Wikileaks, Iran, and the US’s Arab Allies: What the Corporate Media Are Not Saying

The corporate media are reliable and consistent.  They consistently focus on the sensational, and they reliably take the position of the US government.  So, it should come as no surprise that the recent release of US diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks is being covered with much sound and fury, signifying little.

On the sensational and gossip-mongering front we have Gaddafi’s Ukrainian nurse, Angela Merkel’s "manly" leadership skills, Putin’s cozy relationship with Berlusconi, sex crimes charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, etc.  On the mundane lapdog front we have repeated stories touting the administration’s line about "national security" and the rationale for why the cables had to be kept hidden from public view, US efforts to bring legal charges against WikiLeaks, questions of whether Hillary Clinton should resign, the internet and its regulation, etc.

Sorely lacking in all the attention given to the WikiLeaks cables is an analysis of the functioning of empire.  While the cables may not reveal anything radically new, particularly to an astute left-liberal audience, it does offer a concrete snapshot of the workings of US policy.  And if nothing else it provides proof positive that governments lie.  The US lies to its people, and its allies lie to theirs.

For instance, the US has been at war with the people of Yemen for the last year, sporadically dropping bombs anywhere it likes.  An Amnesty international investigation found that an air strike in December, 2009 killed dozens of local residents, leading them to state that “those responsible for unlawful killings must be brought to justice.”

But the US will definitely not be brought to justice.  And certainly not with loyal allies like Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who are more than willing to lie.  In a conversation with General David Petraeus, Saleh, trying to save face domestically for the US airstrikes, said: “We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours.”  Petraeus in exchange guaranteed that US foreign aid to Yemen would more than double in 2010.

This is diplomacy, US style.  When Italian mobsters engage in such activity it is considered illegal, yet empires have an uncanny way of getting around such irksome impediments like international law and human rights.

Iran in the Crosshairs

Then there are the cables on Iran which show that not only is Iran in the crosshairs of the US and Israel, but that the US’s Arab allies in the region appear to be falling over themselves to assist the US in thwarting Iran’s nuclear ambitions.  Here you get to see how the Mafia Don relates to subordinates.

These subordinates, i.e. the US’s allies in the Middle East, referred to routinely by the corporate media as "moderates," are far from being moderate in any real sense of the term.  For instance, the Gulf states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and most importantly Saudi Arabia), which house the majority of the oil in the region, are monarchies headed by leaders who are corrupt and unaccountable to their people.  Yet, the US prefers to ally with such "moderate" (read: pro-US) governments rather than Iran, which at least holds elections, albeit of a limited kind.

It should come as no surprise that these Gulf autocrats, as well as the US’s allies in other Arab nations such as Egypt and Jordan, would assist the US in advancing its imperial ambitions in the Middle East.  In so doing, they are simply advancing their own interests.

Yet, the cables reveal a level of animosity towards Iran that is quite remarkable especially since the comments made behind closed doors by several Arab allies stand in stark contrast to public statements made for domestic and regional consumption.  In a similar Orwellian move, Israel, which is routinely attacked (verbally of course) by these same leaders, is a behind-the-scenes ally, the cables reveal.  Black is white, night is day.

For instance, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed of the United Arab Emirates urged US General Abizaid to take action against Iran “this year or next.”   In another cable, bin Zayed, echoing Israeli language, stated that Iran should be not be appeased since “Ahmadinejad is Hitler.”

Bahrain’s King Hamad ibn Isa al-Khalifa, another close US ally, is quoted in one cable as calling "forcefully for taking action to terminate [Iran's] nuclear program, by whatever means necessary."  Bahrain hosts the US’s Fifth Fleet, the naval command responsible for the Persian Gulf.

Other cables show that Qatar is willing to let the US use an airbase in that country to bomb Iran.  This would not be the first time the US has used this particular airbase, having previously mounted air attacks from here on Iraq.  Qatar is willing to foot the lion share of the bill to maintain this airbase for US war games in the region.

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, one cable shows, made repeated entreaties to the US to attack Iran and "cut off the head of the snake."  Saudi Arabia, at the biding of the US, also met with Chinese representatives to seek their consent for US-sponsored sanctions on Iran and agreed to supply China with oil as a way to reduce its dependence on Iranian oil.  Saudi Arabia was then permitted to buy $60 billion in military hardware, following faithfully the script of a seven-decade-old relationship between the two countries based on "oil for security."

Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak’s statements drip with contempt for Iran.  In a meeting with Sen. John Kerry, a memo states that Mubarak exclaimed that the Iranians "are big, fat liars and justify their lies because they believe it is for a higher purpose."

He went on to add, however, that no Arab state could publicly assist the U.S. in a military attack on Iran.  He stated that Iran’s backing of terrorism is "well-known but I cannot say it publicly.  It would create a dangerous situation."  Yet, in private Egypt has recruited Iraqi and Syrian agents to counter Iranian intelligence operations.

All this reads like a bad soap opera with feuding families pretending to make nice while plotting all along to stab each other in the back.  And at the head of this murky cesspool of deception is none other than the US grande dame.

But nations are not families, and so what explains the aforementioned Arab nations’ hostility towards Iran?

Explanations: History vs. Islamophobia

If one is seeking an explanation of the conflict between Iran and the US’s Arab allies, one is unlikely to find it the corporate media.  Because rather than reveal the historical economic and political interests that bring the US, Israel, and various Arab states together, the media fall back on age-old clichés.

For instance, in an otherwise useful front page article in the New York Times on Arab and Israeli leaders’ responses to a nuclear Iran, the authors go on to explain the roots of the conflict between the Arab world and Iran as follows: "To some extent, this Arab obsession with Iran was rooted in the uneasy sectarian division of the Muslim world, between the Shiites who rule Iran, and the Sunnis, who dominate most of the region."

Even the Guardian newspaper, which has done a better job than the Times of analyzing the WikiLeaks cables and making them available in an easy to search format, states:

Arab-Persian enmity, with a strong undercurrent of rivalry between Sunni and Shia Muslims, dates back centuries but increased markedly after the overthrow of the shah and the Islamic revolution in 1979 and is now viewed as a struggle for hegemony in the region.

In short, according to these papers, the US’s main interest in the Middle East for over seven decades — oil (particularly control over oil production and distribution) — has little relevance to this conflict.  And the struggle for hegemony in the region has little to do with geopolitical interests — rather, it is rooted in religious and ethnic divisions.

In place of concrete analysis, we get an Islamophobic cliché which is based on the assumption that the roots of all (or most) actions by Arab states lie in Islam.  If this reductionism is applied to Arab nations, it is also applied to Iran as I show below.

What such explanations obscure is the real historical and political relationship between the US, Israel, and various US Arab allies.

In the case of the Gulf monarchies, which have long allied themselves closely with imperial nations (first Britain and then the US), control over oil resources trumps all other concerns.  For instance, the so-called "special relationship" between the US and Saudi Arabia is based on oil for security: the US needs to control oil in the region in order to be a global hegemon, and Saudi Arabia needs the US to shore up its defense capabilities in order to put down both external and internal threats to the rule of the Al Saud family.

Iran, since the fall of the US-backed Shah in 1979, has been seen as an external threat.  Saudi Arabia therefore buys billions of dollars worth of military equipment from the US and has been the backbone of the US defense industry.

Internal threats are all struggles that have the potential to disrupt the "special relationship" by threatening the control of the Al Saud family.  Thus, movements for workers’ rights, women’s rights, and democratic reform have been squashed by the ruling family, with the approval and help of the US.  When workers went on strike in the oil regions in the 1940s and 50s, the Al Saud family, with the assistance of the US oil company ARAMCO, ruthlessly suppressed the strikers and jailed, deported, or assassinated its leadership.  When women staged a "drive-in" in the early 1990s to seek greater rights for women, they were stripped of their passports and fired from their jobs.

These actions were not driven by "Islam."  Rather, both the US and the Al Saud family (as well as the ruling families in other Gulf states) have little tolerance for democratic movements, fearing rightly that such actions will result in elevating the will of the people over theirs, which could upset the oil for security status quo.

And indeed, the will of the people does stand in opposition to the aforementioned leaders on the question of Iran.

In contrast to the hostility expressed by the leadership, a recent poll carried out by the Brookings Institution finds that regular people in several Arab nations don’t see Iran as a major threat.  Instead, 88% identified Israel as the biggest threat, followed closely by the US (77%).  A whooping 10% identified Iran as a threat to their interests.  So much for the historic Sunni-Shia enmity and Arab-Persian rivalry!

Additionally, in contrast again to the views held by the leadership, 75% of ordinary people were opposed to international efforts to pressure Iran to curtail its nuclear program, stating that they believed that Iran had a right to its nuclear program.  57% even think that it would be positive development for the region if Iran acquired nuclear weapons.

It is therefore not surprising that the US’s Arab allies are not willing to publicly criticize Iran or offer open support for US efforts to "cut off the head of the snake."  What this poll reveals is not only the contrasting views held by the Arab public and the leadership, but also that the majority of Arabs don’t see the world through the US/Israeli prism that is taken for granted by the corporate media.

Framing Iran

As I have argued elsewhere, the dominant media framing of the Iran-nukes discussion is one which draws from an Orientalist/Islamophobic logic that states that "insane" and "irrational" Muslim Iran cannot be trusted to have nuclear weapons.  This logic further takes for granted the proposition that the US has a legitimate right to police and adjudicate on questions of nuclear capabilities.

To the extent there is any debate in the corporate media, it is about whether the US should use diplomatic or military means to quell Iran’s nuclear ambitions.  Little time is devoted to shedding light on why Iran, as a rational political actor, might want to acquire nuclear weapons.  After all, Iran is surrounded by states that possess nukes such as India, Pakistan, China, Russia, and Israel, not to mention by U.S. bases in Qatar, Iraq, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and Afghanistan, which might have nuclear weapons.

What is also left out of the discussion is not only that Iran obtained its nuclear technology from the US, but that Iran’s nuclear technology is under the full oversight of the international community since it is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Yet, Israel which has not has not signed on to the NPT and which is known to be sitting on a stockpile of nukes is given a pass.  Perhaps more importantly, we are not asked to question why the US, which possesses the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world (and is the only country to have ever used such weapons), has a legitimate right to police other nations.

At the end of the day, the WikiLeaks cables reveal a lot about the mechanics of imperialism.  They not only provide concrete proof of the levels of duplicity and the self-serving logic that drives political actors on the international stage; they can also, if placed in proper historical context, shed light on the day-to-day functioning of empire.  But don’t expect to find such analyses in the corporate media.

Deepa Kumar is an associate professor of Media Studies and Middle East Studies at Rutgers University. She is the author of Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire: Empire Abroad and at Home and Outside the Box: Corporate Media, Globalization, and the Ups Strike. She can be reached at: deepa_k276@yahoo.com. Read other articles by Deepa.

97 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. MichaelKenny said on December 4th, 2010 at 7:58am #

    Bear in mind the difference between documents in which the author expresses his/her personal opinion and those which purport to quote a third party, i.e. what lawyers call hearsay. Thus, we don’t know, for example, that King Abdullah urged the US to “cut off the head of the snake”. Indeed, I think he has denied that he ever said it. All we know is that some American official claims that he said it. How reliable is that? We know that the intelligence was falsified to manoeuvre the US into the present wars and false claims that Arab rulers wanted the US to invade Iran would fit perfectly into that logic. In other words, the very same people who are relying on the Wikileaks documents as proof of American duplicity are swallowing whole and uncritically the claims made in those documents as if they were the proven truth! Thus, we don’t know what this or that world leader actually said, we only know what their American interlocutor wants us to believe they said. And that, as Kipling said, makes all the difference!

  2. bozh said on December 4th, 2010 at 8:28am #

    the hell with wikileaks. i just review historical lessons; expect events and forget entirely what’s in any ‘document’ tnx

  3. nit2am said on December 4th, 2010 at 9:09am #

    Assange isn’t stupid; he knew the corporate media would spin these cables this way, yet he still chose to leak only to mainstream papers like the UK Guardian.

