By my lights, Dean is first.

WHY DEMS AND RETHUGS BOW TO THE ISRAEL LOBBY

http://www.alternet.org/audits/64708/

America is about to enter a presidential election year. Although the outcome is of course impossible to predict at this stage, certain features of the campaign are easy to foresee. The candidates will inevitably differ on various domestic issues -- and spirited debates are certain to erupt on a host of foreign policy questions as well.

Yet on one subject, we can be equally confident that the candidates will speak with one voice. In 2008, as in previous election years, serious candidates for the highest office in the land will go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one foreign country -- Israel -- as well as their determination to maintain unyielding U.S. support for the Jewish state. Each candidate will emphasize that he or she fully appreciates the multitude of threats facing Israel and make it clear that, if elected, the United States will remain firmly committed to defending Israel's interests under any and all circumstances. None of the candidates is likely to criticize Israel in any significant way or suggest that the United States ought to pursue a more evenhanded policy in the region. Any who do will probably fall by the wayside.

Why does Israel get a free pass from presidential candidates, when its own citizens are often deeply critical of its present policies and when these same presidential candidates are all too willing to criticize many of the things that other countries do? Why does Israel, and no other country in the world, receive such consistent deference from America's leading politicians?

Washington's close relationship with Jerusalem makes it harder, not easier, to defeat the terrorists who are now targeting the United States, and it simultaneously undermines America's standing with important allies around the world. Now that the Cold War is over, Israel has become a strategic liability for the United States. Yet no aspiring politician is going to say so in public, or even raise the possibility.

MORE LIES FROM BETRAYUS

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100907L.shtml

The U.S. military commander in Iraq stepped up accusations over the weekend that Iran was inciting violence there and said Tehran's ambassador to Baghdad was a member of the Revolutionary Guards Qods force.

I expect that our Democratic congressional weenies, including Levin, the Senior senator from Israel, will eat this stuff up and spew it back out when it comes time to attack

News

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/world/middleeast/30iraq.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
 

I said the same thing months ago, that no one who is not perceived as a friend of Israel can win the Democratic nomination. Howard's call for an even handed approach in Palestine was the single biggest cause of him not getting the nomination.

I'd have some inclusion into a larger security framework, while providing the same guarantee of survival as Taiwan. The special relationship does require special terms, but we don't have to be co-dependent enablers, complicit in human rights violations.

off to combine, see you tonight

5. Good for Iraq.

Jimmy Carter was excellent this AM with Harry Smith when discussing, of course, the way you try to make Peace with Iran is not through attacking, but with dialogue. He said, Iran of course, is also responding to the continuing threats of war drums against them.

Don Schwartz, who describes himself as "a super-Deaniac progressive type," decided to back Hillary Clinton - whose centrist views, he concedes, do not necessarily match his own - for a simple reason. He wanted, finally, to be with a winner.

said Tehran's ambassador to Baghdad was a member of the Revolutionary Guards Qods force.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

how would this lessen diplomatic immunity?

Negroponte has been linked to Central American death squads yet roams free

Mr. Conservative Matthews actually call Obama referred to Obama as"an Arch Angel". It was so heavy I almost tossed.

 Chris Matthews........

• MATTHEWS implies Al Qaeda is 'trying to get people to vote Democrat for president.' He asks Democratic Senator Breaux: 'Doesn't it put your party in a terrible position of having al-Qaeda rooting for you?' (Hardball, 7/18/04)
  
• MATTHEWS accuses Democrats of "perhaps exploiting" the death and destruction in Iraq (Hardball, 11/1/05)
• MATTHEWS says Bush sometimes "glimmers" with "sunny nobility" (Hardball, 10/24/05)
• MATTHEWS suggests Bush may "belong on Mount Rushmore" (Hardball, 12/16/05)
• MATTHEWS argues that the U.S. went into Iraq "for altruistic purposes" (Chris Matthews Show, 9/25/05)
  
• MATTHEWS insists "everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs" (Hardball, 11/28/05)
• MATTHEWS recites GOP talking points during fight over Bush's judicial nominees, describes Democratic efforts as "just sort of pouting and bitching" (Hardball, 5/18/05)
• MATTHEWS levels charge against Democratic efforts to complete intel probe as "disingenuous," "using crocodile tears" (Hardball, 11/1/05)
• MATTHEWS describes Supreme Court debate as division between strict constructionism versus the "loosey goosey" liberal approach (MSNBC, 10/3/05)
• MATTHEWS praises Bush for a "brilliant" speech, before it was delivered, while attacking Democratic critics as "carpers and complainers" (MSNBC, 11/30/05)
• MATTHEWS falsely attacks Democrats for accusing Alito of being "lenient on the mob" (Hardball, 10/31/05)
• MATTHEWS praises John Roberts' confirmation as "miraculously successful" (MSNBC, 9/29/05).

