaving this country to go protest the elections in mexico, you're putting a 'trash me, trash my issue' sign on your back for every right winger and you damn well better believe the right wing press will pick up on it and the centrist press (the big press) will play it that way as well.

how? 'they say they want to be a part of this country but look what they're doing!'

do i think there's anything wrong with it? no.

but i know image. i know p.r. and that's going to hurt the immigration cause in this country.

every hater and every on the fencer is going to hear about people leaving america to go participate and they're attitude is going to be, 'well, i guess we know where there loyalties are.'

it's the last damn thing the immigration cause in this country needs. but at the bar, this prick had printed up some newsletter he was e-mailed and was laughing about it, a prediction that millions were going to stream across the border into mexico to protest the elections.

this isn't 'joe 6 pack.' this is a filthy rich prick.

i've said before the left needs to do some reality wake ups and i'll say it again.

this resort isn't the sort of place i'd go to on my own. (and elaine was full of complaints about it.)
(she was correct on every 1.) i have my own money, i earned it. but with fly boy, i am exposed to those wealthy base that funds those publications, organizations, et al because that's the sort of the crowd that goes to these places.

in fact, let me talk about that and 2 other things. (mike's not posting until i get this up.)

1st off, this word of mouth scheme (playing cozy with a 'big blog') that's pissing people off. let me share with you some research from a few years back. i worked with a company that did business with the public. they had a really bad image and they were suffering.

they wanted to creat a new image.

we did research on that. here's what we found out. it's eaier to keep your customers than to go after new 1s. 'easier' means cheaper.

why do you lose customers?

think about some where you used to go. you may have left because something new opened up. you may have left because you lost interest. those were answers from our polling. but it was slightly over 50% that stated they left because they felt they were ignored, dismissed or in some way treated rudely.

that's what's going on with this ass-kiss link in the 'daily digest' - it's going to hurt them. they'll lose listeners or readers who will never come back.

and it's not even an article on amy goodman. it's not an interview. it's just 2 or 3 lousy paragraphs and she's risking her credibility and the show's promoting that blog hoping that traffic and additional posts that her loyal faithful will give to that post will lead to more coverage at that site that's ignored her for the most part.

that may happen. i doubt it. unless she's going to give air kisses to every dem the way she did with bill richardson. but what it is doing is pisisng people off. and those people, they won't come back. she's losing them. she's sending them packing.

elaine's going to tackle another angle, by the way. she should be home or on the way home as i'm typing this (from the airport).

now because i was plugging the show people in fly boy's crowd knew about it. i stopped plugging it a long time ago and only linked when mike would beg to me. but my mother-in-law didn't know that. she knows every 1 ('that matters') and was working on some funding as a favor to me. i called her up yesterday and told her to stop it.

she has. why? because i asked her to but also because big blog is run by 'squeak.' i didn't realize c.i. didn't come up with that name. (c.i. never presented it as though it was original.) that's what big blogger's called by the big families in the united states. 'squeak.'

(c.i. is part of the big families as most members know.)

my mother-in-law mentioned the 'social climber' post that c.i. did on squeak. and i didn't even know she followed the common ills? she doesn't. that was some thing that got bandied around because it was funny and because it represented that class's way of thinking.

he is an obvious social climber.

he won't get far. obvious social climber's don't.

i'm not of that class. having money doesn't make you part of it. (i'd argue marriage doesn't - based on when fly boy, who is part of it, and i were married.) you're born into it. wherever in the world, you're born into it.

c.i. and ava were born into it. they can navigate it beautifully. jim will tell me some social story about ava and i will think, 'i know just what you mean, i remember college days with c.i.'

that class has their own code. you can't break into it, you can't 'crash the gates.' and when you reveal your ambition, you're seen as a social climber and that's about the worst thing you can be in their eyes.

i'm not insulting ava or c.i. (or fly boy). they can't help what they were born into. they're the wacky 1s that are embraced for that. (my mother-in-law calls c.i. a socialist in a fond way and c.i.'s not socialist - nothing wrong with being 1, but c.i.'s not 1 - but that's the sort of way they're seen, as the do gooders. and it's seen as their quirk, their lark.)

there are rules and c.i. knows them very well and always has. c.i. can tell you the exact standing at any given moment of any 1. when a press reported wealthy heir embarrassed herself, c.i. explained that the wealth was gone long ago and only the 'idiot press' still thinks the heir has wealth.

amy goodman's hurting herself with her viewers and listeners by trying to play ass kiss with squeak. but the more damaging thing is what her efforts have done to her image among the 'people who matter'. goodman's not low on the social scale. if she was, she wouldn't have gotten so far. (that's the truth, sorry to pop any bubbles. if it helps, i did quite well but i did better after i married fly boy. clients that wouldn't have returned my calls suddenly wanted to do business.) she has a pedigree. she could become 1 of the big success stories (by the way, i had new appreciation for eddie muphy's trading places after i married fly boy). attaching herself to a social climber in any form hurts her. to quote my mother-in-law 'that's just not done.'

i heard that over and over when fly boy and i were married. and yes, we are getting remarried which is why i started calling her my mother-in-law awhile back (instead of my ex-mother-in-law). we plan a small ceremony of just friends and his parents.

but there are guidelines and there are rules. can you break them? ava and c.i. do. they get away with it. (fly boy's not quite the rebel they are but for that crowd, he's a rebel.) but they were born in. and they're not going to do anything that embarrasses themselves or any of their crowd.

that's why c.i. really doesn't approach journalism criticism from the point of view of an editor or a reporter. c.i.'s coming at it from the higher level. that's the way it was growing up, the talk.

but let's drop back to some things are not done.

1 thing is those out of the set should never think they're in or that they're getting in. if you must think it, for god's sake don't say it. to do so is to be labeled a social climber. that's akin to being labeled a pedophile in the general population. there's nothing worse.

the minute that happens, you are a joke and you will remain a joke.

the best advice c.i. gave me when i married fly boy was, 'don't need anyone. the only power you will have is the fact that people think you don't care about them. if they think that, they'll find you interesting. if they know you want to be liked, you won't be.'

(2nd best advice? 'nolan miller doesn't costume this set. there is a very limited number of deisgners that are accepted, they aren't the 1s that pop up on tv or in the fashion pages. don't wear something new to impress unless it's a gala.' which really is true. i've never seen so many worn clothes outside this set. you don't want anything looking to new because it indicates that you've just 'arrived.')

so the point here is she's associating herself with a social climber and that's going to hurt her. my mother in law is probably black balling her as i type (fly boy nods yes).

as for squeak, he's going to get some press play (note the working press, earning pay checks, unless they come from the established moneyed set, are just the servants. that's how they see them.) and then he's going to realize, after the 2008 election, how unimportant he is. that's happened repeatedly to social climbers. maybe he can parlay it in a celeb set but he's got no power because he's revealed that he wants power.

the few that do manage to rise up, do it understanding the code and the biggest part is that you don't show ambition to rise. you keep your head down, focus on the work and keep your nose clean.

i want to talk about the trashing c.i. had from some 1 recently and i'll just note that in that 'lovely' retold story, the jerk forgot to explain that, years ago, he made a very clumsy, very drunken pass at c.i. and was turned down. not because he was seen as the hired help (c.i. doesn't look at it that way) but because he had really bad breath. he had some dental work done shortly after and possibly the odor resulted from a rotting tooth but he had really bad breath. (and was very drunk and basically attempted to maul c.i. and even friends know you don't just grab c.i. ava's the same way and she came from a much more physically demonstrative family. i told dona to say: 'i'm going to give you a hug' when she explained that she'd hugged ava and ava had just stiffened up. that's what i did for years with c.i. because it wasn't a touchy-feely background and that really is awkward to them when that kind of physical contact comes out of the blue.)

(for the first 2 years of college, anytime i hugged c.i. out of the blue, and i'm a hugger, c.i. would go stiff as a board. it was just a totally new experience.)

now maybe she's completely unaware of the links to squeak (repeated links) but that's too bad. she's been tarred and feathered by them. she's a social climber by association. she may as well have gone the home shopping network with joan rivers to sell some gaudy jewelry.

(a woman c.i. knows, who is a name, is smart enough to keep a distance from squeak. she was raised in money, she knows the rules too. amy goodman would have been smart to have sought out advice from that woman - whom she knows.)

so every 1 who's bothered can take comfort in that. as my mother-in-law said repeatedly on the phone, 'some things just aren't done.' (and amy goodman should have known that.)

shit this thing is long and i'm on vacation. i'm not doing links. i've got a blank space for a c.i. entry that i will put in but other than that, i'm not doing links.

squeak blackballed himself the 2nd he said he was crashing the gates. it didn't help that he's not attractive and that his voice is in the female range. but he's hurt his own cause with his naked desire to be part of a big set. (i'm not of that set. please. after my divorce, a lot of people stopped talking to me. that was fine with me in most cases - 2 women did shock me because i had thought that we were real friends. i'm sure that once news leaks out that fly boy and i are remarrying, they'll call me up and say, 'where have you been?' this time i won't make the mistake of assuming that they're friends. there was also a cold shoulder from most of the neighbors who didn't take well to the idea that i got the house in the divorce settlement - the only thing i asked for. but it was 'family property' and so i got and get sneers from many neighbors.)

amy goodman made her name by keeping her head down and focusing on the work. that's pretty much all destroyed (the image) by associating herself with squeak. that's how it works.

i've delinked. every 1 has but c.i. who probably won't delink. if the community says 'no more,' the show won't be noted any more but c.i. was raised to believe that you tolerate imperfections in others and there won't be any delinking there. there also won't be any trashing of the show there. (again, that's how it's done. if c.i. were to trash it, it would be done with a whisper. if you want to understand this set, read edith wharton. nothing's really changed. and, not surprisingly, wharton was c.i.'s favorite dead author. i could not get how that stuff would work when we were reading her in college and c.i. would give me that 'i'm going to be patient here' look and explain and explain.)

it's a different world. i'm not a part of it. i have been an observer by friendship and by marriage. for instance, an example, as most people who come here know, i have a name on this site. it was my legal name at 1 time. it's not my business name and it's not my maiden name. it's not what's on my driver's lic. now. c.i. said, 'oh rebecca, don't use your real name. what if you and fly boy get back together.' people in that set don't look for press. (so when you see some 1 popping up in the press, it's a sure sign that some 1's got money problems.)

many moths ago, sherry told me that c.i. and i both got an online link from the new york times. c.i. was embarrassed by that ('people know me'), my attitude was 'they didn't put my name in!' i'm rebecca winters here (winters is from my 1st marriage, the 1 that was annulled). it says so on the site. they name all these people and then they say something like 'sex and politics and screeds and attitude writes' and i was like, 'where is my name!' i was raised differently and getting your name mentioned was some thing big.

fly boy's making a point in my ear, reading over my shoulder, and i don't understand it. if i do, i may add it later or in a few days. thanks so much to betty who has been subbing for me. she's done a wonderful job. thanks to mike and wally for their phone calls. (hint, hint, c.i. i haven't heard 1 word from you!) (i'm joking, i knew c.i. wasn't going to phone while elaine was here. that was our time to bond and c.i. wasn't going to 'butt in'.) fly boy says hi to sherry & marlene.
i'll say the vacation's lasting at least 1 more week. take care everybody.

Bloglines - Newspapers Drops Coulter's Column When "Conservative Readers Felt That Their Views Were Being Misrepresented"...

The Huffington Post | Raw Feed
The Huffington Post Raw Feed

Newspapers Drops Coulter's Column When "Conservative Readers Felt That Their Views Were Being Misrepresented"...

By The Huffington Post on Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter is no stranger to controversy, but her latest adventures have several newspapers questioning whether carrying her syndicated column is worth the trouble. The Shreveport (La.) Times is currently leaving the decision of whether or not to keep Coulter up to its readers. But the first newspaper to officially drop Coulter's column since the latest uproar began seems to be The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where she had appeared for about 14 months.

Opinion Page Editor Doug Neumann told E&P, "Our decision was made before the plagiarism allegations. It did come after the publication of [Coulter's] book, but I would say it didn't directly play any role on our decision."


McCain's Character

McCain's Character

Ronald Kessler's excellent piece on Senator John McCain's erratic and explosive temper is 100% dead on target. As someone who has known McCain for 32 years, I can unequivocally state that he should be nowhere near the Oval Office.

Rep. Hunter: U.S. Too Easy on Detainees

Rep. Hunter: U.S. Too Easy on Detainees

bug, emerged

bug, emerged, originally uploaded by Bill Norris.

Bloglines - Donny Deutsch shatters the Coulter Myth

Crooks and Liars
John Amato's Virtual Online Magazine

Donny Deutsch shatters the Coulter Myth

By John Amato on Ann Coulter


Donny really did a number on Coulter last night. They said a few things that I will differ with of course, but there was no wiggle room for Coulter to break free from. There wasn’t a talking head that would give in to her vaudevillian brand of extremism. He’s telling her that there are no liberal bogeymen. Then he gets started on her shots at the 9/11 widows.

Video -WMP Video -QT ( low res-long file) Bittorent -WMP ( high quality-63mgs)


I’m watching The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch, on CNBC. He’s hedge fund manager type who has a show on CNBC where he can smoke cigars with the boys, a real kick-ass go military and low taxes type with a socially liberal edge. He has Ann Coulter on TV, and he’s taking her apart. It’s amazing. He’s saying that her supposedly villainous liberals don’t exist, and he’s pointing out that Bush isn’t doing a good job in the war on terror,

that Iraq was a mistake, and that her brand of extreme divisive politics is insensitive and meant to sell books. Deutsch says he’s in the center of the spectrum, and she brought up Lieberman and how the Democratic extreme base is throwing him out of the party. Deutsch just came back and said that liberals like Coulter describes just don’t exist. He’s calling her out for dirty tricks, and said "fighting in Iraq does not equal the war on terror." This is not a liberal show. It’s a how to for rich, male advertising executives.

Coulter-Hair3.jpg As the interview started

Coulter-hair.jpg Things got worse.

Coulter-hair1.jpg and worse…until they went to break and fixed her up.


Bloglines - Novak's "tell all" Plame column revealed little new, contained more falsehoods, distortions, and contradictions

Bloglines user has sent this item to you.

Media Matters for America
Latest Media Matters for America items

Novak's "tell all" Plame column revealed little new, contained more falsehoods, distortions, and contradictions

In War in Iraq

In his July 12 nationally syndicated column, Fox News political analyst Robert D. Novak claimed to make good on his promise to discuss his role in the federal investigation into the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. But he did not provide the answer to perhaps the most enduring mystery in this case -- the identity of his original source -- and repeated false and contradictory statements regarding the investigation and the manner in which he learned of Plame's identity. The only discernible new disclosure in Novak's column was that he in fact testified before the grand jury and revealed his sources there.

In 2002, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was sent to Niger by the CIA to answer questions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office regarding the purported sale of Nigerien yellowcake uranium to Iraq. Wilson's investigation turned up no evidence that any sale had taken place and found that "it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq." After President Bush alluded to Iraq's purported attempt to obtain uranium from Africa in his 2003 State of the Union address as justification for invading Iraq (the now-infamous "sixteen words"), Wilson detailed the findings of his trip in a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed. Eight days later, in his July 14, 2003, column, Novak identified Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction," and wrote: "Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger." In September 2003, it was reported that the Justice Department had launched an investigation into the public disclosure of Plame's identity. In December 2003, the Justice Department appointed U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald as special counsel to head the inquiry. On October 28, 2005, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's then-chief of staff, was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to the FBI regarding the Plame investigation.

Deliberate disclosure or inadvertent?

In his latest column, Novak has continued his pattern of making false and contradictory statements regarding the Plame case, including offering contradictory accounts of how he came to know of Plame's identity as a CIA operative. In his July 12 column, Novak wrote:

In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.

Novak previously wrote, in his October 1, 2003, column, that he learned of Plame's identity through "an offhand revelation" from his primary source. On the October 5, 2003, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, Novak claimed Plame's identity "came up almost offhandedly in the course of a very long conversation with a senior official about many things." As Media Matters for America noted, however, these explanations, as well as Novak's most recent claim that "the disclosure was inadvertent," are contradicted by the account of how he learned of Plame's identity he gave to Newsday shortly after the publication of his July 14, 2003, column. According to Newsday, he said that his White House sources "thought it was significant." According to the July 22 Newsday article:

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

On the October 5, 2003, broadcast of Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Novak to explain the discrepancy between the two quotes; Novak responded that his earlier statement had not been "very artfully put" and insisted that there existed "no inconsistency between those two."