    Wikileaks is misdirection serving the empire. Assange proved this with his outright dismissal of a 9/11 cover-up. No ‘anti-establishment’ whistleblower would shield 9/11 from scrutiny this way.

  4. Deadbeat said on December 4th, 2010 at 12:36pm #

    I agree with Michael Kenny and nit2am. The tell-tale sign is not only the “corporate” media response but that of the pseudo-Left who are swallowing the WikiLeaks release uncritically. This is rather odd and contradictory especially since Assange used the NY Times to vet these releases. As we know the NY Times was instrumental publishing LIES in the lead up to the Iraq War. These releases clearly serve to take the focus away from the role and influence of Zionism should there be an attack on Iran which plays perfectly into the pseudo-Left’s false narrative of “U.S. Imperialism ™”.

  5. shabnam said on December 4th, 2010 at 12:55pm #

    Propaganda by the Evil Empire to fool people is not limited to Wikileaks. A war criminal, Robert Gates, has instructed the illiterate navy personnel to replace historical name of Persian Gulf with another name UNKNOWN TO HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS INCLUDING MAPS in order to please Arab tyrants who were installed by the British Empire as ‘king’ and ‘Emir’ and now they need the Evil Empire’s protection to stay in power so they can control the Arab population in the street for the interest of ZIONISM AND IMPERAILSM.
    This act shows how petty these war criminals have become.
    The US Navy has officially instructed its personnel they must refer to the Persian Gulf as the “Arabian Gulf.” Many Iranians believe this STUPID act not only is a sign of provocation but also an ethnically divisive, politically charged, and historically inaccurate propaganda term borrowed from the likes of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. The Navy’s official use of this term will only exacerbate tensions in the Middle East.

    The Persian Gulf has been known by this name for 2,500 years. It has been the longstanding recognition of the US Government that “Persian Gulf” is the correct name for this body of water. The term “Arabian Gulf” first appeared fifty years ago as Pan-Arabism propaganda and was later used by Saddam Hussein to exploit ethnic rivalries in support of his regional ambitions.

    The petty people think they can wipe Iran off the map through stupid acts like this.
    Navy editors and writers should follow the most recent edition of the Associated Press Stylebook except as noted in this U.S. Navy Style Guide.
    anti-aircraft, anti-submarine – Hyphenate

    “Arabian Gulf”- use instead of Persian Gulf

    Take action now to call for Defense Secretary Robert Gates to correct this immediately

    {https://secure3.convio.net/niac/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=179}

  6. catguy00 said on December 5th, 2010 at 4:49pm #

    On DV it seems “pseudo-left” is anyone who doesn’t believe in the Jew-conspiracy narrative. That is it is only Jews who dictate what goes on in the Middle East. Deepa Kumar must also be conspiracy as he dared to bring up control of oil resources.

  7. shabnam said on December 5th, 2010 at 6:18pm #

    Wikileaks is the latest tool in the hand of the elite to attract people’s attention to manipulate them should opportunity arises to expand their interest.

    Last week, the Iranian media was working hard to extract News about Iranian ‘opposition’ groups abroad in the service of the intelligent services from the ‘leaked’ cables, but they failed. One site, Alef, found the following information which is close to nothing. We have more information without WikiLeaks by reading their sites.

    {http://alef.ir/1388/content/view/88016}

    The Evil Empire has created an environment of terror and fear throughout the region. On top of that, there is unemployment and lack of opportunity created by illegal sanctions, thus, the most educated work force leave first for the west to sell them as a cheap labor. Many of them are in the business of ‘regime change’ and work for these intelligent services.
    Qasim Lutfi on DV exposes Arab-American including James Zogby and Hussein Ibish who serve the interest of US elite.

    {http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/12/arab-american-war-profiteers-benefit-from-us-occupation-of-iraq/}

    Tariq Ali, however, exposes Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani with British passport, where Professor Shahid Alam labels them as ‘Native informants’ in the service of the West. He poses as a ‘journalist’ where is regularly invited by the major US media including NPR, to give his ‘expertise’ on ‘Islamic terrorist’ like Nonexistent Al Qaeda and Taliban where was created by the USA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to keep Americans in the state of fear.
    People who know these ‘native informants’ have duty to expose them all to the international community because Wikileaks is not going to do this kind of service, for sure.

    In the following link, Tariq Ali exposes Ahmed Rashid to the public:

    {http://pulsemedia.org/2010/09/11/ahmed-rashids-strange-plan/}

  8. Deadbeat said on December 6th, 2010 at 1:08am #

    catguy00 writes …

    On DV it seems “pseudo-left” is anyone who doesn’t believe in the Jew-conspiracy narrative. That is it is only Jews who dictate what goes on in the Middle East. Deepa Kumar must also be conspiracy as he dared to bring up control of oil resources.

    The “psuedo-Left” are Zionists who POSE as Leftists. They’ve cultivated a narrative that the divert attention AWAY from Zionism and the influence that is has on the West. For example rather than analysis the role that Zionism played on the War on Iraq they told activist it was “war for Oil”. They went has far as to support the pro-War John Kerry in 2004 and sabotaged a viable anti-war candidate and weaken and divided the anti-war movement which created a HUGE vacuum that allowed the emergence of Barack Obama.

    Therefore catguy00 characterization of the psuedo-Left is in total error and because OF the psuedo-Left it is quite understandable why so many people don’t realize that there is in a Zionist conspiracy to influence and direct U.S Middle Eastern policy and that Jewish racism is in fact real. The pseudo-Left in fact focus much more on White racism and minimizes attention to Jewish racism. In fact Jewish racism is SO mainstream that it goes unnoticed. In fact it is misnamed as “Islamophobia”. However this moniker is inaccurate since it is not fear of Islam it is the racist drive to expand Jewish power and its imperial desires.

  9. catguy00 said on December 6th, 2010 at 8:06pm #

    “The “psuedo-Left” are Zionists who POSE as Leftists. ”

    According to you Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman are posing as a leftists so it is very hard to take you seriously after that.

    “They’ve cultivated a narrative that the divert attention AWAY from Zionism and the influence that is has on the West. For example rather than analysis the role that Zionism played on the War on Iraq they told activist it was “war for Oil”. ”

    There is a plethora of criticism against Israel from the “pseudo-left”. The problem for you is that it doesn’t go far enough. We must blame JEWS for the ills of the West. Depending on which “Jew-wise” person you ask this could run from the economic crisis, secularism, feminism, the gay agenda etc…..

    “Therefore catguy00 characterization of the psuedo-Left is in total error and because OF the psuedo-Left it is quite understandable why so many people don’t realize that there is in a Zionist conspiracy to influence and direct U.S Middle Eastern policy and that Jewish racism is in fact real. ”

    As already mentioned the “pseudo-left” brings up Israel and the pro-Zionist lobby all the time. The difference is that you and the other “Jew-wise” posters only want to put the blame on zee Jews once again. Ignoring US history in the region, control over oil resources, and our good friends the Saudis.

    ‘ In fact it is misnamed as “Islamophobia”. However this moniker is inaccurate since it is not fear of Islam it is the racist drive to expand Jewish power and its imperial desires”

    Uh huh. The hicks in the US who are denegrating Islam are all Jewish or controlled by Jews? Sure thing.

  10. 3bancan said on December 6th, 2010 at 8:15pm #

    catguy00 said on December 6th, 2010 at 8:06pm #

    As usual ziogatto has the zionazi chutzpah to deny the obvious…

  11. hayate said on December 6th, 2010 at 9:33pm #

    3bancan said on December 6th, 2010 at 8:15pm #

    catguy00 said on December 6th, 2010 at 8:06pm #

    “As usual ziogatto has the zionazi chutzpah to deny the obvious… ”

    And I suspect its posts don’t get regularly deleted at DV, either.

  12. catguy00 said on December 6th, 2010 at 10:43pm #

    Deepa Kumar must be pseudo-left as well.

  13. shabnam said on December 7th, 2010 at 12:11am #

    US navy has decided to change the name of the Persian Gulf into something funny to insult Iranians. Has Navy forgotten what they have written on each stone over soldier’s graves? Looking at the following picture, you will find out that PERSIAN GULF cannot be removed from the scene, because Persian Gulf is everywhere including on your grave.

    You never be able to remove the evidence from the scene because the name can be found in your history books, films, maps, stones.

    You will take PERSIAN GULF with you into your grave, one by one as the following picture shows. If you were smart you never dare to insult a country as old as 7000 years, at least. You have a long way to go before knowing how stupid your thinking policy is.

    {http://hamshahrijavan.blogsky.com/1389/09/14/post-668/}

  14. 3bancan said on December 7th, 2010 at 12:18am #

    catguy00 said on December 6th, 2010 at 8:06pm #

    “The hicks in the US who are denegrating Islam are all Jewish or controlled by Jews?”

    As if it weren’t an obvious fact that the main source and generator of islamophobia are the Jews – not only in the US but all over the globe.
    Btw, ziogatto’s recent comment “The Norks have next to nothing” shows that he has quite some things in common with Rabbi Ovadia Yosef…

  15. hayate said on December 7th, 2010 at 12:56am #

    3bancan said on December 7th, 2010 at 12:18am

    “Btw, ziogatto’s recent comment “The Norks have next to nothing” shows that he has quite some things in common with Rabbi Ovadia Yosef… ”

    Before when catguy00 used that demeaning term for North Koreans, both I Deadbeat commented about it. Naturally, our posts got deleted and catguy00′s post with the demeaning term remained intact…..

  16. Deadbeat said on December 7th, 2010 at 1:26am #

    I apologize for the grammatical errors in my prior post. I was writing it in a rush.

    catguy00 writes …

    According to you Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman are posing as a leftists so it is very hard to take you seriously after that.

    On the contrary it is difficult to take YOU seriously. Noam Chomsky IS a professed Zionist and has been a supporter and defender of Zionism for decades. What Chomsky did for decades is spin a rational sounding (remember he is a linguist by profession) narrative that provides cover for Zionism’s influence of the U.S. political economy all the while “alternative journalists” lionized Chomsky elevating him to “superstar” status. The same was true of Howard Zinn and other of Jewish pseudo-Left celebrities. Perhaps the newest one on the scene is Naomi Klein.

    However Chomsky is the most obvious of the pseudo-Left while ironically being the most lionized he OPENLY admits his devotion to Zionism and support for the apartheid state of Israel. The fact that someone who is deeply devoted to a racist ideology is elevated to such high status and regard are perhaps the greatest JOKE about the “Left” and a key reason why you won’t find solidarity on the Left with people of color. This helps to maintain the Left’s weaken condition.

    Also a healthy portion of these pseudo-Leftists are among some well paid and financed individuals. Amy Goodman rakes in $1,000,000.00/year and that put her well above the politics she positions herself as. This also means she and others like her (ex. Laura Flanders) are very dependent on FOUNDATION dollars. So while Ms. Goodman touts her “purity” from “corporate” interests the money that flows into these foundations surely is rather tainted — especially donations from well-to-do Jews who lost there shirt to Bernie Madoff.

    Naomi Klein’s book Shock Doctrine was written in 2007 just when doubts were being raised regarding the “War for Oil” canard. James Petras was perhaps the lone brave voice on the Left addressing this canard and seriously addressing the power of Zionism in the United States. Therefore another diversion was needed. Hence Klein’s book (and let’s not forget Greg Palest — a Chicago Zionist — and his books as well).

    Because her book was written so close to the financial collapse many activists believe that her book was about that topic instead as Ms. “No Logo” developed a cute one called “Disaster Capitalism”. In fact what Ms. Klein wrote was a false narrative blaming “neoliberalism” and the late Milton Friedman (who was against the Iraq War BTW) in particular as the root and driving force for the War on Iraq. Yet another diversion. No need to mention AIPAC when there is “Disaster Capitalism”.

    Also you had Medea Benjamin, a taker of George Soros dollars, playing a key role in the disruption of the Green Party and the Nader campaign in 2004. Her role help to weaken the Greens who lost key ballot lines. The failure of the Greens to have a strong showing in 2004 paved the way for Obama’s entry in 2008.

