Here we go again, Fake "war crimes" by Israel bashers exposed - damning effect still on Reports of IDF Crimes: Fiction Based on Rumors - Defense/Middle ...Claims that IDF soldiers deliberately killed civilians during Operation Cast Lead were based in hearsay, a military investigation has concluded. The two soldiers who first reported the alleged incidents several weeks ago had not seen the incidents themselves, and had no personal knowledge to support the allegations... B'Tselem, accused the IDF... ... www.israelnationalnews.co... Then again, it (false accusations by the infamous un-reliable radical political group: B'tzelem) reminds us all the UN's such loud & harsh "accusation" of Israel of "killing Kids in Gaza", then later on "woke up" told the truth, AKA retracted it , UN retracts claim over Gaza school attack [Feb 4, 2009] ... The UN has retracted a claim that an Israeli strike, which killed more than 40 people in northern Gaza last month, hit a school run by a UN ... www.rte.ie/news/2009/0204... www.abc.net.au/news/stori... news.yahoo.com.au/a/-/wor... www.worthychristianforums... yet, the damage of the false accusations on innocent Israel is still there, full force.
Here we go again, Fake "war crimes" by Israel bashers exposed - damning effect still on
Reports of IDF Crimes: Fiction Based on Rumors - Defense/Middle ...Claims that IDF soldiers deliberately killed civilians during Operation Cast Lead were based in hearsay, a military investigation has concluded. The two soldiers who first reported the alleged incidents several weeks ago had not seen the incidents themselves, and had no personal knowledge to support the allegations... B'Tselem, accused the IDF... ... www.israelnationalnews.co...
www.israelnationalnews.co...
Then again, it (false accusations by the infamous un-reliable radical political group: B'tzelem) reminds us all the UN's such loud & harsh "accusation" of Israel of "killing Kids in Gaza", then later on "woke up" told the truth, AKA retracted it ,
UN retracts claim over Gaza school attack [Feb 4, 2009] ... The UN has retracted a claim that an Israeli strike, which killed more than 40 people in northern Gaza last month, hit a school run by a UN ... www.rte.ie/news/2009/0204... www.abc.net.au/news/stori... news.yahoo.com.au/a/-/wor... www.worthychristianforums...
yet, the damage of the false accusations on innocent Israel is still there, full force.
What is bias in the middle east conflict? [March, 2009]
Arabs’ racist killing (specifically) Jews *, is accepted “freedom fighting’'.
Israelis worried of Arab terror *, branded as “racists”.
*
War crimes, crimes against humanity by Palestinian Arab leadership - regime in Gaza * * * of using Arab civilians, making sure their kids die, for the “greater good (Jihadi-fascism’s goodness) of making Israel look bad…” * * * * * * *, using hospitals *, schools, UN medical vehicles * *, even aid material sent by humanitarian Israel * for murder, targeting at Israeli civilians, - shoved aside, ignored *.
Israel’s humane army’s extreme measures not to hit civilians (including 250,000 warning phone calls to Arab residents to evacuate a particular area designated to be included in an op., knowing full well terrorists can cease the opportunity and flea, as well as risking young soldiers’ lives in going door to door) * * * * aiming only at Hamas terrorists is denounced of “random shooting” and “war crimes”.
[Arab led pressure forcing Israel to conduct] Uprooting Jews from their homes and their ancestors’, AKA Transfer * * AKA Arab Palestinian Apartheid * is “good for peace”.
Transfer of Arabs (who don’t have more than 2 or 3 generations of history in Judea / Israel / Palestine * * * *) is “apartheid, fascist and racist” * (AKA Avigdor Lieberman).
While Hamas or even “Moderate” Fatah refuses to recognize Israel *, international aid is flowing their way.
UN is “busy” condemning Israel * * on whatever is being told (forced) by the global Arab Muslim oil lobby.
'Maximum 600 Palestinians died in Gaza' Jerusalem Post, Israel (Jan 22, 2009) Cremonesi interviewed Gazans who echoed Israel's insistence of how Hamas gunmen used civilians as human shields. One Gazan recalled civilians in Gaza ... 'Video: Palestinians in Gaza Reopen Smuggling Tunnels' - http://www.youtube.com/v/w1_CJXAzows
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292939271&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
BBC's way of how to legitimize monsters in the middle east
Forget BBC bias, BBC is totally anti Israel committed, 100% on the side of most radical Islamic group on the middle east, the Genocidal Hamas!
When it interviewed (Jan 18, 2009) the Hamas spokesperson in Syria Osama Hamdan (the monster who said that the purpose of the "resistance" is to wipe off Israel) it handled him in such a manner as if he is a "normal" and average statesman.
Despite the 'big words' by the jihadi group who on top of all has that stupidity of arrogance that is only laughable if it weren't such a serious bunch of bloody murderous thugs, but BBC's audacity of replaying Hamas' phrase of: '"giving" Israel a week to pull out', as if we all don't know that Israel pulls out or back in, when it sees the situation fit to do so.
Later on (on the same day) BBC said: who is responsible for the civilian causalities in Gaza will be disputed between Israel and Hamas, (besides the fact that BBC never to explain that its all Hamas fault, but I want to talk about BCC's worse part than just bias anyway) again this "en par" equation between a democratic free for all unique country in the middle east (where an Arab can get to highest position in Israel's govt.) vs the Islamic group that oppresses any non Muslims and acts towards a totalitarian repressive Caliphate.
Yet Another Glass Ceiling With Many Cracks...
I write this blog post in a moment of bittersweet victory. Having campaigned my heart out for Barack Obama over the last 3 months, I am overjoyed at our victory and feel that real change is finally coming to Washington and Main Street.
On election night, I partied in the street on the West side of Fort Lauderdale - a gay white boy surrounded by black people, most of whom were probably heterosexual. It could not have made a difference at the time, because we were all so optimistic and excited. The following morning was a different experience entirely... My friends and I were informed that Amendment 2 had passed and that not only would gay marriage now be outlawed but also civil unions and commonlaw marriages would be denied legal status.
So drops the other shoe.
The most disappointing part of the experience was the media coverage. Every news station was telling us that Black People were to blame... That all of the blacks who came out in droves to vote for Barack Obama had not listened to his supportive speeches and had voted specifically and willfully against my rights... The media maintained that Black people had not returned the "favor" of equality.
I'm not buying it. Here's something that the media is not telling us:
According to the same exit polls from CNN which indicate that Blacks voted for Prop 8 & Amendment 2 at higher percentages than whites, there is a key bit of information that needs to be explored - The total number of black voters for the anti-gay amendments is still not even 1/3 the total number of white, Evangelical voters who voted for the Amendments in the rural areas of the state... In fact, most black voters did not vote on Amendment 2 at all...
It is unfair, unreasonable and devisive for the mainstream media to pit blacks and gays against eachother at a time when we should all be celebrating eachother's diversity... As a white, gay male who supported and voted for Barack Obama with all my energy, I can honestly say that I have not experienced the slightest amount of homophobia from anyone in the Campaign For Change. I have never really felt any exceptional homophobia from the Black community at large, either...
Furthermore, it was not black people who put this Amendment on the ballot in the first place. Once again, this hateful bit of legislation has been brought to you by those "true Americans" who live in the remote grassy knolls that you drive by on your way to better places.
I think it's time to stop blaming races and sexual orientations for problems which are largely brought to us by Republicans. That's the other missing statistic here... Those who voted for John McCain also voted 91% in favor of Amendment 2.
It's time for Black people and Gay people alike to stand up for ourselves and refuse to let Republicans and the mainstream media continue to assail us in the name of "divide and conquer"...
God Bless all of you who helped on this campaign and remember to keep your cool and love your neighbors... even the bigoted ones. We shall overcome.
