October 26, 2003

Bush sucks up to Israel - CNN

CNN gave Bush the Political Play of the Week for sucking up to the Jewish vote. It started when Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said, "The Europeans killed six million Jews out of twelve million, but today these Jews rule the world by proxy, "Mahathir said. "They get others to fight and die for them."

After 4 days of silence on the subject, according to CNN, Bush met with the prime minister "privately" (if it was private - then why do we all know about it?) denouncing his remarks about Jews "wrong and divisive."

According to CNN, "The White House made sure the president's private comments got plenty of attention."

CNN goes on to award Bush the Political Play of the Week stating:

Republicans see an opening with Jews.

"There is a big bid afoot in the Jewish community to make the case that President Bush is the best president for Israel ever," Kessler said.

The GOP saw a payoff in last year's midterm elections.

Nationwide, Jewish support for Republican House candidates had mostly been in the 30 percent range during the 1980s.

In the 90s, GOP support among Jewish voters fell.

Then suddenly last year, the Jewish Republican vote went back up to 35 percent.

Jews make up only 3 percent of voters nationwide. But, they are a major source of campaign money for Democrats.

Republicans are not as dependent on Jewish contributions. But they may have another motive. "It's about peeling off money that might go to the Democrats," Kessler said.

Especially now that Bush has spoken out against an outrageous, anti-Semitic slur.

"Whether you want to say he did it too late or he did not do it loud enough or whatever, he did it," concluded Kessler.

And it was the political Play of the Week.

-----

So - let me see if I understand this. Muslims accused Jews of ruling the world by proxy, and Bush gets political play of the week by showing Jews that he is willing to act as their proxy by denouncing the very statement that his own actions are proving to be true.

hmmmmmmmmm ......

I sure hope that Jews aren't foolish enough to buy this.

Furthermore - what Israel is doing to the Palistinians is wrong. I've given this a lot of thought and the excuse that "they did it to us first" or "they are more guilty" just doesn't cut it. Here's why:

First - let's assume the above two statement are true - so what? Israel is not just targeting enemy combatants. They are targeting innocent civilians who are just trying to live their lives in peace. They are knowingly killing innocent men, women, and children, bulldosing their homes, bulldozing their medical clinics, bulldosing their crops, all in order to terrorize them. Is there any chance that this behaviour will lead to peace? None! Will it make Israelies safer? Absolutely not! Is there any upside to Israel's behaviour that will help anyone on either side? No!

Therefore what the government of Israel is doing is wrong regardless of any other factors and it is the duty of the good peace loving people of the planet to resist this and say No to the right wing government of Israel. This is wrong and I speak out against it.

War and the slaughtering of innocent people is always a thing to be ashamed of. War is always a result of the failure of peace. And for those who would call my coments anti-semitic - well - I challenge you then to explain how what I say is worse for Jews than the actions of the Israeli government who is playing the Holocaust card as an excuse for murder and doing so in the name of Judiasm.

I ask you this question - are Jews a people of Peace or a people of War? Is it beyond the ability of Jews to live in peace with Palistinians? Or - is driving Pailistinians from their homes and killing innocent people the only solution? And - do you really think that you are the chosen people and that God supports this kind of behaviour? Well - if you do then God is pretty fucked up.

I'm not the one who's anti-semitic here - the right wing Israeli government is. Judiasm is a religion in denial - and it's time to wake up and join the real world!

Posted by marc at 11:27 PM | Comments (20) | TrackBack

Lieberman Would Name McCain Defense Secretary

I'm a little confused about why Lieberman is running as a Democrat. Being that he supports just about everything Bush does and wants to appoint McCain as Secretary of Defense - why doesn't he just run as a Republican? The only thing worse than a clueless moron Republican is a Democrat trying to emulate a clueless moron Republican.

Lieberman voted for the Patriot Act, voted to give Bush unlimited war powers, suported Bush's war in Iraq while Bush is still looking for the reason we're there, and now wants to give Bush another $87 billion without a clue as to how it will be spent.

If I wanted a president like Bush then why not vote to reselect Bush? Lieberman will not be getting my vote.

Posted by marc at 08:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Media Coverage of War protests - October 25th

As I stated earlier - the Bush controlled media deliberately avoids coverage of anti-war protests. And when they do - they always lie about the numbers. There's actually a formula you can apply to determine the real numbers at an anti-war protest. Generally the event sponsors (International ANSWER) overcount and the media undercount.

Having been to about 10 of these you'll find that the media reduce the count to 10 to 20 percent of the real numbers. So if they say "hundreds" of people - then there were "thousands" of people. If they say 2000 people protested it's usually 15,000 to 20,000.

The organizers fudge the numbers a little to in my opinion - but not by much. They reported 20,000 in San Francisco - I put the number around 15,000. But - they may be right and I may be wrong.