    Phyllis Bennis of IPS has been a long denier of the Zionism’s influence of the Congress and was instrumental in weakening the anti-war movement in 2004.

    Howard Zinn and Z-Magazine’s Michael Albert supported the election of pro-war John Kerry in 2004 over anti-war Ralph Nader. They did so under the rubric of “Anybody But Bush/Safe State”. This mendacious strategy revealed how easily the pseudo-Left talks a good game. Clearly they had nothing to lose by supporting the anti-war, anti-Democratic Party campaign but because there was uncomfortable focus on Israel’s as being a key impetus behind the 9-11 attack and the influence of Zionism on Middle East policy the pseudos had no other choice but to put their “TRUE” interests ahead of their rhetoric.

    The Iraq War, the 2003-2004 anti-war movement, and the 2004 Nader campaign went well beyond what Chomsky hoped for when he described the emerging “superpower” (read: active citizens). When it crossed that Rubicon of asking uncomfortable questions the pseudo-Left revealed its true character.

    Sorry catguy00 but you are new to the scene here and we’ve had these discussions and analyzes already.

  17. hayate said on December 7th, 2010 at 10:43pm #

    Deadbeat said on December 7th, 2010 at 1:26am

    Excellent analysis.

  18. catguy00 said on December 7th, 2010 at 11:32pm #

    You are better forming an alliance with the far right as they already believe that the left is “controlled by Jews”. Unlike the left the far right is more into conspiracy theories relating to ethnicity. Even if you are on the left fortunately you are in a very small minority.

    “Howard Zinn and Z-Magazine’s Michael Albert supported the election of pro-war John Kerry in 2004 over anti-war Ralph Nader. ”

    ………because Ralph Nader was not electable! Kerry was considered the lesser of the two evils. It had NOTHING to do with focus on Israel as your deluded conspiracy theory contends.

    P.S – Raplh Nader must be considered pseudo-leftist as well since he does not subscribe to your beliefs.

  19. hayate said on December 7th, 2010 at 11:44pm #

    catguy00 said on December 7th, 2010 at 11:32pm

    For a rightwinger, your views there are almost identical with those of the zionist [cough] left. One of those strange coincidences one is always running into on political/news analysis site.

  20. Deadbeat said on December 8th, 2010 at 1:19am #

    catguy00 writes…

    You are better forming an alliance with the far right as they already believe that the left is “controlled by Jews”. Unlike the left the far right is more into conspiracy theories relating to ethnicity. Even if you are on the left fortunately you are in a very small minority.

    The phrase “conspiracy theory” is one of those terms that the MSM and the pseudo-Left throw out to discredit their critics. Catguy00 is obviously green here and doesn’t realize these topics have been discussed here for the better part of the last five years. It is obvious he hasn’t read Jeffrey Blankfort nor has he read James Petras, Lanni Brenner, Joel Kovel, and the plethora of REAL left-wing Jews that have bravely EXPOSED the pseudo-Left especially that of Noam Chomsky the minions of Chomskyites.

    Chomsky has a hellava 40 year ride but 9-11 and the War on Iraq is what finally exposed the long IGNORED growth of Zionist power and influence over U.S. policy and the political economy overall.

    The irony about the Right is that the pseudo-Left don’t give a shit about White Racism but do have a generalized fear. Zionists know that in the U.S. people of color will bear the brunt of any White racists backlash. Thus Zionists can use especially the weak and generally BROKE-ASS Black [mis]leadership to attack the Right — particularly the paleo-conservatives who’ve been long aware of Zionists lust for power. Libertarians too have not enamored with Zionism but that is primarily based on their non-interventionist ideology. Zionists would not be able to exercise power and achieve their imperialist goal with a group of non-interventionist adherents. Thus you don’t see too many Zionists amongst Libertarians.

    But why are Zionist at “home” on the Left. This is rooted in Jewish tendencies to support social justice issues. Jews are a dichotomy and contradictory and it is that contradiction that leads to duplicity and betrayals. It is also why there are a lot of Zionists on the Left. This is why Jews can be vocal against “White” racism and stay silent on Jewish racism and disrupt any confrontation of Zionism. Understanding the dichotomies helps to understand why the Left is in such a terrible state, how it got into that state, and why it will REMAIN in a pathetic state for time to come.

  21. Deadbeat said on December 8th, 2010 at 1:38am #

    catguy00 writes …


    deadbeat:“Howard Zinn and Z-Magazine’s Michael Albert supported the election of pro-war John Kerry in 2004 over anti-war Ralph Nader. ”

    ………because Ralph Nader was not electable! Kerry was considered the lesser of the two evils. It had NOTHING to do with focus on Israel as your deluded conspiracy theory contends.

    P.S – Ralph Nader must be considered pseudo-leftist as well since he does not subscribe to your beliefs.

    Ralph Nader is not a pseudo-Leftist. During the 2004 campaign Nader stumped against what he referred to as an “Israeli-Occupied” government. It was for THIS REASON why Zinn, Chomsky, Benjamin, Bennis, Palast, and Albert worked against his campaign.

    Where I disagree with Nader is that he is a Capitalist reformist. Therefore you are clearly IGNORANT and have mischaracterize Ralph Nader.

    IMO Nader’s 2004 campaign was MORE important than his 2000 campaign. This is not to downplay his achievements in 2000 because that set him up for 2004. But his achievements in 2000 made him a REAL threat to the two-party duopoly and Nader could have provided a real LEFT-WING anti-war alternative.

  22. Max Shields said on December 8th, 2010 at 5:49am #

    Deadbeat, maybe you could clear this up:
    Contrary to What You’ve Heard…
    Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn Plan to Vote for Ralph Nader

    http://www.counterpunch.org/bates06252004.html

  23. bozh said on December 8th, 2010 at 9:06am #

    chomsky told me he voted for greens! i did not ask him for whom he voted! tnx

  24. catguy00 said on December 8th, 2010 at 9:11pm #

    “Ralph Nader is not a pseudo-Leftist. During the 2004 campaign Nader stumped against what he referred to as an “Israeli-Occupied” government. It was for THIS REASON why Zinn, Chomsky, Benjamin, Bennis, Palast, and Albert worked against his campaign. ”

    Evidence?

  25. Deadbeat said on December 8th, 2010 at 10:23pm #

    From the article Max that you refused to read …

    In another email exchange, Howard Zinn stated, “I will vote for Nader because Mass. is a safe state. And voters in ‘safe states’ should not vote for Kerry.” He also notes, “I don’t have faith in Kerry changing, but with Kerry there is a possibility that a powerful social movement might change him. With Bush, no chance.”

  26. Deadbeat said on December 8th, 2010 at 10:24pm #

    And catguy00 the evidence is provided by Max Shields. You should thank Max for his efforts.

  27. Deadbeat said on December 8th, 2010 at 10:26pm #

    Another pseudo-Leftist that I forgot to mention was Norman Soloman of FAIR. He actually debated the late great Peter Camejo against running as a third party candidate.

  28. catguy00 said on December 9th, 2010 at 8:54pm #

    Deadbeat, you wrote:
    ” During the 2004 campaign Nader stumped against what he referred to as an “Israeli-Occupied” government. It was for THIS REASON why Zinn, Chomsky, Benjamin, Bennis, Palast, and Albert worked against his campaign. ”

    I asked for evidence. You sited the counterpunch article. Which did not back up your above theory. Want to try again?

  29. hayate said on December 9th, 2010 at 9:14pm #

    catguy00 said on December 9th, 2010 at 8:54pm #

    “I asked for evidence. You sited the counterpunch article. Which did not back up your above theory. Want to try again?”

    I what ways did he not back up his post, israeli hasbarat?

    Try again. ;D

  30. Deadbeat said on December 9th, 2010 at 11:33pm #

    Here’s the section of the analysis that I wrote that catguy00 chooses to ignore that was BACKED up by the CounterPunch article

    Howard Zinn and Z-Magazine’s Michael Albert supported the election of pro-war John Kerry in 2004 over anti-war Ralph Nader. They did so under the rubric of “Anybody But Bush/Safe State”. This mendacious strategy revealed how easily the pseudo-Left talks a good game. Clearly they had nothing to lose by supporting the anti-war, anti-Democratic Party campaign but because there was uncomfortable focus on Israel’s as being a key impetus behind the 9-11 attack and the influence of Zionism on Middle East policy the pseudos had no other choice but to put their “TRUE” interests ahead of their rhetoric.

    Since evidence is has been produced (thanks Max) it is now up to catguy00 to produce HIS evidence to show that Zinn, Chomsky, and Albert, et al are NOT harbarats. I’m WAITING catguy00 …

  31. hayate said on December 10th, 2010 at 12:04am #

    At this point, hasbarat seems too mild a term for the role these lord ha ha’s play in furthering the ziofascist status quo. But I be waiting, too.

  32. Deadbeat said on December 10th, 2010 at 4:44am #

    Due to time constraints I had to abbreviate my initial response to catguy00. If Catguy00 is not a hasbarat then he is a very badly indoctrinated Chomskyite who is into “hero” worshiping and is offended that his heroes and heroines of the pseudo-Left are being heavily criticized here on DV. This forum is the only one that I’m aware of that has permitted CRITICAL ANALYSIS of the Left. Other forums like MarxMail and PNEWS are owned an operated by Left-wing Jews that censor such critical analysis.

    Catguy00 wrote this comment …

    P.S – Ralph Nader must be considered pseudo-leftist as well since he does not subscribe to your beliefs.

    I offered a response to this false allegation about but allow me to expand on it. To understand where the Left is today in 2010 we must look back to 2004 as being a real critical juncture where the pseudo-Left was forced to finally reveal their underlying modus operandi.

    The 2004 Presidential Campaign was perhaps THE MOST critical Left-wing 3rd-Party electoral campaign since 1948. That’s 56 YEARS! Why was it so critical — because in 2000, Ralph Nader received 2.74% of the popular vote and there was a REAL possibility of him achieving the 5% threshold that would qualify the Greens for federal public funding and state-wide ballot status. In other words the Green would have been in the position for 2008 to be a VIABLE Left-wing 3rd PARTY.

    In addition, Nader ran as an ANTI-WAR candidate and urged activists to continue the anti-war activities. Such a strategy would have coalesced the Left and helped Nader achieve the 5% threshold. However you had Michael Albert being a big advocate of “Support the Troops” and demanding that anti-war activities be deferred until AFTER the election.

    catguy00 excuses Zinn and Albert, he says …

    deadbeat:“Howard Zinn and Z-Magazine’s Michael Albert supported the election of pro-war John Kerry in 2004 over anti-war Ralph Nader. ”
    ………because Ralph Nader was not electable! Kerry was considered the lesser of the two evils. It had NOTHING to do with focus on Israel as your deluded conspiracy theory contends.

    As I previously reported Nader STUMPED against what he referred to as “Washington is Israeli-occupied territory”. I’m reporting this first hand as I attended several Nader fundraisers and was very active in his 2004 campaign. His a campaign provided a REAL opportunity to challenge the two-party duopoly.

    Even from Zinn’s remark he is not supporting Nader for PRINCIPLED or even STRATEGIC reasons beneficial to the Left. He is only voting for Nader because he lives in a “safe-state”. This mendacious strategy was only a cover to support pro-war Democrat John Kerry because Zinn made it clear that if you lived in a swing-state he wanted you to vote for the pro-war Democrat John Kerry and not Ralph Nader.

    The pseudo-Left also was involved in preventing Nader from running as a Green. The gadfly David Cobb was set up to force Nader into a “primary challenge” but this would have delayed getting ballot access in the states since the Green held their nomination convention in June. Nader’s strategy was to run a 50-state campaign which meant that he had to gather and submit signatures for ballot access well before June. Two pseudo-Leftists involved in this prevent-Nader scheme was Ted Glick and Medea Benjamin. This was the first and only time Benjamin was involved with the Green (you can see her at the Green convention from the C-Span archive) . The other pseudo-Leftist was Norman Solomon who debated the late-great Peter Camejo criticizing him for exercising his and Nader’s 1st Amendment right to run for public office.

    The Left might just have to wait another 56 years before it has the kind of potential and timing that it had in 2004. All the factors were there:

    [1] There was a REAL anti-war movement in 2003

    [2] There was a MASS appeal against the U.S. invasion of Iraq

    [3] Real questions were being raised about U.S. relations with Israel linking that relationship to 9-11.

    [4] There was real anger at the Bush Administration where many citizen believe was illegitimate due to the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional meddling.

    [5] Nader had achieved 2.74% of the vote meaning he only needed about another 3,000,000 votes to achieve 5% threshold opening the door to 3rd party viable and ballot access status for the Green Party.

    All of this was derailed by the psuedo-Left who either deliberately sabotaged Nader campaign from the inside and failed to support him from the outside. None of these pseudo-Leftist stepped up to inform activists of that the Left had a REAL chance to make a dent in the two-party-pro-war-pro-Capitalism-pro-Zionism-pro-Israel duopoly. The pseudo-Left revealed its true alliance to Zionism and Capitalism through its successful sabotaging of the 2004 Nader campaign.

    Thus in 2008 the Left was no where near capable of challenging the duopoly having creating the vacuum in 2004. In addition the Left split its ranks running two campaign (Nader-Gonzales vs McKinney-Clemente). The discombobulation of the Left caused by the pseudo-Left caused a huge power VACUUM that enabled the Obama candidacy. The pseudo-Left now comes along piously criticizing the man they enabled to become the POTUS. The Left has been totally corrupted by the Zionist pseudo-Left and until they are completely PURGED there really is no hope for any real change in the United States of America.

  33. Deadbeat said on December 10th, 2010 at 4:54am #

    Here was another Left-wing Jew who failed to support Ralph Nader in 2004 from the same edition of CounterPunch no less …

    Joel Kovel’s Sad Smear of Ralph Nader: Another Marxist for Kerry

    Kovel has since come out and talked against Zionism but to see how even “Marxist” missed the opportunity to advance the interests of the Left that was right in front of them reveals just show how deep seated Zionism is.

  34. Deadbeat said on December 10th, 2010 at 4:57am #

    bozh writes …

    chomsky told me he voted for greens! i did not ask him for whom he voted! tnx

    This means he voted for gadfly David Cobb who was set up to prevent Nader from obtaining ballot access. Cobb has no chance in even achieving the 5% threshold and for Chomsky to vote for him was part of the “safe state” charade.

  35. Deadbeat said on December 10th, 2010 at 5:26am #

    You see what the pseudo-Left did was to PRETEND that they were adhering to Left-wing principles by downplaying the Nader candidacy using the following excuses:

    [1] Nader couldn’t win.
    True but that wasn’t the point. The point was to BUILD a VIABLE Left-wing 3rd Party. The pseudo-Left could not afford for that to happen because they LOST control of the anti-war movement. The movement was raising uncomfortable questions about U.S. relations with Israel and Israel/Palestine. In addition the role of the anti-war Libertarians also raised questions about 9-11 and was doing investigatory looks at pseudo-Leftist who were dismissive about 9-11 conspiracies. (How do you think I found out about Amy Goodman’s salary figures. It was uncovered from their work).

    Nader’s campaign was not EXCLUSIVELY Left which troubled the ISO who got involved in the Nader campaign. However when it comes to Zionism the ISO seem to have a blind spot. Nader sought support from former Perot supporters, Libertarians, and African American Lenora Fulini (a former Newmanite that are labeled a “cult” by the pseudo-Leftist Chip Berlet) who had built alliances with Perot supporters.

    The point was that in order to build a viable challenge Nader needed 3,000,000 new voters and had Zinn, Goodman, Benjamin, Kovel, Chomsky used their cache and celebrity and had supported Nader from the onset he would not have needed to “fish” for support elsewhere along the political spectrum (although IMO I think Nader would have sought support from former Perot supporters. The ones who Glen Ford labels as “White Nationalists” but who tend to be anti-Zionists).

    [2] Anybody But Bush
    This stem from the over-inflation of Bush as “boggieman”. So much so that Michael Albert called for a disbanding of anti-war activities until AFTER the 2004 election. No pressure on Kerry from Z-Mag. Bush was bad but is Obama really any better? Only by degrees so had their been a VIABLE Left alternative in 2008 would Obama have ran for office? I don’t know but clearly it would have had to factor in his calculations. But most importantly the Green Party would have had to be taken seriously.

    [3] Safe-State
    This is the most mendacious excuse of all as a call for voting for the pro-war-pro-Zionist-pro-Capitalist DEMOCRATS. Zinn and Chomsky could cover their asses by living in a “safe-state” but for those living in swing states the call was for them to vote for John Kerry.

    As Howard Zinn used to say that you can’t stay neutral on a moving train but when the train finally got on the tracks and was ready to move along not only did Zinn & Chomsky pull the emergency brake they and their minions derailed the train entirely for their beloved Zionism.

  36. 3bancan said on December 10th, 2010 at 5:50am #

    Deadbeat said on December 7th, 2010 at 1:26am #
    “Sorry catguy00 but you are new to the scene here and we’ve had these discussions and analyzes already”
    Imho DB is wrong in thinking ziogatto is “new to the scene”. I’d say that the opposite is true, as every single comment of his shows a hubristic zionazi
    hasbarat, who is here not to “learn” but to debunk what he perceives as “deluded conspiracy theories” (ie in accord with his “Don’t touch the Jews!” tune), ie to “teach/hasbarize” his – “correct” – zionazi views. One needs only to read this line of his to understand what kind of guy this catguy is:

    “It had NOTHING to do with focus on Israel as your deluded conspiracy theory (sic!!!) contends”…

  37. bozh said on December 10th, 2010 at 8:23am #

    deadbeat, yes,
    conjuring up nader’s failure on election day, is no excuse for not voting for him. chomsky is not a leftists. he’s first of all ‘jewish’ and for ‘jewishness’.
    i am doubtful that even one ‘jew’ is for an egalitarian structure of society.
    one cannot be both for ‘jewishness’– a special status, culture, cult, supremacism–and for a nonspecial status; i.e., all voelken having same rights, status.

    one cannot approbate ‘jewish’ conquest of a region [any region] and be for peace, freedoms, and equality among cults or nations.

    keep in mind that that ‘jews’ may be called cultists and not a people but a mass of folks! tnx

  38. catguy00 said on December 12th, 2010 at 7:14pm #

    Deadbeat wrote:
    “Howard Zinn and Z-Magazine’s Michael Albert supported the election of pro-war John Kerry in 2004 over anti-war Ralph Nader. They did so under the rubric of “Anybody But Bush/Safe State”. This mendacious strategy revealed how easily the pseudo-Left talks a good game. Clearly they had nothing to lose by supporting the anti-war, anti-Democratic Party campaign but because there was uncomfortable focus on Israel’s as being a key impetus behind the 9-11 attack and the influence of Zionism on Middle East policy the pseudos had no other choice but to put their “TRUE” interests ahead of their rhetoric. ”

    Unfortunately NOTHING in those two counterpunch articles supports your theory that Zinn and Chomsky(who didn’t vote for Kerry) did not fully support Nader BECAUSE of his views on Israel and the Middle East.

    Now voting for Kerry over Bush or Obama over McCain because the former candidates are less dangerous may not be morally honest but they are in no way illogical. Neither are they part of some sinister Jew backed plot to keep the Zionists in power. This is just an attempt by the far right to smear the Left has being “under the control of Jews”.

    I mean I realize that Chomsky is such a committed Zionist that he is banned from Israel and defends the rights of holocaust deniers. Makes total sense.

  39. Deadbeat said on December 12th, 2010 at 8:15pm #

    Unfortunately NOTHING in those two counterpunch articles supports your theory that Zinn and Chomsky(who didn’t vote for Kerry) did not fully support Nader BECAUSE of his views on Israel and the Middle East.

    Really. Other than your assertion you offer no evidence nor specifics to disprove what I’ve said. You claimed that Nader was a “pseudo-Leftist”. I already argued that Nader was not a pseudo-Leftist. Evidence: Nader campaign on “Washington is Israeli-occupied territory”.

    As previously stated the issue was their SUPPORT for “Anybody But Bush/safe state” which was an anti-Nader/pro-Kerry canard. What goes missing about 2004 was the IMPORTANCE of that electoral campaign to the Left and to the anti-war movement. The actions of the pseudo-Left enhanced Zionism while weakening the Left.

    YOU catguy00 have yet to show evidence or make a rational argument to the contrary. I’ve presented a detailed argument. I’m still waiting for a detailed rebuttal.

    No[t] voting for Kerry over Bush or Obama over McCain because the former candidates are less dangerous may not be morally honest but they are in no way illogical. Neither are they part of some sinister Jew backed plot to keep the Zionists in power. This is just an attempt by the far right to smear the Left has being “under the control of Jews”.

    What you would rather ignore and not discuss or analyze are the reasons WHY the pseudo-Left failed to live up to their advertising. For “dissidents” Chomsky, Zinn, Albert, Bennis, Benjamin, Kovel, Glick not to rally behind the 2004 Nader campaign is not only anti-intellectualism but also demonstrates how the pseudo-Left USES the “far-right” as a SHIELD to hide their Zionism and their disruption of the Left.

    I noticed you tried to introduce an irrelevant issue of Obama v. McCain. The discussion is NOT about the 2008 Nader campaign but how the pseudo-Left WEAKEN the Left for its active derailment of the 2004 Nader/Green party attempts to build a VIABLE 3rd party challenge to the Democrats.

    I’ll reiterate. in 2000 Nader received 2.74% of the popular vote. All he needed in 2004 was about 3,000,000 NEW voters to reach the 5% threshold which would have provided the Green party with Federal match funds and ballot access. In order to do that Nader had to get on the ballot of ALL 50 states and due to the draconian ballot access laws he needed to gather signature early in the campaign season. He could not wait until June, after the Green Party primaries, to start that process.

    Therefore the pseudo-Left rather than offer their support to Nader SABOTAGED his campaign just as the did to the anti-war movement. As I pointed out Michael Albert was telling activist NOT to protest until AFTER the election. Phyllis Bennis along with Leslie Cagan (another Jewish pseudo-Leftist) weaken the anti-war movement by splitting off with International Answer. Howard Zinn openly supported the “safe-state” strategy. Normon Solomon debated Peter Camejo arguing NOT to run. Medea Benjamin actively supported gadfly David Cobb. Ted Glick delayed the Green Party nomination process. And ZioChomsky remain “aloof”.

    Here was there opportunity to really show their dissent. To assist the “new superpower (the people). But there ACTIONS was in supported Zionism. The “far-right” had NOTHING to do with the collapse of the Left. The pseudo-Left are the one who took the lead and did the most damage to the Left.

    As I pointed out, the Left NEVER came this close to having a viable national electoral party. The last time perhaps was 1948 — 56 years prior. But the pseudo-Left action didn’t bear out their rhetoric.

    As I also pointed out the “far-right” also EXPOSED the hypocrisy of the pseudo-Left when the pseudo-Left chastised the 9-11 skeptics. This isn’t to agree or disagree with skeptics but the skeptics thought odd that the “dissidents” would rally behind the government version of events. They thought they would have had some support but all they got was ridicule. That when they decided to take a CLOSER examination of the pseudo-Left. What they still fail to see is that these folks are NOT really the Left but are pseudo-Leftist. And that’s primarily due to the weaken and corrupted state of the Left.

    However catguy00, you have yet to present ANY facts to support your position. All you offer is the same old tired sanctimonious “victimization shit” that only the indoctrinated and gullible accept. That would be as if Obama ran under the covers of “being Black” to excuse his policy choices. On this forum such arguments don’t fly.

    I mean I realize that Chomsky is such a committed Zionist that he is banned from Israel and defends the rights of holocaust deniers. Makes total sense.

    Chomsky was NOT “banned from Israel”. Chomsky was invited to give a lecture at Bir Zeit University in the Palestinian West Bank and where he was to meet with a US/Israel mole.

