If Saddam had of threatened to blow up the New York Times, Bush could have honestly provided a rationale for an invasion of Iraq, claiming that Saddam was advancing terrorism.

Ironic, isn't it?

I don't know which one I want to marry first, Yosri Fouda or Peter Bergen. I could listen to them talk all day. And Kudos to you, Steve, for working with Mr. Fouda on his rendition reporting.

who's next? CNN?

The supposed targeting of al-Jazeera jogged my memory. I remember early on in the war there were at least two incidents that looked suspiciously like “our” guys were targeting “their” media.

1. An al-Jazeera news outfit in Iraq gave the coordinates of their location to our troops so that they would not accidently bombed, but were bombed anyway.

2. Out troops in central Bagdad fired on an upper floor in a hotel (Palestine Hotel, I think), killing several journalists. As I recall, the article said that there was no fighting in the area.

At the time I remember thinking, yikes, after the dust settles we may have some prosecution for war crimes here. But since everything else has gone so horribly wrong, this has just been lost in the shuffle.

Can anyone find the original articles?

That Gaffney is such a card. He cracks the See up. Wouldn't he be a good time at a party? Well, he would if one wanted to clear the house in about a blink. Bomb them, bomb those, bomb whomever, and then detain them all. Yes, that Gaffney is one funny guy.

I almost drove off the road when I heard Gaffney's asinine comments. I mean just taking his logic a little further, that means Fox News is a perfectly legitimate target of our enemies, since is is also a "supposed" news organization that promotes ones side's propaganda.

Frank Gaffney is the same person who wrote that Israel withdrawing from Gaza was appeasement of Osama bin Laden.

Following this logic, one can say that the thumb twiddling at Tora Bora was akin to a surrender to Osama bin Laden.

"Frank Gaffney is the same person who wrote that Israel withdrawing from Gaza was appeasement of Osama bin Laden.

Following this logic, one can say that the thumb twiddling at Tora Bora was akin to a surrender to Osama bin Laden."

Posted by koreyel

It amazes me how few people are willing to entertain the notion that Israel was a major player in deceiving the American people into acceptng an invasion of Iraq. The list of neocons with strong ties to Israel is long indeed, particularly in the membership of the PNAC, OSP and WHIG. Even the media pundits that were so supportive in advancing the deception, such as Miller, have strong ties to Israel. I maintain that many of you, even those who are beginning to see this Administration for the destructive force it truly is, are in abject denial about how deeply and how insidiously we have been betrayed and decieved. And YES, I include the events of 9/11 in my accusations of Israeli involvement. AIPAC has gotten a FREE RIDE here for their espionage operations and their meddling in the affairs of our nation. The recent revelations and indictments for spying have been shoved under the table by our media, and the cries of "anti-semitism" have drowned out any constructive or enlightening discourse about Israeli involvement in the construction of American foreign policy. How long is American treasure and American lives going to be spent on a nation that has betrayed that expenditure with espionage and infiltration? If Jordan, Syria, or Iran was caught at the same level of espionage within our country as Israel has been, it would be plastered on every front page in America, and the Bush monkey's missiles would be flying towards targets as we speak. This nation has one hell of a case of denial, and until we wake up, Bush and Cheney are the best we'll get, and are exactly what we deserve.

Just about every government in the Middle East has been ticked off at the reporting by Al-Jazeera. This fact, more than anything else, indicates that Al-Jazeera is doing a lot right.

You lost me at your first sentence. This is the kind of crap thinking that keeps crap journalism crap. Oh, both sides are angry with my report, therefore I must be right and fair and balanced.

First, there are not just two sides, and in your case, there are other parties than just governments involved.

Second, when everyone tells you you're full of shit, well, just maybe you are full of shit.

In this case, your first sentence was full of shit.

Character assassination, targeting news media, scare tactics. What's the big deal? They're just different means to the same end: The systematic elimination of all opposing viewpoints and perspectives toward acheiving the medieval, neo-con agenda.

While most enlightened humans believe that more is better as concerning information, it's obvious the Bushies do not. For them, the less we know the better.
Whether you are talking about the latest "evolution" non-debate, stem cell research, answers to the Plame affair and intelligence failures, lack of public knowledge is power to those in power.

An informed populace is this admin.'s biggest enemy, but the world's only hope.

But at least the Stones ripped through a rockin' version of "It's Only Rock n Roll" on an otherwise lame AMA.

Frank Gaffney is a former Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of Defense . Gaffney is head of the right-wing advocacy organization, the Center for Security Policy. Gaffney is a Pro-Israel spokesman in a rather independent fashion. Ideologically close to Israeli hardliners such as Likud party chief Yitzhak Shamir.

Center for Security Policy
1920 L Street,N.W.
Suite 210
Washington, DC 20036
From:The People at the Center CSP - The People at the Center
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President. Mr. Gaffney formerly acted as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy during the Reagan Administration, following four years of service as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy. Previously, he was a professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee under the chairmanship of the late Senator John Tower, and a national security legislative aide to the late Senator Henry M. Jackson.

Lest there be any doubt where Gaffney is coming from, as this study points out, his board of directors includes former AIPAC director Morris J. Amitay. Gaffney's Center for Security Policy also receives funding from the Irving I. Moskowitz Foundation. Moskowitz has funded real estate takeovers in East Jerusalem by Israeli extremists such as Ariel Sharon and is funding Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem's Ras Al-Amoud neighborhood where Palestinians are being evicted and their residences are being demolished.

http://www.spongobongo.com/0her9877.htm

Thanks for bringing Yousri Fouda to Washington, Steve -- and let's make sure he will be back again and again.

After all, how many voices from the Middle East have found their way onto American TV screens? Yosri's media appearances -- away from his perch at Al-Jazeera, until recently twice removed by coverage and by language -- only serve to accentuate the fatal shortcomings of America's discourse about terrorism and the Middle East following 9-11.

Ask yourself: how many accounts of events in the Middle East seen through the eyes of an Arab, let alone a muslim Arab, have reached American eyes and ears since 2001? Since 1998? Since 1993?

I think "close to zero" would be quite accurate. "Everything we know" (sounds like Rumsfeld? no accident), or rather tragically, everything we think we know, about the Middle East has come from 'our' economical, social, cultural, ideological point of view.

As Yosri, Steve, Peter and others stated at the outset of the September conference: how can you expect to win the hearts and minds of the Middle East with a discourse or national conversation, call it what you will, that was

a) non-existent until 2,100 American soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians were dead and the administration had burned through more than 300 Billion dollars

and that b) even to this minute, doesn't involve the voices of those whose hearts and minds we are supposedly trying to win over?

It certainly looks as if this story isn't going to go away in a hurry: the media triangulation that could put pressure on the administration is in place -- the WaPo has picked up the story and the British news media report that the Mirror has been gagged while two British civil servants have been charged under the UK Official Secrets act for leaking the document.

re. Al-Jazeera being pressured -- politically or otherwise -- to cave in: I'd be much more interested in Yosri's take than in Tom Clancy's :-)

Dear "Jerry":

It seems that my first line ticked you off.

You have a point that if all parties are saying that someone's work is rotten, then it may be rotten. Al Jazeera's work is not rotten. My point in starting with that particular sentence is that many, many Al Jazeera critics believe that the network is a flack for the ruling oligarchs in various respective Arab countries. They then argue that they are flacks for al Qaeda. My point is that from my vantage point, Al Jazeera has done a pretty good job of establishing itself as an important and relatively balanced news network that frequently demonstrates high quality journalism -- independent from inappropriate influence.

That was why I used the sentence. Wanted to provide some context -- though you may still believe that my first sentence and thinking were full of xxxx. But I hope I've convinced you otherwise.

Best regards for Thanksgiving,

Steve Clemons

I wonder if this all hinges on the question of weather Al Jazeera is a mouth piece for terrorists and the like or is it a station trying to be a respected news media outlet. And whileI won't speak to that - though I suspect it may be a bit a both with one over the other being more dominant at any given time - it seems like the administration has sided with the "mouthpiece" opinion.

I am reminded a bit of the Rwandan genocide. When the genoide started the government definitely used the radio to spread the message and incite the genocidaires. In all of the discussions after about what the US and the rest of the world could have done to stop/slow/lessen what happened one of them was to stop the radio broadcasts. If I remember it was just to jam and not to bomb but the point was to stop them from sending message and inciting violence.

Obviously there isn't a direct correlation but if you make the assumption that Al Jazeera is an ally of the terrorists then it would not at all surprise me that they thought of stopping the broadcasts.

Do I agree with thost assumption/actions - I am ambivalent though my instinctive reaction is to say while it may (emphasis on the may) be a good tactical move, that the loss of life and the bad PR and ill will that would be created might make the decision look stupid in retrospect. Saying that, I think jamming (which light years from bombing/destroying) the signals would have been a very small thing to do in Rwanda that might have made a large impact.

Thanks for the response. I did appreciate what you were actually trying to say, I just cannot let anyone associated with journalism ever make any form of the "we piss everyone off, therefore we're okay" argument. That argument really pisses me off. And it's not okay.

Good luck getting the administration to disown Gaffney's remarks. Whether or not this story is true it's hardly a secret that they absolutely despise Al Jazeera.

By Gaffney's rationale, any person genuinely concerned with actual freedom and democracy (as opposed to the hollow, Neo-con-talking-point versions of those concepts) should seriously consider bombing FOX News since it too is nothing but a propaganda organ for fanatical ideologues

Headline: Neo-con says kill those who disagree with us.

Yes, shocking, absolutely shocking.

Better headline:

Neo-con says kill those who uncover our misdeeds.

More to the point, equally predictable and even more disturbing.

I just cannot let anyone associated with journalism ever make any form of the "we piss everyone off, therefore we're okay" argument.

I was going to add that Bill O'Reilly uses it frequently. But then I realized only in his own mind could he possibly be construed as being "associated with journalism".

Steve,

If “Al Jazeera is actively aiding our foes” and hence needs to be bombed, as Gaffney seems to suggest, what do we do about those nefarious foes after the TV network is destroyed? Throughout the Arab world, Al Jazeera is the most widely watched and trusted source of international news. In Iraq, for example, television is the primary source of news for 92% of the people, of whom 60% trust Al Jazeera more than any other news network.

Gaffney and his fellow-travelers in the neoconservative camp probably have precipitated America’s slide from the status of the world’s greatest nation. They’ve done so by selling the Bush administration on their strategy of reckless militarism and disregard of international laws and norms. The shocking decline in America’s standing since the Iraq war is apparent not only among Arabs and Muslims, but throughout the rest of the world, too. Look at how President Bush was treated in Beijing the other day! For the first time since the Nixon’s February 1972 trip, an American president was treated dismissively and sent home empty handed by the Chinese leadership. If Gaffney’s prescription for military attacks on Arab media and activists who oppose U.S. and Israeli domination should be pursued, America’s descent would only accelerate. For as Iraq has shown, in the 21st century the use of military force could only foster terrorism, alienate peoples and nations and undermine America’s economy, morale and image. It seems to me that the only way the United States can salvage its interests and influence in the Middle East is by promoting an understanding with the resurgent Arab and Muslim societies. That requires it to reach out to Al Jazeera, and not bomb it.

It's the cartoons on Al-Jazeera's web site that made george want to bomb them. They're animated, so he doesn't have to read.

A friend of mine interviewed Gaffney during the run-up to the war. One of the arguments Gaffney made as justification for going into the war was that there was supposedly strong evidence that Saddam was behind the Oklahoma City bombing.

Neo-cons are the flip of Marxists -- two sides, but the coin is the same.

His comment is not that surprising given the similarity in 'thought' between Osama and much of the American Right. Osama & Co. feel that killing "infidel" civilians is not a crime. The likes of Bush, Gaffney, & Co. feel that innocent journalists with opposing views are beyond the purview of civilized, humane treatment and therefore one can murder them without committing a crime. There is a singular line of reason connecting murderous thugs of both Islamic and Christian ilk these days. this is despite the fact that Al Jazeera frequently poses a much greater threat to the regional thugs at home than the US. But hey, democracy is just PR, remember.

“Neo-cons are the flip of Marxists -- two sides, but the coin is the same.”

Yes, JC, the grand mission of the neocons’ Project New American Century also has the smell of Lenin’s Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party. But the RSDLP and Marxism sought to attack a more basic human problem of the time: the bread and butter of the poor and hungry. This is why, despite its unrealistic goals and cruel methods, Marxism could spark revolutions in Russia and China and stir popular movements in many other parts of the world. Our neocons are a much humbler lot who have enriched their delusions mainly by reading one another’s writings. Their goal was to build an American empire, which didn’t have any roots in the problems or aspirations of the American people, who abhor such pretensions. This is why as the going began to get rough in Iraq, the Americans began pulling the rug from under the neocons’ feet. From their ivory towers the neocons also fancied that if America could only give Muslims the opportunity to vote, they would happily turn their countries into satellites of an American empire. More than 80 percent of the Iraqis, despite the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the elections, have consistently opposed the American military presence in their country, and in Cairo this week all Iraqi political factions, including those who rode to power on the backs of American tanks, have demanded a time-table for the withdrawal of American troops.

It'd be more fair to say their goal was to use America to build an Empire. Given the fact that these same people are willing to watch the national budget be trashed, and given that they're transferring national assets to the capital class as quickly as they can, I think they expected to use up the stored energy of the national government and finish with the world under their economic thumb. If they accomplish their mission and leave the American government and middle-class-economy a broken shell, then that's one less vehicle available for challenging their power.

"If they accomplish their mission and leave the American government and middle-class-economy a broken shell, then that's one less vehicle available for challenging their power."

Posted by texas dem

Bingo! As I said before, the idea that these bastards are operating under the belief that they are "doing what is best for America" is pure unadulterated bullshit. They NEED to take us down to protect their own agenda. They need our wealth and our military to pursue their goals, and they are expending BOTH assets at an alarming rate.

Using the present Executive Branch logic, such as it is, shouldn't we torture......errr...render Al-Jazeera before we bomb them?

Then, after we bomb them, we invade the crater, and wait for terrorists to show up.

Mission Accomplished, and Happy Gobble Gobble!

I still don't quite understand why Paxman and Newsnight had this nutter on at all. It was hardly the reasoned, nuanced commentary we expect from Newsnight. Paxo (and thanks for referring to hin as just 'reporter', that'll do his monstrous ego no end of good) seemed so taken aback by Gaffney's evident insanity that he just let him rant on for a while.

Either ( the charitable explanation) there was nobody in the administration willing was talk about the subject and Gaffney filled the breach, or a Newsnight editor has a wry sense of humour and decided to show us Yurrpeens exactly how insane your public discourse has become.

Either way, I felt the guy left a trail of slime on my tv screen.

An additional note of hilarity was lent to the end of the broadcast, when Paxman announced he could no longer report what he had just reported, because it had been declared sub judice - supposedly on national security grounds but actually to save your president embarassment.

From Rove to Blair, to the Attorney General, the chain of command is crystal clear.

"Saddam Possibly Tied to Oklahoma City" by Frank Gaffney, Jr. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,66505,00.html

"Saddam Possibly Tied to Oklahoma City" by Frank Gaffney, Jr. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,66505,00.html

Posted by Owen

Now why the hell would ANYONE be bothered to read an article that has both the words "Fox News" and "Gaffney" in its intro?

I guess most people really did forget US troops have already bombed two Al-Jazeera headquarters--and shot-up the Palestine Hotel full of reporters--and tried very hard to murder Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrene & instead killed the SISMI protecting her--and sent Colin Powell to Qatar to try to get their govt. to censor Al-Jazeera....

74 journalists and media assistants killed since the start of fighting in Iraq in March 2003, two still missing

Owen,

Thanks for the Gaffney/OK City "conspiracy" link!

I'm already using that (actually the link referenced in Gaffney's editorial) in another forum.

Much appreciated!

(I recognize "Owen" as a good Welsh name. As a child I had a Welsh pony also (appropriately) named Owen! :)