You mean the Republicants and the WH is playing politics with terror? No-I say.


Report: White House Ruins Terrorist Intel

White House Denies It Prematurely Released Al Qaeda Video, Hurting Intelligence-Gathering

Explore: Tales Of The Tapes
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/0...

views, he concedes, do not necessarily match his own

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

lets save those kind of compromises for the first Tues. of Nov. 08

9. Yep....and btw, tell your daughter...from the other day...I agree with her too.

4.  Thanks.

And what a co-inkydence,
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/...

Jimmy Carter on the Early Show

Tom Bearse
Tue, 10/09/07
9:10 am

I noted John and Sitka both implicate Adam Nagourney in the Judith Miller reporting scandal at the New York Times after I posted a link to Nagourney’s Times article yesterday. This is the first time I’ve heard allegations concerning Nagourney’s role in any of Miller’s antics, and I am unaware of any reporting to back them up. Does anyone have a source for this?

There you go again -- saying I said what I didn't. What I said was, "I wouldn't touch [Nagourney] with a ten foot link." 

These are examples of why I would never cite him........

NYT's Adam Nagourney editorializes in news story, calls Joe Lieberman a "moderate Democrat," attacks blog 

It's hard to overstate the awesome discretionary power that the press has in framing a story. Deciding what to cover, and how much play to give it, and how much context to provide, and what headlines and terms to use: for reporters, producers, and editors, these are Prospero's staff. A reporter can let Matt Drudge (and thus movement conservatives) set the media agenda (as ABC News's Mark Halperin happily acknowledged), or he can let his own instincts, and shoe-leather, define what's news (as did the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage's Pulitzer-winning reporting on Bush's Congress-nullifying signing statements). A reporter can be a conduit for Republican smears (The New York Times's Adam Nagourney retailing the Edwards-as-"Breck Girl" meme), Republican lies (the Times's Judy Miller doing Scooter Libby's WMD dirtywork). and Republican Luntzism (The Politico's editor-in-chief John F. Harris alleging that Democrats themselves -- rather than the RNC -- were calling an Iraq withdrawal a "slow bleed" strategy). Or they can do what Murray Waas and Josh Marshall do, and what Bill Moyers and David Brancaccio do, and what the reporters in Knight Ridder's (now McClatchy's) Washington bureau do, and behave like journalists, not courtiers.

In an interesting case of tangled webs, the source for the Chris Matthews’ complaints posted by Sitka, Peter Daou, wrote in The Daou Report, renamed the Blog Report last year, that he accepted a position as the internet communications director for Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign, stating:

"As a true believer in the importance of the medium, I’m thrilled about Senator Clinton’s interest in building this bridge with the online community and I intend to do everything I can to make it as productive as possible. And as a New Yorker, I look forward to aiding Senator Clinton's re-election efforts this November."

In an interesting case of tangled webs, the source for the Chris Matthews’ complaints posted by Sitka, Peter Daou, wrote in The Daou Report, renamed the Blog Report last year, that he accepted a position as the internet communications director for Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign

That's a ridiculous assertion. What Matthews has said has nothing to do with who quoted him and provided sources.

Sitka wrote "There you go again -- saying I said what I didn't. What I said was, ‘I wouldn't touch [Nagourney] with a ten foot link.’"

I absolutely apologize for associating your comments with the sentiments expressed by John. The conflation occurred because your critique appeared in the immediate wake of his and, in fact, quoted his verbatim. I’m sure that’s the reason for my having inadvertently confused your comment to be a ratification of his view.

Sitka wrote "That's a ridiculous assertion. What Matthews has said has nothing to do with who quoted him and provided sources."

I was referring to your source, actually, based on the link. 

I was referring to your source, actually, based on the link.

Which has nothing to do with what Chris Matthews has said.

Sitka wrote "Which has nothing to do with what Chris Matthews has said."

If it's not clear, it has to do with who you consider reliable as a source.  For example, I am led to believe you would never rely on the substance of a report by Adam Nagourney. 

If it's not clear, it has to do with who you consider reliable as a source.

The sources for Matthews' words were linked to after each quote. And in each instance it was his own program or network!

Your beef with the person who did the research has nothing to do with the demonstrated facts contained therein.