  40. Max Shields said on December 12th, 2010 at 9:18pm #

    Deadbeat said on December 8th, 2010 at 10:23pm #

    I in fact read the Counterpunch article before posting above. Yes the “safe state” strategy is the one both Zinn and Chomsky have supported both in 2004 and 2008. They publically declared they were voting for Nader, and that they were in a “safe state” residing in Massachusetts.

    The point though is, in contrary to yours, which indicated they were against Nader, that both supported and voted for Nader but considered the odds of rallying everyone around him may not be wise given the dominance of the two party system.

    Personally I disagree with the strategy, but they appear to be both forthright and honest about their approach…AND clearly supportive of Nader and his positions. That, again, is in stark contrast to what you are saying, Deadbeat.

    It is not Chomsky or Zinn I’m trying to defend, but dishonest or mis-representative statements made here on DV to create a narrative. Whether that narrative has merit depends, in large part, on the honesty of those attempting to perpetuate it (Chomsky is a gatekeeper for Israeli Zionism). Generally, I see nothing to support that claim; certainly not to the extent purposed by you.

  41. hayate said on December 12th, 2010 at 9:25pm #

    Funny how often rightwing internet trolls, who claim they are not zionists, will come to the defense of chomsky when he is criticised from the anti-zionist left. One would think they would be happy to see chomsky take some heat. Real non-zionist rightwingers love bashing chomsky. I’d say in the last 10 years of internet forum usage, probably 90% of the rightwingers I’ve encountered were zionists. This “non-zionist” rightwing support for chomsky was quite an eye opener for me about what is wrong with the [cough] zionist “left”.

  42. hayate said on December 12th, 2010 at 9:35pm #

    Deadbeat said on December 12th, 2010 at 8:15pm

    Excellent analysis. Thanks for taking the time to post it.

  43. catguy00 said on December 12th, 2010 at 9:48pm #

    Deadbeat wrote:
    “As previously stated the issue was their SUPPORT for “Anybody But Bush/safe state” which was an anti-Nader/pro-Kerry canard. ”

    My point always has been that you haven’t proven your case that it was a CANARD. That there was an ulterior motive behind it.

    I fully understand disagreeing with the strategy. Absolutely.
    Just not the reasoning you put behind it.

    “Chomsky was NOT “banned from Israel”. Chomsky was invited to give a lecture at Bir Zeit University in the Palestinian West Bank and where he was to meet with a US/Israel mole. ”

    No Chomsky was banned from Israel.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/chomsky

  44. Deadbeat said on December 12th, 2010 at 11:32pm #

    From the Huffington Post article ….

    JERUSALEM — An Israeli official says academic and polemicist Noam Chomsky, who is a fierce critic of Israel, has been denied entry to the country.

    Interior Ministry spokeswoman Sabine Haddad said Chomsky was turned away for “various reasons” but declined to elaborate. Chomsky was trying to cross the Allenby Bridge from Jordan. He was scheduled to deliver a lecture at Bir Zeit University in the West Bank.

    Haddad said her ministry was looking into allowing him to enter only the West Bank.

    Chomsky told Channel 10 TV from Jordan Sunday: “I’ve often spoken at Israeli universities.”

    Chomsky is one of Israel’s harshest academic critics. After Israel’s 2009 war in Gaza, he was quoted as saying, “supporters of Israel are in reality supporters of its moral degeneration.”

  45. Deadbeat said on December 12th, 2010 at 11:33pm #

    My point always has been that you haven’t proven your case that it was a CANARD. That there was an ulterior motive behind it.

    My point is that you haven’t PROVED your case.

  46. Deadbeat said on December 13th, 2010 at 12:34am #

    Max Shield writes …

    I will REBUT your ENTIRE commentary Max to show not only how factually incorrect you are but how in fact you come off as supporting Zionism in your defense of Zinn and Chomsky both of whom are nothing but empty images of “dissidents”. It is a designation that is totally undeserving. Both are(were in the case of Zinn) pseudo-Leftists. Their images were inflated by the “alternative” media many of whom are in the pocket of Zionist-funded foundations.

    Once again: The 2004 Presidential election is what turned me into an ANTI-ZIONIST. The turning point of the years 2003-2004 thoroughly EXPOSED these pseudo-Leftists. IMO the pseudo-Left is the heart of keeping Zionism intact in the United States.

    Yes the “safe state” strategy is the one both Zinn and Chomsky have supported both in 2004 and 2008. They [publicly] declared they were voting for Nader, and that they were in a “safe state” residing in Massachusetts.

    This was a CANARD to preserve their false faces as “Leftists”. They supported Kerry over Nader in “unsafe” states in an election year where had Nader garnered 5% of the popular vote or 3 million NEW voters would have UPSET the electoral duopoly and altered the nature of the 2008 election and built the Green Party into a VIABLE challenger. This IMPORTANT fact just goes unmentioned by you Max and other pseudo-Leftist. The behavior of the entire pseudo-Left between the years 2003-2004 revealed their real motivations and intent as those TWO years were a major turning point and an opportunity for dissidents that the pseudo-Left snuffed.

    The successful demobilization of the Left by the pseudo-Left in 2004 made the Left IRRELEVANT in 2008 and create the power vacuum for Obama to walk through.

    [2] The point though is, in contrary to yours, which indicated they were against Nader, that both supported and voted for Nader but considered the odds of rallying everyone around him may not be wise given the dominance of the two party system.

    BULLSHIT. Nader and the Green Party only needed somewhere close to 3,000,000 NEW voters to put Nader at the 5% THRESHOLD that would have qualified the Green Party for FEDERAL ELECTION FUNDS and state-wide ballot access. This would have made the Green Party a VIABLE PROGRESSIVE 3rd Party. How fucked up was the fact that so-called “dissidents” failed to rally behind these factors and to openly sabatoged it.

    The only reason for NOT supporting Nader was due to what occurred with the anti-war movement. The pseudo-Left WITHDREW and used their cache, influence, and power to split the anti-war movement. The reason: many in the movement began to raise uncomfortable questions about Israel and Zionist influence of U.S. policy. The Bush Administration was crawling with Zionists yet the pseudo-Left kept pushing the “War for Oil” canard. For example they announded Chaney’s Halliburton ties but no mention of his JINSA and PNAC affiliations.

    The pseudos couldn’t claim that these questions were irrelevant but they could WITHDRAW from the movement and thereby divide and weaken activity. Again I point to Michael Albert of Z-Magazine who openly advocated a WITHDRAWAL from antiwar activity until AFTER the election.

    [3]Personally I disagree with the strategy, but they appear to be both forthright and honest about their approach…AND clearly supportive of Nader and his positions. That, again, is in stark contrast to what you are saying, Deadbeat.

    BULLSHIT. There were DISHONEST because based on their logic they would have had to vote for PRO-WAR Kerry if they lived in a swing state like Ohio which like Florida in 2000 became the deciding state. It’s clear to me Max you agree with the “cover your pseudo ass” aspects of their strategy.

    [4]It is not Chomsky or Zinn I’m trying to defend, but dishonest or mis-representative statements made here on DV to create a narrative. Whether that narrative has merit depends, in large part, on the honesty of those attempting to perpetuate it (Chomsky is a gatekeeper for Israeli Zionism). Generally, I see nothing to support that claim; certainly not to the extent purposed by you.

    BULLSHIT. All you’ve ever done here Max is defend American Zionism. Your initial appears was using the Chomskyite “little-old Israel junior partner canard”. During the Blankfort/Jeremy Hammond debate you pretty much revealed yourself so please spear me your phoney narrative. There are plenty articles here authored by James Petras that present the information in FOOTNOTED DETAILS. You want to ignore that.

    The pseudo-Left successful disruption of the anti-war movement where MILLIONS took to streets and the sabatoge of building a REAL VIABLE Left-wing 3rd party challenge to the duopoly exposed them as the REAL threat to the ordinary citizens because in the end their true aim is to maintain a disrupted, divided and weaken Left.

  47. Max Shields said on December 13th, 2010 at 7:35am #

    Deadbeat you ignore what I’ve written, as usual, and decided to make up a narrative, as usual, to make a case based on something I did not say.

    First, I disagree, and stated so in the post you chose to use as a pretext for your last post, with the “safe state” strategy. I think it is a poor and even detrimental strategy.

    However, contrary to your prior post, which is what I was addressing, Chomsky (and Zinn) both indicated they were voting (and it is fair to say believe) for Nader and what he symbolized.

    What you cannot know is what Chomsky really thinks or believes regarding this matter beyond what he has said. The so-called Blankfort/Jeremy Hammond debate is a red-herring because it would require going through the entire thread…a worthless endeavor at best.
    My points there are fully consistent with what I’ve said here, and I’ll leave it at that.

    As far as the Green Party, I have been (and run on) the Green Party. The problem with any political party in the US is that it must utterly succumb to the political structure which is controlled by funding from corporate and special interest (yes, AIPAC) which corrupts just about any attempt to change what we have; i.e., to implement a transformative agenda.

    Today we have a president who represents the interests of those powers. He was vetted and given the role of candidate and president by this mix of oligarchical elite and plutocractic powers. He is presiding over a declining empire which is fighting at every level to stay in power. It has nearly all the tools to ensure that to the end. A collapse which could be inevitable would be a deep and lasting tragedy for most humans without a re-placement. Should we find a way out of this before collapse it will be a saving grace for the human species. What little I have to offer I offer to the latter. It’s that simple. Call it pseudo-leftist or some other attempt at taunting name-calling.

  48. 3bancan said on December 13th, 2010 at 10:23am #

    Max Shields said on December 13th, 2010 at 7:35am #
    “As far as the Green Party, I have been (and run on) the Green Party”
    It is clear why the Green Party is in so a bad shape: because of zionazis like Max in it.
    ” He is presiding over a declining empire which is fighting at every level to stay in power. It has nearly all the tools to ensure that to the end. A collapse which could be inevitable would be a deep and lasting tragedy for most humans without a re-placement”
    The collapse will be a happy moment for humanity – except for the zionazis like Max.
    “Should we find a way out of this before collapse it will be a saving grace for the human species”
    So Max really wants to help to save his barbaric genocidal zionazified empire…

  49. Max Shields said on December 13th, 2010 at 12:31pm #

    3bancan said on December 13th, 2010 at 10:23am

    When come to visit which room are you in at the asylum? We’ll want to avoid it.

    Have a good life Mr./Ms. 3bancan.

  50. hayate said on December 13th, 2010 at 12:33pm #

    Max Shields said on December 13th, 2010 at 7:35am

    “As far as the Green Party, I have been (and run on) the Green Party.”

    A quick search on “Max Shields” “Green Party” brought up nothing.

  51. Max Shields said on December 13th, 2010 at 1:12pm #

    I can’t seem to find you anywhere either hayate….

  52. hayate said on December 13th, 2010 at 1:16pm #

    Max Shields said on December 13th, 2010 at 1:12pm #

    “I can’t seem to find you anywhere either hayate….”

    Really, hayate brings up many 1000′s returns. Either you don’t know how to search, or you are lying.

  53. hayate said on December 13th, 2010 at 1:21pm #

    And I see max is back to his old zionist hasbarat habit of insulting the commentator, rather than addressing what the person wrote:

    Max Shields said on December 13th, 2010 at 12:31pm #

    “3bancan said on December 13th, 2010 at 10:23am

    When come to visit which room are you in at the asylum? We’ll want to avoid it.

    Have a good life Mr./Ms. 3bancan.”

    This is something max always does when his “arguments” are shown to be rubbish. He starts tossing around insults then.

  54. Max Shields said on December 13th, 2010 at 1:33pm #

    No, hayate, it’s what I do when posters make insane remarks. My assumption is they are either off their meds and or under lock and key.

    Since you constantly attempt to insult posters, I suspect you wouldn’t know a real insult if it poked you in the eye.

  55. hayate said on December 13th, 2010 at 1:40pm #

    More insults from max:

    Max Shields said on December 13th, 2010 at 1:33pm #

    “No, hayate, it’s what I do when posters make insane remarks. My assumption is they are either off their meds and or under lock and key.

    Since you constantly attempt to insult posters, I suspect you wouldn’t know a real insult if it poked you in the eye.”

    You clearly lost your debate with Deadbeat and now you are trying to have DV shut down the comments here so your failed effort will fade into the past sooner. Then you’ll be on to the next thread, either insulting the anti—zionist writers, or first posting strawmen and misdirections in support of the zionist status quo, and when these are shot down, or pointed out for what they are, then you’ll start in with the insults again. Like on this thread.

  56. Max Shields said on December 13th, 2010 at 2:46pm #

    hayate sockpuppet that you are, you and 3bancan…can…can…can just can’t get it together. But you are a helluva laugh.

  57. 3bancan said on December 13th, 2010 at 2:50pm #

    hayate said on December 13th, 2010 at 1:21pm #
    “And I see max is back to his old zionist hasbarat habit of insulting the commentator, rather than addressing what the person wrote”
    That’s exactly what Max does: when he has no more rational arguments he uses irrational ones – the old zionazi tactic…

  58. 3bancan said on December 13th, 2010 at 2:57pm #

    Max Shields said on December 13th, 2010 at 2:46pm #
    “hayate sockpuppet that you are, you and 3bancan…can…can…can just can’t get it together. But you are a helluva laugh”
    Imho the laughing Max is making every normal-brained Green Party supporter cry…

  59. Max Shields said on December 13th, 2010 at 3:14pm #

    3bancan, here, talk to the sockpuppet, hayate. You guys are channeling Glenn Beck….a riot!

  60. Deadbeat said on December 13th, 2010 at 3:19pm #

    Deadbeat you ignore what I’ve written, as usual, and decided to make up a narrative, as usual, to make a case based on something I did not say.

    That totally false and incorrect and is typical of your tactics Max. I addressed all of your claims within the context of what you wrote.

    First, I disagree, and stated so in the post you chose to use as a pretext for your last post, with the “safe state” strategy. I think it is a poor and even detrimental strategy.

    The issue wasn’t what you agreed or disagreed with. The issue was your labelling that Zinn & Chomsky adherence to the safe state strategy was “honest” when it clearly was not.

    However, contrary to your prior post, which is what I was addressing, Chomsky (and Zinn) both indicated they were voting (and it is fair to say believe) for Nader and what he symbolized.

    They did not. They voted for Nader as a cover otherwise they would have immediately rallied behind Nader considering the ACTUAL socio-political conditions that existed in 2004. A condition that hadn’t presented itself since the days of Eugene Debs.

    The Left had a REAL opportunity to create a viable 3rd party but the pseudos sabotaged it. This is what you choose to ignore and failed to acknowledge or respond to. Notice that today the “alternative” media won’t even analyze the Left’s potential going into the 2004 election. The closest was Joshua Frank’s book “Left Out” but his book focuses on the behavior of the Liberal class, the Howard Dean campaign, and pretty much ignores the role of the pseudo Left.

    If it wasn’t for this forum analysis of the pseudo-Left’s behavior with regards to the 2003-2004 anti-war movement and the 2004 Nader Campaign would not be documented anywhere.

    What you cannot know is what Chomsky really thinks or believes regarding this matter beyond what he has said. The so-called Blankfort/Jeremy Hammond debate is a red-herring because it would require going through the entire thread a worthless endeavor at best.

    Actions speak louder than words Max and Zinn, Chomsky, Albert, Benjamin, Cagan, Bennis, et.al. played no supporting role and especially in the case of Benjamin and Ted Glick played the role of saboteurs of the Nader Campaign. Considering that Nader only needed to pick up LESS THAN 3 million new voters to change the political landscape “dissidents” should have been drooling at the once in a lifetime opportunity.

    Regarding the Blankfort/Hammond debate here’s a link for people to examine and analyze the debate for themselves … Rejoinder to Criticism of Chomsky: Asset or Liability?

    My points there are fully consistent with what I’ve said here, and I’ll leave it at that.

    Yes Max your points are consistent with hasbara excuses in order to cloak the extent of the power of Zionism upon the United States political economy. As I stated, the key to maintaining Zionist power in the U.S. is the role of the pseudo-Left.

    As far as the Green Party, I have been (and run on) the Green Party. The problem with any political party in the US is that it must utterly succumb to the political structure which is controlled by funding from corporate and special interest (yes, AIPAC) which corrupts just about any attempt to change what we have; i.e., to implement a transformative agenda.

    Yeah right it is ALWAYS the “corporate” interest. You are right it is the “special” interest of the “chosen people”. What ruined the Green Party chances was the sabotaging of the 2004 Nader Campaign by the pseudo-Left it seems you are a part.

    Today we have a president who represents the interests of those powers. He was vetted and given the role of candidate and president by this mix of oligarchical elite and plutocractic powers. He is presiding over a declining empire which is fighting at every level to stay in power. It has nearly all the tools to ensure that to the end. A collapse which could be inevitable would be a deep and lasting tragedy for most humans without a re-placement. Should we find a way out of this before collapse it will be a saving grace for the human species. What little I have to offer I offer to the latter. It’s that simple. Call it pseudo-leftist or some other attempt at taunting name-calling.

    Thanks Max for writing the narrative of the pseudo-Left. The pseudo-Left POSES as Leftists and can get away with its posture because the politics in the U.S. are so authoritarian. With Zio-Foundation dollars they are anointed as celebrities. But their real function is to sabotage the Left and to maintain confusion. By being integrated into the Left, when it looks as if there is a chance for real solidarity the pseudos are in the best position to snuff it out.

    What enables the pseudos is their ability to misdirect. They can point to the “powers”, blame the politicians, blame the corporations, blame the oil companies, blame “U.S. Imperialism(tm), blame the far-right all in order to SHIELD themselves from scrutiny and analysis. In other words speak loudly but carry a knife to stab the Left in the back.

    Obama is not the problem. Obama is a puppet. The way to change the course is by challenging the powers but you cannot do that with backstabbers in your midst. A strong Green Party in 2008 would have been a major factor in Obama’s calculation. If Obama thought he might lose because of the Greens he might not have ran at all. However because there was no viable challenge from the Left made it all that more attractive and easier for him to do so.

    Max you cannot be on the side of defending American Zionism and say you care about people. Your hasbara piety Max about the we [should] find a way out of this before collapse it will be a saving grace for the human species is full of white noise and extremely dishonest. Folks on this forum Max are not so gullible.

  61. bozh said on December 13th, 2010 at 4:13pm #

    max,
    i do not know for whom zinn voted. i do know that chomsky had told me he voted for greens. he, i think, revealed that ‘fact’ to me after i chastised him for his advisory people vote for lesser evil. he meant, i think, obama.

    so, he cldn’t quite stomach voting for, what i called, greater evil! i deemed voting for obama a vote for greater evil because continuing same aggression actually represents either greater evil or yet greater stupidity or criminal act! U get to vote for or CHOOSE one of the three choices!
    americans never got that chance to choose any! have they ever? tnx

  62. bozh said on December 13th, 2010 at 4:34pm #

    i knew some 20 yrs ago that chomsky had not been at that time an egalitarian. i am avoiding to use the words “leftist” or “socialist”.
    both of these labels had been imbued with false to fact notions!

    it is fact that chomsky strongly condemned the strongest egalitarians, that of S.U.
    they were also strongest enemies of supremacists.
    he did not criticize, as far as i know, weaker egalitarians. why? is it because they cld not spread the S.U. ‘disease’ as much as soviets or if at all?

    or had chomsky been thinking of LET MY PEOPLE GO?
    anyone knows anything about this. tnx

  63. bozh said on December 13th, 2010 at 5:13pm #

    observers now say bosnia wld errupt in a war. muslims are singing never forget and never forgive!
    the hunters of ’91-95 are being hunted. bosnian muslims are slavic; most likely of croatian origin. kosovo muslims are albanians; totally nonslavic!
    serbia is hiding thousands of war criminals. nato is searching for them, but haven’t to date found even one.
    and muslims are getting madder and madder. there is no forgiveness fro these people! tnx

  64. hayate said on December 13th, 2010 at 9:21pm #

    (Following up the previous post)

    Additional info of the Wikileaks/zionist corporate media connections:

    PBS Interview; The Redacting and Selection of Wikileaks documents by the Corporate Media
    NYT Reporter Defends Publishing WikiLeaks Cables

    Global Research, December 12, 2010
    National Public Radio (NPR) – 2010-12-08

    Global Research Editor’s Note

    The following transcript points to the involvement of the corporate media including the New York Times in the Wikileaks project.

    How do we interpret this relationship?

    The corporate media is the source of disinformation and at the same time it is supporting “transparency” and truth in media.

    David E. Sanger, Washington Correspondent of the New York Times, worked closely with Wikileaks. He was involved in the distribution, editing and dissemination of the leaked documents.

    Sanger is member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Aspen Strategy Group together with Madeleine K. Albright, Richard Hass, R Talbott, Robert.B. Zoellick (president of the World Bank), and Philip Zelikow (formerly executive director of the 9/11 Commission)

    We have highlighted a number of important statements in the first part of this interview, which confirm that the NYT has not only been involved in the selection and redacting of the Wikileaks documents, it has they also undertaken these activities in consultation with the US government.

    Unquestionably the released documents constitute an important data bank in their own right.

    The question is who controls and oversees the selection, distribution and editing of the released documents to the broader public.

    What interests are being served?

    Michel Chossudovsky, December 12, 2010

    TRANSCRIPT

    National Public Radio (NPR), Fresh Air, December 8, 2010

    [http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22378]

  65. Deadbeat said on December 13th, 2010 at 11:04pm #

    The following transcript points to the involvement of the corporate media including the New York Times in the Wikileaks project.

    Any involvement of the discredited NY Times that printed nothing but lies and distortions to the lead up of the Iraq war pretty much taints any veracity that WikiLeaks may process. However for me the psuedo-Left (Amy Goodman in particular) again revealed itself with its unquestioning story of the dubious cables claiming the Saudis wanted Iran attack printed by the NY Times and then used as a way to deflect away from Zionists interests.

    Goodman led with this “revelation” on her Democracy Now! program knowing full well that the story came from the Times back when she positioned herself as a “critic” of the press’s behavior in the lead up to the Iraq War. As a “critic” she should be skeptical of the Times reporting rather than aping it. But then again such duplicitous behavior in the service of Zionism is what’s consistent about the pseudo-Left.

  66. Deadbeat said on December 13th, 2010 at 11:47pm #

    WikiLeaks? …

    WikiLeaks “Struck a Deal” to Keep Away Anything Damaging to Israel

  67. hayate said on December 14th, 2010 at 12:14pm #

    Deadbeat

    I’m not surprised goodman furthered the nyt anti-Iran propaganda. Having it sourced as a wikileak leak gave her the cover she needed to promote this israeloamerican propaganda. It’s pretty much her modus operandi. I’ve seen her use israeloamerican propaganda before like that when it is disguised as opposition or progressive. Namely, the cia/mossad “green” “color revolution” attempt against Iran, she might as well had been a nyt subsidiary on that one.

    On the following comment, I’d be wary of Daniel Domscheit-Berg. He’s already got one of those “insider tells all” books coming out and appears to be backed by major money. His new website, openleaks, is not going to be hosting material, but passing it on to media orgs who will then decide what to publish. The question not answered there is which media orgs, alternative or just more of the zionist corporate houses. It doesn’t sound like he is any different than Assange, and possibly worse.

  68. Max Shields said on December 14th, 2010 at 3:54pm #

    Look Deadbeat the “safe states strategy” was not devised or promoted primarily by either Zinn or Chomsky. So saying Chomsky is dishonest because he agreed with what the Green Party promoted, seems at best, disingenous. Whatever controversy there is regarding this strategy has little to do with Chomsky. He and Zinn are not the primary promoters, they’ve just agreed to agree with the strategy.

    You are looking to beat up Chomsky no matter what he says. If he said at night it is dark; you’d suspect there was a zionist motive involved. That is dishonest. You have a problem with Chomsky. Who cares. No one is asking you to like, love, marry, agree with Noam Chomsky. Why beat a dead horse. We on DV got your point.

    Can we go back to a rational discussion?…and keep Chomsky and Zinn out of the discussion unless they are the topic of the thread?

    Is that fair?

  69. Deadbeat said on December 14th, 2010 at 6:11pm #

    Max Shields once again defends his favorite Zionists with the following pleas…

    Look Deadbeat the “safe states strategy” was not devised or promoted primarily by either Zinn or Chomsky. So saying Chomsky is dishonest because he agreed with what the Green Party promoted, seems at best, disingenous. Whatever controversy there is regarding this strategy has little to do with Chomsky. He and Zinn are not the primary promoters, they’ve just agreed to agree with the strategy.

    I find it extremely odd that you’d want to continue to discuss and debate this matter. You must think my voice here is quite powerful that you’d want to make your ridiculous plea. Your retorts only permit me to reiterate how I became an anti-Zionist and to reiterate the IMPORTANCE of the 2003 anti-war movement and the 2004 Presidential election and the pseudo-Left’s involvement of sabotaging dissent.

    Once again for those who’ve missed the earlier posting. The significance of the 2004 election was that it provided THE electoral expression for the 2003-2004 anti-war movement which developed as a counterpoint to the War on Iraq. Activists were cowed by 9-11 after their strong showing in 1999 (Battle of Seattle) and failed put an all out effort to protest the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. In fact former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney supported the invasion. However with the Bush Administration’s intent to invade Iraq, a country that suffered a decade of sanctions by the Clinton Administration, activists WORLD-WIDE found their voice. Thus the anti-war movement of 2003 wasn’t just important to the Left, it was important to the WORLD. This movement, when asked of Chomsky was described by him as “the new superpower”.

    However there was a major problem. While many on the “Left” spinning a narrative that the War on Iraq was a drive for oil resources, many others chose to link 9-11 with the U.S. support or Israel and to draw focus to the Israel/Palestine issue especially in light of the death of Rachel Corrie. This focus on Israel during a protest in San Francisco was described by the Liberal Michael Lerner of Tikkun as bordering on “anti-Semitism”. With many in the movement placing a spotlight on Israel, the movement split along the lines between United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) and International Answer. UFPJ who was headed by pseudo-Leftist, Leslie Cagan, sought to split from Answer, the Ramsey Clark influenced group. You may recall that Ramsey Clark sought to defend Saddam Hussein. International Answer also has a sizable membership of people of color while UFPJ caters primarily to the pseudo Left Jewish Zionists like Phyllis Bennis — a prominent denier of Zionist power over the U.S. Congress.

    This split by UFPJ from Answer and the anti-war movement was a direct result of this “uncomfortable” focus on Israel being raised. But despite all this, the anti-war movement in the U.S. proved successful because people who NEVER took to the streets before or were too young to march in the 1960′s were willing to march in order to prevent an illegal war from taking place. In other words the 2003 anti-war movement was the genesis of a new MASS movement. With this energy so close to a presidential election season what was needed was the ability to piggy-back this energy into an electoral expression — not only to defeat Bush but to build a long lasting institutional challenge to the system. Thus the Nader Campaign of 2004 had the REAL potential to become that expression.

    However the next question to ask is — so what? There have been 3rd Party campaigns before and none were really of major importance. And the answer to that question is TRUE BUT the 2004 Nader campaign had conditions that didn’t exist in prior 3rd party campaigns.

    Nader, a progressive independent, as the 2000 Green Party standard bearer captured 2.74% of the popular vote and needed around 3 million NEW voters to achieve the 5% threshold needed to give the Green Party state-wide ballot access and federal matching funds. In other-words the Green Party was 3,000,000 voters short of REAL ELECTORIAL VIABILITY. As a dissident the conditions presented itself to DISRUPT the system in a bloodless and non-violent manner:

    [1] There was a mass expression as displayed by the anti-war movement.
    [2] Nader had celebrity and credibility not only among progressives but independents.
    [3] Nader didn’t need to win it all. All he needed was 3 million new voters to achieve the 5% threshold.

    Thus, rather than support Nader outright the pseudo-Left exposed itself by sabotaging Nader’s ability to achieve the Green Party nomination and to delay his ability to obtain ballot access. The pseudo-Left promoted the “Anybody But Bush/Safe State” strategy which was an indirect way of support pro-war Democrat John Kerry.

    None of the members of pseudo-Left “supported” Nader until late June of 2004 when it was clear that Nader could lose the nomination to gadfly David Cobb. June would have been too late for Nader to achieve ballot access in ALL 50 states. This WITHDRAWAL by the pseudo-Left was deliberate as these pseudo-Leftists have spent decades cultivating themselves as the “voice” and “leadership” of the Left and thus their voice looms large over the activist community. Their withholding “support” meant that activists were unavailable for pushing full tilt for the Nader campaign especially considering the once-in-a-lifetime political conditions.

    A more detailed account of some of the players of the pseudo-Left is described in this CounterPunch article by ISO’s Alan Maass. Polls showed Nader with 5% support and even as late as June 2004 posed a severe threat to the system. All the while getting “yawns” from Chomsky and “ABB/SS” from Zinn.

    You are looking to beat up Chomsky no matter what he says. If he said at night it is dark; you’d suspect there was a Zionist motive involved. That is dishonest. You have a problem with Chomsky. Who cares. No one is asking you to like, love, marry, agree with Noam Chomsky. Why beat a dead horse. We on DV got your point.

    And Max you are looking to JUSTIFY the FACADES of the pseudo-Leftist Jews known as “Howard Zinn” and “Noam Chomsky”. The fact that I can provide such a detailed accounts helps build me a historical record and exposes the pseudo-Left are what scares you and other pseudo-Leftists on this forum.

    Can we go back to a rational discussion?…and keep Chomsky and Zinn out of the discussion unless they are the topic of the thread?

    This is a rational discussion Max and you have nothing to offer but ridicule and excuses. But if you don’t want me to write about then stop bringing up the topic. Otherwise it induces me to write the truth and correct the record.

  70. catguy00 said on December 14th, 2010 at 8:33pm #

    “However for me the psuedo-Left (Amy Goodman in particular) again revealed itself with its unquestioning story of the dubious cables claiming the Saudis wanted Iran attack printed by the NY Times and then used as a way to deflect away from Zionists interests.”

    She did not this was confirmed evidence that Saudi Arabia was pushing the US towards war with Iran. She simply reported what they said just like with the other cables.

    Anyway is it really that much of a surprise that Saudi would allow the US to use its bases to bomb Iran? Last year Prince Faisal said in a press conference with Hilary Clinton that the “threat posed by Iran demanded a more immediate solution than sanctions.” -Was this faked too?

  71. hayate said on December 14th, 2010 at 9:56pm #

    catguy00 said on December 14th, 2010 at 8:33pm

    You portray yourself as a non-zionist rightwinger on this site, so why the defense of “the ultimate evul”, the Jewish [cough] left?

  72. 3bancan said on December 14th, 2010 at 10:07pm #

    catguy00 said on December 14th, 2010 at 8:33pm #
    “She did not this was confirmed evidence that Saudi Arabia was pushing the US towards war with Iran”
    Wow!!! What a splendid Tel Aviv zionazi assertion by one who claims not to be “Jewish/Israeli”. More a nazi than the nazis…

  73. catguy00 said on December 15th, 2010 at 9:42pm #

    “You portray yourself as a non-zionist rightwinger on this site, so why the defense of “the ultimate evul”, the Jewish [cough] left? ”

    1)I’m not a rightwinger.

    2)I’m defending the “pseudo-left”.

    3)I do not believe in the Jew conspiracy.

  74. 3bancan said on December 15th, 2010 at 9:49pm #

    catguy00 said on December 15th, 2010 at 9:42pm #

    That ziogatto is a hardcore zionazi is needless to say, everybody knows that…

  75. hayate said on December 15th, 2010 at 11:23pm #

    Yup…

  76. Deadbeat said on December 15th, 2010 at 11:33pm #

    Catguy00 writes …

    DB:“However for me the psuedo-Left (Amy Goodman in particular) again revealed itself with its unquestioning story of the dubious cables claiming the Saudis wanted Iran attack printed by the NY Times and then used as a way to deflect away from Zionists interests.”

    She did not this was confirmed evidence that Saudi Arabia was pushing the US towards war with Iran. She simply reported what they said just like with the other cables.

    No, what Amy Goodman did is EXACTLY what she hypocritically criticizes the “corporate” press over — spinning the story. Her lead was designed to shift focus from Zionism and in fact moves her audience closer into accepting a war on Iran especially if Jews are not blamed for it. Ms. Goodman heavily promoted the War for Oil canard by omitting voices from her program who suspected Zionists ties. Omitting critics is exactly the tactic of the mainstream media.

    In addition this “story” was spun by The New York Times — the same outfit that published Zionist Judith Miller lies about WMD’s. The New York Times is totally discredited as a reliable source of news.

    Anyway is it really that much of a surprise that Saudi would allow the US to use its bases to bomb Iran? Last year Prince Faisal said in a press conference with Hilary Clinton that the “threat posed by Iran demanded a more immediate solution than sanctions.” -Was this faked too?

    This is a red herring and irreverent as the issue is about Goodman use of a report that should have been scrutinized and taken with skepticism not aped like it was. However there are journalists who have raised serious questions regarding the Saudi King’s ALLEGED comments.

    Here’s a link to a video that asks legitimate questions and questions the veracity of the “leaked” remarks. Somewhere along the line here Goodman fail to act like a journalist behaving in the same manner as the propagandists of mainstream media she often criticizes. It is in situations where she can cover for Zionism that the “pseudo” in her comes out.

  77. catguy00 said on December 19th, 2010 at 3:14pm #

    “No, what Amy Goodman did is EXACTLY what she hypocritically criticizes the “corporate” press over — spinning the story. Her lead was designed to shift focus from Zionism and in fact moves her audience closer into accepting a war on Iran especially if Jews are not blamed for it. ”

    Your THEORY is that the reason this story was reported on democracy now was to shift focus away from Zi0nism or worse that she is a secret supporter of war with Iran. Like your rant on Chomsky it is not supported by the facts. Goodman did not say that it was true she said that it was being reported in media outlets.

    I think the real problem is that you don’t like the idea that the Saudis could be complict in helping the US attack another Muslim nation.
    They’ve done it before it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they do it again.

  78. hayate said on December 19th, 2010 at 5:04pm #

    Funny how catguyoo and max shields tend to show up on this site at the same time….

    ;D

  79. hayate said on December 19th, 2010 at 5:06pm #

    IE:

    catguy00 said on December 19th, 2010 at 3:14pm

    Max Shields said on December 19th, 2010 at 3:15pm

    :D

  80. Max Shields said on December 19th, 2010 at 7:27pm #

    Deadbeat said: “I find it extremely odd that you’d want to continue to discuss and debate this matter. You must think my voice here is quite powerful that you’d want to make your ridiculous plea.”

    No, Deadbeat. I don’t think you’re voice is powerful. Quite to the contrary. You make what seem to me to be baseless remarks and I guess I just can’t help myself when I read nonsense to want to correct it….even if it falls on a sad sacks such as yourself.

    Peace be with you these holidays and to your sidekicks hayate, and his shadow 3bancan.

  81. Deadbeat said on December 19th, 2010 at 8:51pm #

    catguy00 writes…

    Your THEORY is that the reason this story was reported on democracy now was to shift focus away from Zi0nism or worse that she is a secret supporter of war with Iran. Like your rant on Chomsky it is not supported by the facts. Goodman did not say that it was true she said that it was being reported in media outlets. I think the real problem is that you don’t like the idea that the Saudis could be complicit in helping the US attack another Muslim nation. They’ve done it before it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they do it again.

    Fact: The New York Times spun the Saudi story
    Fact: This story was the lead story on DN!
    Fact: You CONJECTURE what my feelings are about the Saudis

    My point is a critique of the pseudo-Left’s journalistic duplicity. Goodman uncritically ran with a story from the same outfit she criticized for publishing lies about Iraq’s non-existent WMDs. That alone should have raised doubts yet she reported the story without any skepticism.