Novak misrepresents Senate Intel Committee findings on Plame role

In his July 12 column, Novak twice claimed that Plame "helped initiate" Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger and claimed that the Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 report on prewar Iraq intelligence "confirmed" that assertion:

For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew -- independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.


I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.

Novak previously made these claims in an August 1, 2005, column. As Media Matters has noted, however, the CIA has disputed the assertion that Plame was instrumental in her husband's obtaining the assignment. Also, the Senate Intelligence Committee report offered no conclusions as to whether Plame suggested Wilson for the trip. The committee chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), stated in an addendum to the report that committee Democrats had specifically opposed inclusion of an official finding on the subject.

Indeed, Novak himself accurately noted the committee's lack of a conclusion on the matter in a July 15, 2004, column, writing: "They neither agreed to a conclusion that former diplomat Joseph Wilson was suggested for a mission to Niger by his CIA employee wife nor defended his statements to the contrary." Since then, however, Novak has consistently and falsely claimed that the Senate Intelligence Committee report "confirmed" Plame's role in the controversy.

Central question remains

Novak's column also revealed little or nothing that was not previously known about his sources or role in the leaking of Plame's identity. In his July 12 column, Novak wrote:

Some journalists have badgered me to disclose my role in the case, even demanding I reveal my sources -- identified in the column as two senior Bush administration officials and an unspecified CIA source. I have promised to discuss my role in the investigation when permitted by the prosecution, and I do so now.

But Novak did not answer the central question regarding his role in the investigation: Who was his primary source for Plame's identity? Instead, he "revealed" that White House senior adviser Karl Rove and former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow were his "confirming" sources. Novak wrote:

I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection. I have revealed Harlow's name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our conversation, which also differs from my recollection. My primary source has not come forward to identify himself.

It has long been known, however, that Rove and Novak spoke about Plame. As The Washington Post reported on October 20, 2005: "One of the longest-running mysteries of the case is the identity of Novak's second source. Rove has testified that he discussed Plame in passing with Novak, but it is not clear who else did." Also, Novak previously acknowledged Harlow as his source at the CIA. In his August 1, 2005, column, Novak specifically responded to Harlow's claim that Novak had ignored Harlow's warnings regarding the Plame story. Novak wrote:

In the course of a front-page story in last Wednesday's Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei quoted ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow describing his testimony to the grand jury. In response to my question about Valerie Plame Wilson's role in former Amb. Wilson's trip to Niger, Harlow told me she "had not authorized the mission." Harlow was quoted as later saying to me "the story Novak had related to him was wrong."

Moreover, Harlow himself has reported that he discussed Plame with Novak before the July 2003 column.

Bloglines - Enron witness found dead in park

BBC News BBC News | News Front Page | World Edition
Visit BBC News for up-to-the-minute news, breaking news, video, audio and feature stories. BBC News provides trusted World and UK news as well as local and regional perspectives. Also entertainment, business, science, technology and health news.

Enron witness found dead in park


A body found in parkland is identified as that of a banker who was questioned in the Enron fraud case.

Bloglines - Israel Graduates from Killing Gazans to Lebanese

Another Day in the Empire

Israel Graduates from Killing Gazans to Lebanese

By Administrator on Uncategorized

Now that Hezbollah has “abducted” two Israeli soldiers in Lebanon, we can expect a “wider Mideast military confrontation,” according to Bloomberg. Ehud Olmert holds “Lebanon responsible for the fate of the missing soldiers,” who were captured near Aita al-Shaab on the Lebanese side of the border, that is to say the soldiers violated the sovereignty of Lebanon, a common occurrence.

“Israeli ground forces also crossed into Lebanon to hunt for the missing soldiers, Israeli Army Radio said,” reports Reuters, and then offers an excuse, per usual: “Israeli troops have not struck deep into Lebanon since they withdrew from a southern border strip in 2000 after Hizbollah’s Shi’ite fighters waged an 18-year war of attrition against them,” in other words they resisted the illegal occupation of the southern part of their country, as they now resist the illegal occupation of the Shebaa Farms area and continual Israeli border provocations (and violations of Lebanese airspace by Israeli fighter jets). No mention of this by Reuters or Bloomberg.

Like the civilians of Gaza, the civilians of Lebanon will be required to pay for Hezbollah capturing prisoners of war.

“Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz warned the Lebanese government that the Israeli military will target infrastructure and ‘turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years,’ if the soldiers were not returned, Israeli TV reported,” notes the Associated Press. Only a little bit of translation is required, as Israel does not usually mince words. Israel will destroy civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, as it did in Gaza, a violation of international humanitarian law. But then Israel in Palestine and Lebanon, as the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, does not do international law.

Of course, the New York Times chimed in. “The fighting erupted when Hezbollah attacked northern Israel with rocket fire this morning, injuring several Israeli civilians in the northwestern town of Shlomi, the Israeli military said. Israel responded with artillery fire and air strikes that targeted Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon. Later, Israeli troops moved into southern Lebanon in the first such incursion since Israel pulled its troops back into Israel in 2000.” Reading the New York Times, or any other corporate media newspaper for that matter, you get the impression Hezbollah simply fires Katyusha rockets into northern Israel out of vindictiveness. Israel’s border provocations and targeting of Lebanese civilians is rarely mentioned.

In predictable fashion, Israel is now attacking Lebanese civilians in response to the “abduction” (capture) of its soldiers. “In southern Lebanon, Israeli fighter jets bombed five bridges in quick succession, effectively cutting off that region from the rest of the country. At least two Lebanese civilians were killed in one of the bridge strikes, civil defense officials said, and a power plant was badly damaged. Airstrikes hit the cities of Marjuyun and Kfar Shouba, and warships shelled roads connecting cities to each other.”

As expected, the Times chalks all of this up to an attempt to stop the movement of the “kidnappers,” or resistance forces in engaged in a long tradition—taking prisoners during wartime. “Troops entered Lebanon soon after the 9 a.m. abduction, striking 30 military and infrastructure targets in an effort to slow the movements of the gunmen holding the kidnapped soldiers.” Of course, destroying “infrastructure targets” will not stop Hezbollah, although it will create a refugee problem and make life a living hell for Lebanese civilians. “Scores of suddenly stranded Lebanese wandered back roads looking for a way home—their faces grim and worried, their belongings stuffed into plastic bags. Sirens wailed in the background.”

Since the 2000 “pullback” (i.e., the Hezbollah resistance defeated Israel), the Israeli military has consistently attacked civilian infrastructure in Lebanon. In 2000, for instance, Israel targeted three key electric plants “that limited power supplies to a few hours a day for Beirut and other parts of Lebanon,” as the Los Angeles Times noted at the time. As Israeli diplomat Abba Eban explained in 1981, attacking and slaughtering civilians is a “rational prospect.” Hizbollah understands this policy all to well, as do the civilians of al-Mansouri, Majdal Zoune, Zibqin, Kafra, Yater, Eita al-Jabal, al-Ezizeh, and other Lebanese cities indiscriminately shelled by Israeli artillery over the years. A prime example of this brutality can be seen in the Israeli shelling of Qana, a village located southeast of Tyre, resulting in the killing of 106 civilians.

It should be obvious what is going on here—Olmert and the Likudites are escalating hostilities in the region in an effort to draw the United States in even more, the situation in Iraq not withstanding.

Olmert, the Likudites, and their neocon collaborators understand well the military prowess and red ink checkbook of the United States will be required to take on the Lebanese, Syrians, Iranians, and the Palestinians, long designated mortal enemies of the Israeli state. For as Israeli foreign policy expert Yehoshafat Harkabi noted in 1988, “Israeli intentions to impose a Pax Israelica on the Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and treat them harshly,” cannot be accomplished, considering current realities. “Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi concluded that Israel did not have the power to achieve that goal, given the strength of the Arab states, the large Palestinian population involved, and the vehement opposition of world opinion. He hoped that ‘the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the weakest Arab state—Lebanon—will disabuse people of similar ambitions in other territories.’ Left unconsidered by Harkabi was the possibility that the United States would act as Israel’s proxy to achieve the overall goal,” writes Stephen J. Sniegoski.

In fact, it appears this is precisely what Israel is attempting to do now. Soon enough, Israel will paint itself into a corner, unable to stem the growing tide of resentment and violent reaction, and will call on the United States to attack its enemies. Or, more to the point, Israel’s vocal choir in the United States will demand a response, beginning with Syria and eventually Iran, two targets already highlighted on the neocon hit list, the “evil empire” roster.


Ari Rabinovitch, writing for Reuters, muses: “The violence has knocked the hopes of many Israelis that it might one day be possible to break from conflict with various foes through a mixture of withdrawing from some occupied land and protecting boundaries with overwhelming force.”

Israelis need to realize their government never had any intention of ending the “conflict with various foes” who had and continue to have their land systematically stolen, their communities destroyed, their civilian infrastructure targeted. Israelis need to go back to the United Nations Partition Plan (resolution 181) conceived in 1947 (see this map). Instead, the Palestinians live on a fraction of land as original proposed (see this page). Israelis need to realize they support apartheid, a refashioned and high-tech Warsaw ghetto wall, and also understand their society is riddled with anti-Arab racism and hatred.

Israelis need to consider the following quotes issued from their founders and leaders:

“There is no such thing as a Palestinian people… It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist.” — Golda Meir Statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

“How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” — Golda Meir (quoted in Chapter 13 of The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace by Alfred Lilienthal )

“We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country …. expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” — Theodore Herzl (from Rafael Patai, Ed. The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Vol I)

“… it is the duty of the [Israeli] leadership to explain to the public a number of truths. One truth is that there is no Zionism, no settlement, and no Jewish state without evacuating Arabs, and without expropriating lands and their fencing off.” — Yesha’ayahu Ben-Porat, (Yedi’ot Aharonot 07/14/1972) responding to public controversy regarding the Israeli evictions of Palestinians in Rafah, Gaza, in 1972. (Cited in Nur Masalha’s “A Land Without A People” 1997, p.98)

“The very point of Labor’s Zionist program is to have as much land as possible and as few Arabs as possible!” –Yitzhak Navon (”moderate” ex-Israeli president and a leading labor party politician.) Cited on p.179 of Nur Masalha’s A Land without a People who cites Bernard Avishai’s The Tragedy of Zionism 1985 p.340

“One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.”
–Rabbi Ya’acov Perin in his eulogy at the funeral of mass murderer Dr. Baruch Goldstein.

“In working for Palestine, I would even ally myself with the devil”
– Vladimir Jabotinsky founder of Revisionist Zionism (Likud party roots)
responding to condemnation for his alliance with Ukrainian pogromist Petlyura.

“In strategic terms, the settlements (in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza) are of no importance.” What makes them important, he added, was that “they constitute an obstacle, an unsurmountable obstacle to the establishment of an independent Arab State west of the river Jordan.”
–Binyamin Begin, (son of the late Menahem Begin and a prominent voice in the Likud party writing in 1991, Quoted on page 159 of Findley’s Deliberate Deceptions)

“Our fathers had reached the frontiers recognized in the partition plan; the Six-Day War generation has managed to reach Suez, Jordan, and the Golan Heights. This is not the end. After the present cease-fire lines, there will be new ones. They will extend beyond Jordan … to Lebanon and … to central Syria as well.”
– Moshe Dayan to Zionist youth at a meeting in the Golan Heights July, 1968

“They [Israel] have typically concealed the continually expansionist nature of their project from their western sponsors and pursued a “step by step” process toward these goals. While pointing to militant Arab rhetoric to frighten Jews and convince them that the Arab world is genocidal against Jews and that no peace is possible with them, Israeli leaders have been quite aware of the actual inability of the Arab world to deliver on this militant rhetoric. ”
–Rosemary and Herman Ruether in “The Wrath of Jonah” (1989)

“The main difference between Bosnia and Palestine is that ethnic cleansing in the former took place in the form of dramatic massacres and slaughters which caught the world’s attention, whereas in Palestine what is taking place is a drop-by-drop tactic in which one or two houses are demolished daily, a few acres are taken here and there every day, a few people are forced to leave”
–Edward Said (Washington Report 09/1998)

“The demolition and sealing of houses are among the most severe methods of punishment used by the authorities against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. To our knowledge, this harsh form of punishment is unique to Israel and is not employed by any other nation. Demolition and sealing of houses in the territories contravene international law that prohibits collective punishment and arbitrary injury to property.”
– B’Tselem, an Israeli Human Rights Organization.