You can shoot the messenger, but not the truth. 

I am led to believe you would never rely on the substance of a report by Adam Nagourney.

I wouldn't discount demonstrable facts he wrote and sourced even if I disagreed with his editorializing of them. 

Sitka wrote "Your beef with the person who did the research has nothing to do with the demonstrated facts contained therein."

You must think I said that it did.  There you go again.

So, who in our elected government is going to vote to do away with our countries core principles and rights-of which we are supposed to hold true?

They've already shown with their Patriot Acts and Patriot 2...what next?

I wouldn't discount demonstrable facts he wrote and sourced even if I disagreed with his editorializing of them. 

Me either.

Up coming Wire Tapping vote? Who will put their name down in support?

Democrats Seem Ready to Extend Wiretap Powers
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and CARL HULSE
Published: October 9, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security Agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/washin...

Sitka wrote "There you go again -- saying I said what I didn't. What I said was, ‘I wouldn't touch [Nagourney] with a ten foot link.’"

I absolutely apologize for associating your comments

...

Tom -

Just curious are you a Catholic (even a lapsed one) ?  The reason I ask is that sure sounds like an Act of Contrition if I ever heard one.

Now if only certain big (and small) decision makers could stop and apologize for mistakes they made and be sincere about it (and not repeat it again), we'd have a much better America and world.  IMO there seems a lot of steamrolling going on lately and not even a passing glance back at the one who just got rolled over from the person doing the steamrolling. In the roller's perspective, it's simply "full steam ahead".

That should be: "Sitka wrote 'I wouldn't discount demonstrable facts he wrote and sourced even if I disagreed with his editorializing of them.' 

"Me either."

It would have been, too, if I had a preview button to use.

17 and 26

"there you go again"

What's up with talking like RR today ?

You must think I said that it did. 

You yourself said it was a case of "tangled webs,"  and cited a connection to Hillary's campaign. To anybody that sounds like you had a beef with the person who quoted Matthews.

I've merely pointed out to you that the real source of Matthews' words is Matthews himself.

What your point has been in this exchange I'll leave for you to explain if you wish. 

Bacall and Bogey







Posted on Oct 8, 2007





terramedia.co.uk





Stars on the march: Silver-screen luminaries Lauren Bacall and Humphrey

Bogart lead the way during a protest against HUAC during the height of the

Hollywood Blacklist controversy.



Ed Rampell


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`


According to Costa-Gavras, the Hollywood Blacklist is “a period we should
visit, and try to see what happened, and why that happened to understand it,
so it won’t be repeated.” The upcoming 60th anniversary of the Hollywood Ten
“needs to be marked,” insists Lawson biographer Gerald Horne.


In January 2007 blacklist survivors and their relatives, a member of the
original Committee for the First Amendment and supporters met to discuss
appropriate ways to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Hollywood Ten
and Blacklist. They formed a sort of exploratory group, the Committee for
the First Amendment ‘47/’07, and considered proposals for righting wrongs
and raising awareness, including:
Congressional apologies from the House of Representatives for the House
Un-American Activities Committee and from the Senate for Senator Joe
McCarthy’s Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; a star for the
Hollywood Ten and Blacklistees on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame; and a special
Oscar for the Hollywood Ten and Blacklistees.



Addressing and redressing these grievances is not merely an exercise in
ancient history. The Committee for the First Amendment ‘47/’07 seeks to
raise consciousness about the legacy of the Hollywood Ten and the Blacklist,
and their relevance vis-à-vis repression in our own age: the PATRIOT Act,
extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, torture, habeas corpus, mass
detentions, preventive war, warrantless wiretapping and other forms of
surreptitious surveillance, as well as other “homeland security” measures.



On October 26, the exact 60th anniversary of the Committee for the First
Amendment’s first “Hollywood Fights Back!” broadcast, contemporary talents,
along with blacklist survivors and their relatives, will reenact the
original 1947 radio program. The performers scheduled to participate
include: former SAG President Ed Asner, Norma Barzman, Larry Gelbart,
Isabelle Gunning (ACLU/SC President), Marsha Hunt, Camryn Manheim, Ramona
Ripston, Christopher Trumbo, James Whitmore, and Becca Wilson. The event,
presented by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, will take place at
L.A.’s Skirball Center. For information, call (213) 977-9500, ext. 227.


Los Angeles-based film historian Ed Rampell (named after Edward R. Murrow)
wrote “Progressive Hollywood: A People’s Film History of the United States”
(The Disinformation Co., 2005).


http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20071008_remembering_the_hollywood

_ten/

 

What's up with talking like RR today ?