In the news - CBS lies about the numbers of protesters.

To chants of "Impeach Bush," thousands of anti-war protesters (100,000 is the real number - CBS should have said "tens of thousands") rallied in the nation's capital Saturday and delivered a scathing critique of President Bush and his Iraq policy.

Hundreds of people (20,000 is the real number I WAS THERE! - CBS should have at least said "thousands") marched in San Francisco in a demonstration that mirrored the larger one in Washington.

-----

CBS furthers the lie with this statement:

Organizers expected more than 30,000 would turn out for the protest, but the crowd - which filled the area between the monument and the Ellipse near the White House - appeared much smaller.

Because the U.S. Park Police no longer issues crowd estimates, the size of the crowd could not be verified.

-----

So - it raises the question - why does CBS lie about the turnout size? Why is it important to CBS to reduce the size of the crowd by a factor of 10?

Associated Press in their coverage by By Jennifer C. Kerr like CBS claim "Hundreds of anti-war protesters also took to sun-drenched streets in San Francisco." Deliberately reducing the number of protestors. AP goes on to claim, "Organizers estimated that 100,000 people turned out for the demonstration, but police at the scene put the number much lower, from 10,000 to 20,000. Police no longer issue official crowd estimates, so the size of the protest could not be verified."

At least they reported the organizers totals, but they published the police totals even though they say that they don't issue crowd estimates.

MSNBC in their story didn't mention numbers of protestors but said, "Before the rally, about 200 protesters played songs, listened to drummers and rallied for peace in a park about 20 blocks north of the White House." leaving the reader wth the inpression that there were only 200 protestors.

Reuters had no story.

ABC news has a mere Three Paragraphs not mentioning any city other than Washington and just stating "thousands".

CNN comes closer in their story. They fail to number the turnout in Washington, but at least that state that San Francisco had "biggest protest there since April, when more than 10,000 people filled the streets". More than 10,000 is in stark contrast to CBS News claim of "hundreds".

Several news articles included this phrasing, "Organizers expected more than 30,000 would turn out for the protest, but the crowd — which filled the area between the monument and the Ellipse near the White House — appeared much smaller." Looks like they are all drinking the same KoolAid.

The real question raised here isn't about what did or didn't happen at the protest. It's about why the mainstream media is concealing this information from the public. It's about censoring the news so that the public won't find out what's really going on. And the real question is - why are they doing it? What are the forces that keep the media in the pocket of the Bush Family Evil Empire? (BFEE)

Posted by marc at 07:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

It's what I don't hear in the news that's scary

Letter to the Editor

I am somewhat puzzled not by what I hear in the news - but by what I no longer hear in the news. Are we no longer going after Bin Laden? Are we no longer going after Saddam Husein? Are we no longer trying to find the anthrax killer? Are we no longer pursuing the 9-11 money trail to find those who financed the hijackers?

I don't understand why the government and the media are no longer talking about these unsolved mysteries of great national importance. It make me wonder - did we give up? Are we beaten? Or - have deals been made. The silence on these issues is scarier than the issues themselves.

-----

My take on it - deals have been made. We already know from this article in the Times of India that Bush made a deal with Pakistan not to go after Bin Laden. So - we start 2 wars and the guy who is actually behind 9-11 gets to go free. Bin Laden is free - are you?

Then there's Saddam. We were pursuing him - hot on the trail. Closing in on him - and then - silence. What the hell happened? I don't remember Saddam being captured or killed - so - what is the status of the chase?

Then there's the anthrax killer - who I believe was the government itself. Some covert CIA operation to keep Congress and the public scared long enough to pass the Patriot Act. And the thing that makes me believe that the most is that we are no longer going after whoever did it.

And then - 9-11. Usually after a national tragety where lots of people are killed it is investigated ad nauseam. They want to know every detail to ensure that it never happens again. But in 9-11 - the Bush administration is actively blocking the investigation. Why would they block it rather than want to get to the bottom of it? We haven't hear anything about who's behind 9-11 since Bush redacted 28 pages of the report that exposed or "allies" in Saudi Arabia as the ones whoi funded it.

What's even scarier is that the press is totally under Bush's control because they are the ones who are actually doing the "not talking". When Clinton got a haircut on a runway in LA - they talked about it for 2 months. The only thing that filally shut them up about it was when they found out their story never happened. But Bush lets Saddam and Bin Laden go - and the press goes along with it. What does that tell you?

We are a country in denial and if we don't come out of denial our future will follow that of Hitler's Germany - the kind of nightmare that George Bush's grandfather Prescot Bush Financed. A story that is finally surfacing only 60 years later.

Bin Laden still free - Day 775 since 9-11.

Posted by marc at 06:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack