A Final Thought on Nemesis
My thanks to TPM Cafe for inviting me to respond for a second, and final, time to the numerous letters about my essay on Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. I am particularly pleased by Ernest Wilson's post since it concerns how Americans get their information but also because we knew each other many years ago at Berkeley. It is good to hear from you, Ernie. You recognize that the problem of an informed public, one of the most rudimentary requirements in order to play the citizen role in a republic, depends on whether the people have enough information to do elementary oversight of the government. In the U.S. today, the answer is an unequivocal no -- not just because of secrecy but also because of the failings of the "free" press. The Australian reactionary, Rupert Murdoch, exemplifies the most corrupt practices of the old Fleet Street. (If you can ever find a copy of Murray Sayle's legally suppressed Crooked Sixpence [1960], it is probably the most hilarious roman à clef ever written on how the press lords operate.) Today, Murdoch owns the most popular jingoist and right-wing TV channel, Fox, and is now threatening to buy a large percentage of the Los Angeles Times. All of the TV channels are in the hands of conglomerates who are in the "news business" only for the advertising revenue. The Romans actually got better circuses. So long as it is still beyond the "Department of Justice," the Internet offers the only conceivable relief.
My approach to this problem is, I suspect, typical.
I subscribe to three newspapers -- the New York Times, the Financial Times of London, and the local San Diego neo-con + Pentagon gazette, the San Diego Union Tribune. These are merely to look over during breakfast and to see what Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, and the exceptional NYT editorial writers have to say. After that my first serious order of business is to go through the best compendium of global news, Antiwar.com., plus TomDispatch, Truthout, Juan Cole's website, and a few others. It is possible to be reasonably well informed, but it is still not easy. For example, the "key findings" in the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (as printed in Saturday's NYT) are so banal as not to come close to justifying the expense of compiling them. By contrast, "Militias, Vigilantes, Death Squads: Charles Tripp on the Grammar of Violence in Iraq," in the London Review of Books, 25 January 2007 (Tripp is a lecturer in Middle Eastern politics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London) is a real NIE. It is original and insightful, relating the current violence to the conditions created by the Anglo-American sanctions in the 1990s. You will not easily again use the cant phrase "communal violence" after reading this article.
'Parent' and others comment on another issue raised by Wilson, our "interventionist foreign policy," which I advocate we give up as soon as possible. On this subject, I recommend the quite brilliant essay by William Pfaff, "Manifest Destiny: A New Direction for America" in the New York Review of Books of February 15, 2007. Do yourselves a favor: give up blogging for a few hours and go read it.
Let me just mention one or two other topics. I fear that 'El Campesino' did not closely read Charlie Wilson's War if he thinks that the Congressman from Texas's Second District offered "oversight" of the CIA. When Wilson became chairman of the House Intelligence Oversight Committee, he wrote to his CIA friends, "Well, gentlemen, the fox is in the hen house. Do whatever you like" (Creel, p. 494). After retiring from Congress in 1996, he became a lobbyist for Pakistan under a contract that pays him $30,000 a month. It is hard to think of a Congressman who more corruptly misperformed his duties on both the appropriations and intelligence committees. He was the prototype for Randy "Duke" Cunningham, ex-50th District of California (where I live), now sitting in a federal penitentiary for over eight years for accepting bribes from defense contractors. You might be interested in my review of George Crile's book in the Los Angeles Times Book Review, May 25, 2003, pp. 6-7.
I believe that I have already responded to the numerous points about the defense budgets. There are many important writers on this subject, but let me mention just one for those who might want to pursue it. Winslow Wheeler was from 1996 to 2002 the senior analyst for national security on the Republican staff of the Senate budget committee and before that an aide to Senators Pete Domenici (Republican, New Mexico), Jacob Javits (Republican, New York), and Nancy Kassebaum (Republican, Kansas). After thirty years working on Capitol Hill, Wheeler retired and devoted himself to revealing the "systemic problems that reduce government to an exploitative system and make it possible for special interests to manipulate it at will." He has documented how senators added $4 billion in useless "pork" projects to benefit their own states immediately after the 9/11 attacks, including Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat, West Virginia) who strongly opposed going to war against Iraq but nonetheless asked for funds to build an Army museum in his home state. Senator Ted Stevens (Republican, Alaska), one of the stalwarts of the missile defense lobby because most of the ground-based interceptors are located in silos in his state, asked for post-9/11 funds to build parking garages (for automobiles, not missiles).
Wheeler's major study, Wastrels of Defense: How Congress Sabotages U.S. Security, was not brought out by a leftist or liberal publisher but by the Naval Institute Press. He draws on his own experience to stress how dependent most members of Congress are on their staffs and how most staff officials spend their time inserting earmarks and add-ons to defense bills rather than actually trying to determine how the money of the people of the United States should be spent to achieve security. Between fiscal years 2001 and 2002, just as Wheeler's career in the Senate was coming to an end, so-called add-ons -- that is, unrequested spending for the Pentagon -- jumped from $3.3 billion to $5.4 billion, not including, in 2002, $583 million for 32 projects added at the last minute by the House-Senate Conference Committee for items neither requested by the Pentagon nor included in the House or Senate bills. Wheeler presents numerous examples of how pork projects inserted into legislation to favor special interests undermined or took the place of serious defense projects. He notes that whereas defense appropriations bills in the 1980s might have had as many as two or three hundred pork items, in 2005 or 2006 a bill contains thousands. His argument is that after more than two centuries, the systems of checks and balances built into our government by the Constitution no longer works. Google him and read what he has to say.
My thanks for inviting me into your seminar.
Indeed. But we can work to change it, and contact our Representatives about getting the Media Ownership and Reform Act (HR 3302) out of committee and on its way into law. Bernie Sanders is reportedly working up a Senate companion bill.
February 5, 2007 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would add the BBC to the list of news sources. The world service is available on satellite radio as well as several cable systems. In addition they have taken to offering podcasts of most of their news items so that one can listen while doing other things.
This week they are running a very good series on the economic growth of India, for example.
As to runaway militarism, the one aspect that doesn't get addressed is what to do about it. There are lots of excellent analysis of the problems, but actual implementable policy changes are few.
With the decline in consumer manufacturing in the US I suspect that many politicians look at militarism as a Keynesian stimulus, but won't say this openly, so they refer to the more acceptable fear mongering issues. So what would we do with all the workers and industries being kept going by military spending?
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
February 5, 2007 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Professor Johnson writes:
Please say it isn't so. Nothing would please me more than to see an announcement that you were going to offer occasional pieces around here on a regular basis. You are, in the conventional phrase, a gentleman and a scholar, and you treat us as if we have working brains.
Josh Marshall would do every reader a favor if he could convince Chalmers Johnson to become a regular contributor to TPM Café.
aMike
February 5, 2007 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of Murdoch, he confessed the other day that his News Corporation had "tried," but failed, to "shape the agenda" on Iraq.
The following has surfaced on RAWSTORY, and at the link below, but nowhere else.
See also http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=15091
February 5, 2007 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Prof. Johnson,
Allow me to second amike's sentiment, and urge you to stick around TPM Cafe for at least an occasional post. I am a big fan of your work, as I think most are here, and we really do appreciate the chance to exchange ideas with such an eminent scholar.
As for the question of getting the public informed and mobilized against empire, I'm sceptical; if you look at the French and British (and even our own experience in Indochina), it took a major imperial disaster -- Algeria, Suez, the violence surrounding Indo-Pakistani partition -- to wake those publics up to the dangers of militarism and empire. Must we suffer a similar disaster in order to be rid of this kind of reflexive tendency to interfere in the affairs of others? I don't know; but I do wonder if even the experience of Iraq will be enough to immunize the American people against the temptations of empire -- if Vietnam failed to do so, why should Iraq succeed?