I was wondering how the GOP would handle the Biden/Palin debate. My guess was that there would be a 'family crisis' that required Sarah to jet back to AK (with that many kids, my odds were good). But they've come up with an interesting way to get around their problem: disqualify the moderator.
Gwen Ifill is a seasoned, respected journalist. She is the moderator and managing editor of "Washington Week" and senior correspondent for "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." She moderated the Edwards/Cheney debate four years ago.
She also happens to be black. And she happens to be writing a book about race and politics, which includes stories about African-Americans in politics since the civil rights era. People like Colin Powell. People like Barack Obama. Given the phenomenon this campaign has become, the title of the book, The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama , was probably the publisher's idea.
This book she's writing has been available for pre-order on Amazon for months now, but only today has it become a problem that should disqualify her from moderating the VP debate. Nice timing. The Echo Chamber started this morning, as usual, with a bombshell 'scoop' on the Drudge Report. Drudge's outrage was picked up by Michele Malkin. Now it's all over the place. The corporate media are obeying their (advertisers') mandate to publicize, without critique, every scandal the Right can drum up.
I wonder what genius decided that today was 'time' to release the dogs? A couple days more, and Ifill's spotless journalistic record would've had time to be made better- known. Folks would've realized that the scandal was manufactured. Too late, and not enough people would've known to dismiss Ms. Ifill in advance. They might watch and make up their own minds.
Gotta hand it to 'em - those hatchet men on the Right really know their business. But their business is attacks, scandals, and smears - not government.
Please add your voice to mine...Below, are the relevant email addresses of the presidents of NBC and MSNBC...
phil.griffin@nbc.com
steve.capus@nbc.com
Dear Mr. Capus and Mr. Griffin:
The below is a MoveOn release, followed by my own comment...
"Sunday on Meet The Press, Tom Brokaw moderated a debate between McCain strategist Steve Schmidt and Obama strategist David Axelrod on topics ranging from Iraq to the Wall Street bailout. At the end, Tom Brokaw did something strange. He opted to give himself the last word and told the audience:
In fairness to everybody here, I'm just going to end on one note. And that is that we continue to poll on who's best equipped to be Commander in Chief, and John McCain continues to lead in that category despite the criticism from Barack Obama by a factor of 53 to 42 percent in our latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
The latest NBC poll actually has no question about Commander in Chief. Brokaw was referring to a poll taken weeks ago—right after the Republican convention and well before Friday's big national security debate. And in each of NBC's last two polls, Americans chose Obama over McCain."
I have noted over the weeks that Brokaw has consistently mischaracterized polling data, in a way that favors McCain.
He has repeated over and over data on the commander-in-chief and "riskiness" questions, while ignoring other numbers that clearly indicate that the American people favor Obama on such issues as the economy, energy, the environment, empathy, and concern for the needs of average Americans.
Further, he and some others on MSNBC and NBC cite only the NBC polling, seemingly refusing to cite aggregate figures or other major polls. This is not a good journalistic practice.
Thnk you for listening.
Patrick Frank
Grassroots Obama volunteer
Box 1283
Kingstree, SC 29556
(843) 372-8851
patrickgfrank@yahoo.com
I don't know how many of you follow Politico, but there was an interesting piece on the site today about Palin's meeting with foreign leaders at the UN and the press blackout surrounding it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13791.html for those interested.
Basically, more of the same. Palin doesn't take press questions, won't even let the press near the proceedings for more than photo ops. The McCain campaign states that it is because she'd rather "speak directly to the American people." But the American people she's exposed to are supporters, who are more content with gladhanding and having face time with their candidate than asking hard hitting questions.
It all essentially boils back down to the fact that she's little more than window dressing for Republican policies and not entirely trusted by her handlers to go forth with the message. She was weak in the Gibson interview, and was tossed softballs by Hannity. High exposure, low risk seems to be the order of the day.
But even in the Gibson interview she seemed horribly weak on foreign policy. What does this say, then, about McCain's choice?