"There you go again" was a common phrase long before Reagan used it. 

33.

* rdorgan
Tue, 10/09/07
11:59 am

Reply to this


17 and 26

"there you go again"

What's up with talking like RR today ?

______________________________

My guess would be self defense. When some one distorts and mischaracterizes ones comments like a RR, one might respond in similar nature.

But I do think you meant R W, right?

rdorgan wrote "Just curious are you a Catholic (even a lapsed one) ? The reason I ask is that sure sounds like an Act of Contrition if I ever heard one."

It’s come up in the discussion before that at one time, much earlier in life, I was a young Catholic zealot, enrolled in a seminary as a boarding student between ninth and eleventh grades, saying the rosary and devoting myself to a moral life of abstinence. Oh well, they were good intentions.

Catholicsm has its good points, but I’m much worse than a lapsed Catholic, because I’m an agnostic who disbelieves in the soul or the afterlife. It’s not the concept of a deity as prime mover that’s so hard to accept. It’s the theory of man made in God’s image, rather than vice versa.

The solicitation for fund from Jim Dean got the following response from me:

the subject line of this message is offensive. Besides that, the message fails to include any reference to indicate which state, race or locale we are being asked to send money to.

_____________________

He's asking us to "Beat a Bush Democrat" 

29.

* rdorgan
Tue, 10/09/07
11:57 am

Reply to this

20.
Tom Bearse
Tue, 10/09/07
11:36 am

Reply to this

Sitka wrote "There you go again -- saying I said what I didn't. What I said was, ‘I wouldn't touch [Nagourney] with a ten foot link.’"

I absolutely apologize for associating your comments

...

Tom -

Just curious are you a Catholic (even a lapsed one) ? The reason I ask is that sure sounds like an Act of Contrition if I ever heard one.

Now if only certain big (and small) decision makers could stop and apologize for mistakes they made and be sincere about it (and not repeat it again), we'd have a much better America and world. IMO

_______________________


Did you ever get a reason or apology on why Obama voted on the Patriot Act 2, after campaigning for his US Senate seat on the "injustices of the Patriot Act"?

Sitka wrote: "You yourself said it was a case of ‘tangled webs,’ and cited a connection to Hillary's campaign. To anybody that sounds like you had a beef with the person who quoted Matthews. I've merely pointed out to you that the real source of Matthews' words is Matthews himself. What your point has been in this exchange I'll leave for you to explain if you wish."

I did say it was a case of tangled webs, whatever that has to do with anything. It’s a tedious assignment, but I will explain regardless. You just called out the reporting of Adam Nagourney based on a perception of editorializing. The only reason his name became a subject was because I quoted a part of his NYT article, and John’s subsequent allegation, as yet lacking a source, about Nagourney’s association with the deceit practiced by Judy Miller.

You also called a former Dean supporter who is supporting Clinton a loser, the implication being that supporting a candidate would confer that type of status. You then quoted and linked to a Clinton supporter, presumably relying on the information contained in the article, regardless of what myriad of sources may have accounted for the substance of the report. Of all the people here, I would have believed you to be among the foremost to appreciate irony.

Your defensive reaction suggesting that something more is involved, or that something I said sounds like something else entirely, is becoming endemic to this site in terms of a lot of the discussion here.

Linda wrote "Did you ever get a reason or apology on why Obama voted on the Patriot Act 2, after campaigning for his US Senate seat on the 'injustices of the Patriot Act'?"

No, but I'm not sure what makes you think I would.

Large Union Declines to Endorse a Candidate
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
After being courted intensely by the top Democratic presidential candidates, the Service Employees International Union decided yesterday not to endorse anyone.
Officials with the union, which represents nearly 1.9 million workers, said that John Edwards had lobbied hardest for its endorsement, but that Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama had pushed to stalemate Mr. Edwards by urging the executive board not to endorse him.
At a meeting in Chicago, the board also gave the go-ahead to locals to endorse a candidate, an unusual move. With leaders of the union in California leaning toward Mr. Edwards and those in Illinois tilting toward Mr. Obama, the junior senator from the state, that could mean that the California locals will endorse Mr. Edwards and the Illinois locals Mr. Obama
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/us/pol...

43 Tom, sorry for your confusion, but I appreciate a reply anyhoooo.

*rd had made the statement, "Now if only certain big (and small) decision makers could stop and apologize for mistakes they made and be sincere about it (and not repeat it again), we'd have a much better America and world. IMO" so I was asking him, being his is a supporter.