“It is an open secret that Israeli policy makers hoped for a massive emigration of Palestinians as a result of economic and demographic pressure. Therefore, they also developed a clever system which caused numerous Palestinians born here to lose their residency rights when they went to work or study abroad.”
– Amira Hass in 08/26/1998 Ha’aretz Op’Ed titled The Settlers are Not to Blame.

While campaigning for the prime ministership, Binyamin Netanyahu Criticized his Labor party opponents for missing an opportunity during the Tiannamen Square massacre. “Had he been prime minister, he said, he would have seized the chance then, while the world was watching China, to carry out the transfer of the Palestinians.”
– p. 137 Washington Report 09/1998

“[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat.”
– Yitzhak Rabin (a “Prince of Peace” by Clinton’s standards), explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen’s remarks to the Kenesset’s foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)

“To solidify their gains after the 1967 war, according to UN figures, the Israelis destroyed during the period between June 11, 1967 and November 15, 1969 some 7,554 Palestinian Arab homes in the territories seized during that war; this figure excluded thirty-five villages in the occupied Golan Heights that were razed to the ground. In the two years between September 1969 and 1971 the figure was estimated to have reached 16,312 homes.”
–from The Zionist Connection II, by Alfred Lilienthal, p.160. 1978

“Jews came and took, by means of uprooting and expulsion, a land that was Arab. We wanted to be a colonialist occupier, and yet to come across as moral at the same time… The Arab armies — chiefly from Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Transjordan, now Jordan — totaled just over 20,000 men. The core of the Arab nations’ fighting forces remained behind, in part to ensure the internal stability of their own fledgling regimes…. Crucially, Israel had a quiet agreement with Transjordan that its Arab Legion, the strongest of the invading armies, would take over only the West Bank, which the U.N. partition plan had intended as the center of a Palestinian Arab State.”
– Ilan Pappe’, Israeli Historian at Haifa University.

“Till then everyone in Israel spoke about Arabs who had just run away in 1948, but there existed no real historical research on it. There were two conflicting propaganda versions, one Arab and another Jewish. As one who received his education in Israel, I thought I knew that the Arabs had ‘run away.’ But I knew nothing else. The Jewish generations of 1948, however, knew the truth and deliberately misrepresented it. They knew there were plenty of mass deportations, massacres and rapes . . . . The soldiers and the officials knew, but they suppressed what they knew and were deliberately disseminating lies.”
– Israeli Historian Benny Morris in an interview with Rami Tal published in Israeli Daily Yediot Ahronot December 1994.

“Israel’s conquests included not only such major cities as Jaffa, Lydda and Acre, but also 418 Palestinian villages that were destroyed and another 100 villages that were occupied by Jews. In all Israelis took over more than 50,000 homes, 10,000 shops and 1,000 warehouses. It was estimated that about a quarter of the buildings in the new state were originally the property of the Palestinians.”
– p. 72 of Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff

“Indiscriminate plundering of Palestinian property by Jews [in 1948] was so common that it caused Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to confide to his diary that he was ‘bitterly surprised’ by the ‘mass robbery’ in which all parts of the population participated. […] Tom Segev reported: ‘In Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem there were many civilians among the looters.’ Another Israeli writer, Moshe Smilanky, reported: ‘Individuals, groups and communities, men, women and children, all fell on the spoils. Doors, windows, lintels, brinks, roof-tiles, floor-tiles, junk and machine parts …’ Segev commented that Smilansky ‘could have also added to the list toilet bowls, sinks, faucets and light bulbs.’”
– p.68 of Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff

(Classic Quotes on Zionism, from the Jerusalemites website.)