Hi everyone. I posted a comment about the Obama camp needing to fight back and want to ammend that blog with a note on an important point I noted today:
I payed close attention to the media's following of Senator Obama's 'lipstick on a pig' analogy, and thought it pertinent to bring out this point: the media appears to have ADHD.
I spent roughly five and half years studying neuroscience and psychology at Oglethorpe University and Georgia State University here in Atlanta, and we spent a large portion of our time studying ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) not only in kids, but also in adults (AADD (Adult Attention Deficit Disorder)). Quite frankly, it would be appropriate to diagnose the adults running the news media with AADD!
These reporters can't seem to focus on the issues, much like the McCain camp! On MSNBC, an anchor-woman was heared saying that, after Senator Obama's [lipstick analogy] (in brackets mine), the McCain camp 'called the media to a conference' to make an outcry. Does the McCain camp now "own" the news media?!
Hmm: If I have nothing of importance to say and don't want intelligent people to realize this, I distract them (it's easy because they have ADHD or AADD) by turning this election into a popularity contest! Let's get the focus on personality--didn't the McCain camp SAY they were going to do this?After all, according to a McCain operative: '...this campaign won't be about the issues, but about personality.'
Fight back! Write to Keith Olbermann at MSNBC or Rachel Maddow at MSNBC with your perspectives about the media's apparent inability to keep the McCain camp from distracting the media from the ISSUES (these two WILL speak on it). Write to all media outlets and tell them that You ARE paying attention, but they aren't! I certainly will.
I just wrote this editorial in response to McCain's "Education" ad. I'm sick of the free pass he gets and of how everything a Democrat says is scrutinized while everything a Republican says is gospel. I'm sick of the public seeing a John McCain that doesn't exist.
As a lifelong Arizona resident, I find it unfortunate that Senator McCain has received a free pass from both local and national media. In the late 1980’s, you may remember, John McCain was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee for his role in the Keating Five savings and loan scandal; many here have suggested that the slap on the wrist he received from the committee was far too lenient. The basics of the scandal? Corruption. McCain accepted several vacations, all expenses paid, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, from Charles Keating, owner of a California savings and loan. Keating, in return, asked for the Senator’s help in obstructing the efforts of federal investigators. The Senate claimed that they had no jurisdiction to censure McCain for his actions, because he had been serving in the House of Representatives at the time.
While the media buys McCain’s current “maverick” story without a thought, the American public would be much better served to learn about the Senator’s actual record in public office. He has been embroiled in ethics controversies since the day he took office, and, like it or not, powerful men have always been able to buy influence with him. His temperament is notoriously volatile; he berated a POW/MIA mother to the point of tears while holding hearings, and has repeatedly cursed at and threatened colleagues and journalists. He makes snap judgments on crucial issues, including his immediate support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq—no plan for victory or eventual withdrawal was necessary—and, most recently, his choice of an un-vetted, politically extreme (but expedient) Vice Presidential candidate.
John McCain also pledged to run a respectful, issues-driven campaign for the Presidency. Instead, his campaign has been gimmicky, shallow, and insulting, not only to Senator Obama but to all Americans. While I’m sure Karl Rove and George Bush appreciate his tactics of fear, smear, and outright lies about Obama’s record and his own, I certainly do not. As a matter of fact, the media’s fawning of John McCain’s manufactured political personality has nearly made me ill, and has certainly lost the Republicans my vote for the foreseeable future.
Senator McCain is hot tempered, impulsive, insulting, and historically has sold himself out to the highest bidder. And you, by spending inordinate amounts of time on Senator Obama’s relationships to former pastors and the large crowds he draws, have played right along with the Republican strategy at every turn. The John McCain you show us does not exist; you have created him.
I expect some truthful coverage on McCain’s readiness to serve as the next President, on his temperament, and on his questionable ethics. Journalistic integrity demands no less, and I, as an American voter, demand no less.
Is it just us, or does Barack Obama seem a mite too quick to play the race card when facing criticism from political opponents? ... Though Ms. Ferraro resigned from the Clinton campaign yesterday, her remarks reveal little more than a firm grasp of the obvious, even if she could have found a less artless way to express herself. There is no disputing that Mr. Obama's skin color has been a political boon for him to date. And the suggestion that saying so aloud betrays racial animus implies that only the Illinois Senator can discuss the issue of race in regard to his candidacy. WSJ, March 13, 2008 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120536677319031953.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
John McCain is unfit to be president. His heroic resistance to torture has been amply awarded with more medals than he ever flew missions and the fact remains he lost 5 aircraft and graduated 5th from the bottom of his class at Annapolis.
Am I the only who has been feeling like the coverage from the media is becoming more and more... biased? I don't want to be like those whiney Republicans who claim that "to question = to attack", but I must say, most of us Obama supporters have given the so called "liberal" media the benefit of the doubt when they have been hard on Obama over the months. Though they seem to obsess over every little thing done by the Obama campaign, especially the gaffes. I know for myself I thought, well, he is relatively new on the scene, maybe that's why they spend their every waking coverage dissecting his speeches & requesting "more substance", investigating relatives abroad, playing clips of poorly chosen words over and over again, looking at any poll that suggests a Hillary gap, a Working Class gap, a Women gap, a blue gap, or a red gap.
I, for the most part, gave them the benefit of the doubt. John McCain has of course been in the senate for 26 years trying to "shake up Washington" ( i kid, i kid), so maybe they are just trying to give the viewers balance. Fast foward three to four days ago...
McCain announces a vice president whom no one in the media, "the google", not even spokespersons in the McCain camp know anything about. First the media begins by giving us campaign talking points. She's a reformer, a fresh face, a maverick, they said... examples? No.
This is an excerpt from my DailyKos Diary. I'm gonna use this to feed traffic there, please. My aim is to keep it recommended, so as many people see it as possible and also so the embedded video goes viral. It is essentially Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanon, openly mocking Sarah Palin's qualifications for VP saying, "That... will... not... work." They are just laughing at her.
Problem, just moments later, Palin is announced and within hours, Buchanon is making the rounds of the talking heads show to crow about what a "brilliant" pick this is. It's a blatant look at the GOP message machine, how quickly they change their tunes.
This is perfect antithesis to the GOP talking points that have obviously made the rounds in the last few days.
I would recommend you forward this to everyone. If they are right-leaning, trying being a little stealthy, use a subject line like "Buchanon (or Scarborough) on Palin" since they're likely to watch it then.
Please click on my Kos blog and recommend if you have a sign in. Please click the "Digg" link too.
The video is here
Michelle was wonderful tonight. I thought her speech touched all of the things that needed to be said. Senator Kennedy was also wonderful, but everyone expected him to be. On the other hand, the media pundits were speculating on what Michelle would say and what her effect would be. When she was finished, all they could say was that she was good. For once, no negative comments.
More comments on the evening: Some of the network media pundits continue to help the Republicans as they try to focus on the Clinton women, continue to mention that Hillary should have been on the ticket. It is so obvious that a couple of the reporters are trying so hard to sabotage this campaign.
Now, I hear them speculating about the Obama speech on Friday. Littlie statements to indicate that the speech could fall flat in such a large audience. Then, in case it is a great speech that touches the hearts of the delegates - then they say the Republicans will compare him to celebrities. ISN'T THIS SOMENTHING!! They want to use his excellent speaking ability and popularity as a negative. I hope the campaign will mount an ad that ridicules the idea of trying to turn positives about Barack Obama into negatives.
If you watch CNN critically you can still come away relatively unscathed (if you watch Fox at all you are likely already quite scathed, at best), and if you pay attention you can learn a lot -- but not necessarily about the "news." Only a catatonic would be unable to guess who Lou Dobbs or John King wants you to vote for. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the people writing in to say Obama gets more time or more favorable coverage... that's just not what I see.
To BBC, Stop "humanizing" the inhumane cruel Arab Palestinians upon their own people & on their kids
Ever since the first bloody violnce rampage called 'Intifada' in 1987, the biased BBC has been on the wron side of morality, shielding the death squads of 'palestine' as "resistance'', as if the genocidal Islamists have real tangible "issues" with Israel's existence.How can the BBC ever (act as if) forget that the terrorists always wanted ALL of the land and to eliminate all Jews?
Wasn't it enough?
BBC! Your hands are not clean, each time you eat/ate Pallywood Palestinian propaganda and "broadcasting" it onward, you only added/add fuel to the bloodthirsty terrorists that have the annihilation goal and speak about "peace" or even "occupation".
You ate the kind they lean on to be satisfied and get their appetite to keep on in their terrorism.On August 13, 2008 the BBC had a line about a "poet" that was an Arab "Palestinian" Mahmoud Darwish.It explained that he was a "national hero" second in its importance to (the infamous Egyptian born) Yasser Arafat (and turned to be a national icon after only being a master in mass murder), that butcher of kids.(Here's more about the BBC eulogy which an Arab poster at the wikipedia has put it as a "source"). The Arab journalist of the Arabist BBC, Ali Mahmud interviewed an Arab-Palestinian...
She spoke in a "soft" tone... about a "poet", about "agony", the "poet of humanity", bahh!What's humane about self destruction in never electing one normal leader, never choosing life over death, sending its kids to be sacrificed for the goal of seeking to be looked on as a victim in the suicidal cult of Jihad, in preferring to be down than to be advanced?Regarding the true character of Mamoud Darwish
The Good Part of him that he was at least not a 'Holocaust denier'...:
ISLAMIC ANTI-SEMITISM AND ARAB RACISM Embracing Holocaust Deniers In the wake of the intifada, crude Holocaust denial re-emerged as a means of delegitimizing Israel and Zionism, along with motifs that had typified the discourse of the early years of the Arab-Israeli conflict, such as regret that Hitler had not finished the job. Egyptian columnist Ahmad Rajab thanked Hitler for taking revenge on the Israelis “in advance on behalf of the Palestinians,” but noted that it was not complete.61 The PA semi-official paper al-Hayat al-Jadida published an article on 13 April by Khayri Mansur, entitled “Marketing Ashes,” which elaborates various themes common to Holocaust deniers: alleged political and economic exploitation by Zionist propaganda, and doubting the number of Jews exterminated as well as well as the existence of the gas chambers.62 The Hizballah website disseminated “The Holocaust Lie,” from Richard Harwood’s book Did Six Million Really Die?, and referred the browser to the Leuchter Report.63 [...] Recognizing the potential damage to the Arab "cause", a group of 14 Arab intellectuals – North Africans, Lebanese and Palestinians, including Colombia University professor Edward Said and poet Mahmud Darwish – published an open letter to Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri calling for its cancellation. Arab Knesset member Ahmad Tibi also wrote to Hariri, urging the Arabs to reject any expression of understanding for Nazism, which had committed crimes against many peoples, including the Jews.66 Most press criticism was expressed in Lebanese papers. In a harsh editorial entitled “The Protocols of the Elders of Beirut,” prominent Lebanese writer Joseph Samaha branded the conference “a dishonor for Lebanon.” Holding a conference of “falsifiers of history” in Lebanon, he warned, would be interpreted by Israel and its supporters “as prolonging the Nazi extermination project,” which would harm the Palestinian cause...
http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2001-2/arab.htm
Yet, even this most "moderate" Palestinian Arab had to be an Arab Racist:
...This poem was addressed to Israel. It does not speak of compromise. And this is an important point about Palestinian nationalism. It doesn’t simply seek to enfranchise Palestinians it seeks to disenfranchise Jews. For all of the flowery words that pseudo-intellectuals are using to eulogize Darwish and credit him with giving a voice to exile, they ignore - some intentionally, some not - the extremity of his views and how that extremism is the true voice of Palestinian nationalism.
http://www.yourish.com/2008/08/13/5213
----------
Related:
BBC admits: We are biased on religion and politics