    And catguy00 you also ignore the story I linked to that raises questions about the veracity of the statements. Thus Goodman’s leading with this story definitely displayed a bias on her part. I’m not against bias but the pseudo-Left makes bias of the MSM part of their mantra. Which only goes to illustrate their duplicity.

  82. Deadbeat said on December 19th, 2010 at 8:55pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    You make what seem to me to be baseless remarks and I guess I just can’t help myself when I read nonsense to want to correct it….even if it falls on a sad sacks such as yourself.

    When ever you label my remarks “baseless” and throw in an insult or two I know I’m on the right track. Happy holidays to you too Max.

  83. catguy00 said on December 19th, 2010 at 9:28pm #

    Fact: The story was reported by the media all over the world. Not just the NYT.

    Fact: Amy Goodman did not spin this story in any fashion.

    Theory: Democracy Now! is part of a zionist conspiracy to attack Iran.

  84. Max Shields said on December 19th, 2010 at 9:33pm #

    Ahhhh Deadbeat always trying to keep a chin up.

    On all this about Wikileaks reporting on WMDs, where exactly do you find WL as indicating there were weapons of mass destruction.

    Just a quick look shows the following indicating WL indicates the opposite:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20020542-503543.html

    While your at it, with the exception of super-right-wingnuts who try to discredit global warming as a myth, where do you find specifics that Wikileaks leaks indicate such is the case?

  85. Max Shields said on December 19th, 2010 at 9:48pm #

    Ahhhh Deadbeat always trying to keep a chin up.

    On all this about Wikileaks reporting on WMDs, where exactly do you find WL as indicating there were weapons of mass destruction.

    While your at it, with the exception of super-right-wingnuts who try to discredit global warming as a myth, where do you find specifics that Wikileaks leaks indicate such is the case?

    These accusations seem to be right-wing spin you’ve turned into fact. Hey you got something credible, I’ll conceded. But I’m doubtful.

  86. shabnam said on December 19th, 2010 at 10:45pm #

    WikiLeaks is the latest operation to shape the public opinion needed to wage more wars, mainly, Iran to serve the Judeofascists’ interests in the region. Noah Shachtman:

    {In WikiLeaks’ massive trove of nearly 392,000 Iraq war logs are hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons. Most of those are intelligence reports or initial suspicions of WMD that don’t pan out. In July 2004, for example, U.S. forces come across a Baghdad building with gas masks, gas filters, and containers with “unknown contents” inside. Later investigation revealed those contents to be vitamins.
    But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. “These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.”}

    {http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/}

    These lies were leaked by WikiLeaks. The ‘secrect file” concerning Pakistan ‘leaked’ by WikiLeaks found BIN LADEN alive living in Pakistan.
    Every Judeofascist fool knows that Bin Laden IS DEAD, DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.
    This kind of ‘information’ was reported by the Judeofascists’ agent, Assange, to justify the massacre of people in the occupied lands and to frighten the population of the occupied America who were disillusioned with Obama’s ‘just’ wars against the innocent people to pacify the population for implementation of division and partition of the region in order to change the MAP according to the interest of the people who are pushing for “the world government’ based on the protocol.
    According to Jonathan Azaziah:
    {The next major ‘leak’ by Assange’s organization, which has gained more notoriety than the previous ‘leak,’ was about occupied Iraq in the form of nearly 400,000 documents. Like the occupied Afghanistan disinformation, it included ‘secret files’ about mass civilian killings by US forces, torture by war criminal Nouri al-Maliki and his forces (which according to Wikileaks, US military officials attempted to halt) (10), US government failings in reprimanding Blackwater (XE) for committing murder (11), and brutal executions by the American and British occupiers mixed with more tripe about fictitious Al-Qaeda, nonsense about Iran training militant Iraqi militias and Iranian drones flying over Iraq (12), Iran smuggling guns, munitions, and explosives into Iraq (13), ridiculous accusations of the Lebanese Resistance movement Hezbollah training Iraqis in the art of kidnaping (14), slanderous attacks on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, and other absurd assertions about the Islamic Republic involved in the murder of innocent Iraqis. The Wikileaks Iraq war logs also ‘reveal’ civilian casualties numbered at 66,081 (15). The logs also ‘reveal’ that Iraqi WMDs actually did exist, as US soldiers found chemical weapons labs, terrorist toxin specialists, and chemical weapons caches (16).}
    And
    {Wikileaks must not have gotten the memo about civilian casualties in occupied Iraq. They are nowhere near 66,081. They have eclipsed the 1.5 million mark. Anything less than this, especially a number as low as the one presented by Wikileaks, is classic misreporting aimed at protecting the United States government and its collaborators. That is an insult to the 5 million Iraqi orphans and the 5 million Iraqi refugees. It is a slap in the face to the dead Iraqis whose names will never be known because they were incinerated by US and Israeli weaponry. And the notion that US soldiers found WMDs in Iraq, after the ‘Iraq has WMDs’ myth has been debunked as Zionist-designed propaganda over and over again, is frankly, infuriating. The only WMDs that exist in Iraq are the mark-77, white phosphorus, and thousands of tons of depleted uranium used in Basra, Baghdad, and Fallujah by the terrorist army of the US and strategically placed Mossad agents of Israel (22).}

    {http://www.maskofzion.com/2010_10_01_archive.html}

  87. hayate said on December 19th, 2010 at 10:49pm #

    Apparently now the zionists/israelis have got all they want from Assange and are now preparing to let him swing in the wind. From the spin in this guardian article, it looks like the Jewish run guardian has turned on Assange. If the guardian has dumped him, it means the Jewish zionist establishment no longer needs his services.

    Julian Assange Furore Deepens as New Details Emerge of Sex Crime Allegations

    Bitter divisions open up between supporters and critics of WikiLeaks leader in wake of fresh claims by Swedish women

    By Tracy McVeigh and Mark Townsend

    [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27095.htm]

    Why the ziofascists have turned on Assange remains a mystery. Could it be Assange got too big for his britches in some way – a definite no no to pull on the Jewish mafia? Could it be ziofascism, inc. simply has no more use for Wikileaks – they served their purpose on Iran and in being the pretext for the ziofascists/fascists to now put the screws on the internet and shut down independent info distribution on it?

    There is also the question of the Berg guy, who was bankrolled for a “tell all” book about Wikileaks and a new site with establishment blessings.

  88. Deadbeat said on December 20th, 2010 at 12:05am #

    Max Sheilds writes …

    On all this about Wikileaks reporting on WMDs, where exactly do you find WL as indicating there were weapons of mass destruction.

    Obviously Max you failed to comprehend this paragraph …

    My point is a critique of the pseudo-Left’s journalistic duplicity. Goodman uncritically ran with a story from the same outfit she criticized for publishing lies about Iraq’s non-existent WMDs. That alone should have raised doubts yet she reported the story without any skepticism.

    The “outfit” was The New York Times that published Judith Miller’s lies about Iraq WMD. The story about the Saudi King statement was published by the Times BASED ON the WikiLeaks documents. Goodman ran with the story from the same discredited outfit without vetting the story and without any criticism or skepticism. As it turns out the story may not even be true. So why would “the exception to the ruler” ape a story from the ruler that she is so critical of? Clearly this questions of journalistic integrity and/or duplicity.

  89. Deadbeat said on December 20th, 2010 at 12:12am #

    categuy00 writes …

    Fact: The story was reported by the media all over the world. Not just the NYT.

    The story in the U.S. was initially PUBLISHED in the Times based on the WikiLeaks documents. The Times has a reputation of publishing LIES. Therefore knowing that the source was the TIMES meant that skepticism and critical reporting was needed before spreading what could be lies.

    Fact: Amy Goodman did not spin this story in any fashion.
    LOL. She just spread the SAME SPIN which is a lack of journalistic integrity for someone who promotes herself as “an exception to the rulers”.

    Theory: Democracy Now! is part of a zionist conspiracy to attack Iran.

    If that’s your theory then I think it can be supported by the facts.

  90. Max Shields said on December 20th, 2010 at 6:51am #

    Deadbeat well you’ve made it clearer, somewhat…

    Since I can’t trace where Goodman got her report since the primary source was Wikileaks who did not send the cable leaks to the NYT (they sent it to the Guardian who then sent whatever to the NYT). So I’m a bit suspicious regarding who you, Deadbeat, are using as the source for the Goodman story.

    As I’ve said repeatedly, Wikileaks is dumping information they got, in this case, from an alledged PFC. How that information makes Israel or the Saudis “look” is really beyond the point.

    It won’t change the public’s overall position, nor will it change US foreign policy, except, perhaps, to put it on notice that information will/may be leaked. But that said, the US Empire is in precipitous decline and will find ways to the very end to figure how to continue even if so-called secrets are leaked. The public, at best, is overwhelmed by the information to the point that it is just old news.

    But if you want to simply ax Goodman’s gore than you can always find reasons….to go after your “pseudo-left”. I’m less interested in your vigilante tactics than dealing with the topic at hand.

  91. Max Shields said on December 20th, 2010 at 7:20am #

    I would also add, that it’s equally (if not more) plausible that Wikileaks is being undermined by US officials (Biden, et al) and Isreal’s spin to create doubt about Wikileaks and Assange’s intent. You, then, Deadbeat become a pawn in this effort by trying to drive home this notion that Wikileaks is some sort of tool of the zionists (certainly your buddies 3bancan and hayate are pushing this repeatedly).

    Could it not be possible that Goodman is attempting to make salient the value of what Wikileaks is doing in spite of this purposely confusing spin by the US government and its agent state, Israel? I think there’s something to seriously consider there.

  92. bozh said on December 20th, 2010 at 11:42am #

    wikileaks or no wikileaks, u.s is still god on this planet. constitution is still a holy writ and still venerated as a holy writ by, say, 99+% americans. that’s all that matters.
    wikileaks is just another ultimate reality show! it changes nothing for better! tnx

  93. Don Hawkins said on December 20th, 2010 at 12:41pm #

    u.s is still god on this planet. How does that go the bigger they are the harder they fall. To make a long story short when on time delivery is not on time the people here in America who think milk comes from the grocery store oh well. And what you just wrote Bozh did you mean the u.s. will help destroy life on this planet before that happens. We have about six years to be well on our way or the flooding in Pakistan will look like a walk in the park well even if we start today the red cross will take on a whole new meaning and again the part I don’t get is the people who now are stopping any reason are old so what is it just hate, confident ideologies and economic doctrines. There imagined self-importance, the delusion that a few have some privileged position in the universe? I’ll bet it’s a big part of it. To make a long story short and maybe we could have gone to the Stars cup of coffee nice game of checkers.

  94. Don Hawkins said on December 20th, 2010 at 1:07pm #

    Here in the States all you have to do is turn on the TV and talk about imagined self-importance and to see is amazing once you know. To put your head in that place and knowing full well what’s coming down the track for many not all hence the strangeness. It’s almost like we never hear the truth it’s been banned as we take the easy way out. When I send this comment it will be beamed into space and maybe other life will know at least some of us knew. What happened to us?

  95. bozh said on December 20th, 2010 at 1:39pm #

    don, tnx,
    the rich 1% of world are actually hoping global warming kills off 6nb + people.
    and then they can have all of it for themselves.
    why settle for less than 100% of u don’t have to? or they may not even wait for global warming.
    a few well placed explosives of the right kind also does the trick.
    well, it is their planet and their partie; so, why not!

    i used the word “people” for the 6bn zombies on this planet. that doesn’t mean that the rest of humans consider them humans.
    they are a lower grade bipeds. tnx

  96. Don Hawkins said on December 20th, 2010 at 2:04pm #

    they are a lower grade bipeds. Well just on the off chance a few do think in this way it sure look’s like in Southern California the red cross is on the way and the few of course will be watching the total eclipse of the moon from somewhere high am sure a lot of good it will do them.

  97. Don Hawkins said on December 20th, 2010 at 2:19pm #

    Maybe a few of the so called elites will see the moon and say oh my god it’s red is this the end. I know I’ll call a lower grade biped I know he might know why this is. Call my lawyer no call my broker. Mr. President awaiting your orders sir. Mitch you don’t look good here come sit over by the fireplace we’re going to be ok.