The Big Lie: ‘Iran Is a Threat’
by Scott Ritter

Iran has never manifested itself as a serious threat to the national security of the United States, or by extension as a security threat to global security. At the height of Iran’s “exportation of the Islamic Revolution” phase, in the mid-1980’s, the Islamic Republic demonstrated a less-than-impressive ability to project its power beyond the immediate borders of Iran, and even then this projection was limited to war-torn Lebanon.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007...

Oh goodie. The only thing America can spread is threats, fear and attacking.

Evil begets Evil.

Will America now be the cause of a War with Turkey?


When will this all end?

.........I KNOW........when Al Gore becomes President!


Superman wears Al Gore pajamas!


Upsurge in Kurdish attacks raises pressure on Turkish prime minister to order Iraq invasion
· Bomb brings death toll of soldiers in one day to 15
· Erdogan caught between public opinion and US

Ian Traynor, Europe editor-The Guardian

Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, came under intense pressure last night to order an invasion of northern Iraq following the deadliest attacks for over a decade on the Turkish military and civilians by separatist Kurdish guerrillas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/turkey/story/0...

29. * rdorgan

Tom -

Just curious are you a Catholic (even a lapsed one) ? The reason I ask is that sure sounds like an Act of Contrition if I ever heard one.

==================

Father Sitka?

He does bear a vague resemblence to one of my neurotic high school teachers.

Chevron’s Pipeline Is Regime’s Lifeline
by Amy Goodman

The image was stunning: tens of thousands of saffron-robed Buddhist monks marching through the streets of Rangoon, protesting the military dictatorship of Burma. The monks marched in front of the home of Nobel Peace Prize-winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who was seen weeping and praying quietly as they passed. She hadn’t been seen for years. The democratically elected leader of Burma, Suu Kyi has been under house arrest since 2003. She is considered the Nelson Mandela of Burma, the Southeast Asian nation renamed Myanmar by the regime.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007...

Linda wrote "Tom, sorry for your confusion, but I appreciate a reply anyhoooo."

You know, that's quite all right.

While it's a topic, the Chris Matthews quotes are interesting because any nightly viewing of his show reveals that, much like Keith Olbermann, he has no qualms about expressing his own views on the subjects of discussion.  They're typically not doctrinaire opinions.  If you were to make the effort to rustle through the video files, you would find that he takes shots at Bush and Republicans, and lauds people like Dean and Gore.  Unlike Olbermann in that regard, he is what you could call a bipartisan critc.

I disagree with him all the time, but I think his show is important for the reason that he is voicing opinions that will parallel those of ordinary voters on many occasions.

I did say it was a case of tangled webs, whatever that has to do with anything.

Which is exactly what I pointed out to you in the first place. 

I quoted a part of his NYT article, and John’s subsequent allegation, as yet lacking a source, about Nagourney’s association with the deceit practiced by Judy Miller.

Of which I expressed no opinion exept that I would never cite what I have pointed to be his editorialized reporting.

You also called a former Dean supporter who is supporting Clinton a loser.

Wrong again. I called that person a loser because he wants to support "a winner for a change."

Anyone who supports a candidate for that shallowest of reasons is a loser in my book. 

You then quoted and linked to a Clinton supporter, presumably relying on the information contained in the article, regardless of what myriad of sources may have accounted for the substance of the report.

I don't suppose you'll ever understand that quotes are quotes regardless of who cites and sources them. 

Your defensive reaction suggesting that something more is involved,

Responding to your ongoing nonsense and illogic is stupid of me, but not defensive. 

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/128660/Really_Larry_Craig.html

can't seem to get the utube thingy to work but this is funny AGAIN.

Many warming unexpectedly to Clinton

Senator Hillary Clinton visited a hospital in New Hampshire. She's now focusing on connecting with individual voters. (Eliese Amendola/associated press/file)

By Sasha Issenberg, Globe Staff  |  October 9, 2007

CONCORD, N.H. - Don Schwartz, who describes himself as "a super-Deaniac progressive type," decided to back Hillary Clinton - whose centrist views, he concedes, do not necessarily match his own - for a simple reason. He wanted, finally, to be with a winner.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Relative to money, organization and the feeling of “invisibility” the 2008 Democratic primaries are looking like the 2000 Republican primary….going through the motions.

Which is exactly what I pointed out to you in the first place. 

Well, I admit that tangled webs did have to do with the fact webs were beginning to tangle.  Sorry about the confusion.