Ben Cronin
February 5, 2007 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
February 5, 2007 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, Hear!
February 5, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think one aspect of the mainstream media problem is that in the case of local news, and I will use the example of local television news, although I am sure there is some / much truth to this in local print news as well, even in large newspapers, the on-air reporters have been hired based on their appeal to the average (non "intellectual elite" which you find on blogs like this one) American. In other words, they are average Americans themselves.
There are some horrible morning news programs in the Los Angeles and surrounding counties area for instance. Since I am self employed at the moment with an internet business, I usually turn the KTLA one on as the channel 11 (Fox) show is several magnitudes worse - rock bottom. Just to see if I might get a piece of real local news in the midst of the gossip and chitter chatter. As background noise. Other times I might have C-SPAN or CNN on.
Today one newsperson covered a story about George Clooney's recent statement that "europeans hate America." The newspersons went on to comment how George had "over-reacted," etc. etc. Ignorance or stupidity? Some of each to be sure but I think primarily ignorance. (If G. W. Bush has a 32% approval rating, then even a lot of Americans hate America. Therefore it is entirely believable that "europe hates america.")
But the average americans being enlightened by other average americans is the problem. It isn't as bad in national television news and certainly not as bad on C-SPAN. But still has some truth to it on those mediums since many of our national newspersons and many of their guests, as well as many of our senators and congresspeople are either average americans themselves or they think / discuss / report based on what average america wants to hear. Not all of them. There is probably a lack of courage by even some more intellectual CNN reporters to cover the cutting edge stuff such as "empire or democracy - our choice."
That is why I hope we see more intellectual elite news shows, and documentaries - even if pay per view - on television. I hope it isn't an impossible wish.
Yes the Internet is promising and has already proven to have made a difference I think with the results of the last election possibly in part due to moveon.org and blogs. People can email their friends a good web site or email alert subscription list. That is why I hope tpmcafe and dailykos start using an email subscription list highlighting the week's or day's (option can be chosen by the user) heavy hitting articles. As such emails can be easily forwarded.
I'm going to check out antiwar.com now.
February 5, 2007 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Use Google Reader. You can subscribe to RSS feeds, such as the one from TPMCafe. Just click on the "Add subscription" option and type "http://www.tpmcafe.com" and let it do the rest. Much better than e-mail subscriptions. You can also do RSS feeds automatically in FireFox, but that's slightly more complicated.
February 5, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I second the recommendation re William Pfaff's article.
As for sources Brad DeLong has a singular perspective .
I worry about the NYT editorials when Gail
Collins leaves soon.
February 5, 2007 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I first found out about Mr. Johnson by reading an article of his on antiwar.com. I highly recommend the site. You won't find any support on it for progressive domestic policies, as it is run by Libertarian types. I think they are off the wall and wrong on economics, but the site compiles articles and opeds from around the world on Iraq, Iran, foreign policy questions, nuclear proliferation, defence spending and a whole host of related topics. Hard to find a better one-stop source for the political junkie. You will find opeds by people from all across the political spectrum. Its nice to see some sane conservative thinkers (from the old non-interventionist camp) that regularly cross swords with the neocons.
UA
February 5, 2007 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I second the recommendation re William Pfaff's article." I'm reading it now. One thing darn near startled me, a pointed description of Condi Rice's opposition to the UN and preference for what amounts to a "Concert of Democracies." Pfaff uses it as an example of the worst surviving remnant of the translation of American Calvanist traditions of the country as light among nations to a nation prepared to end tyranny anywhere by all means necessary, legal and illegal.
Perhaps not coincidentally, not yet noted at TPM but noted as a matter of pride in the last issue of the Princeton Alumni Weekly, our favorite Princeton professors will be advising her. So good to know that, with America Abroad, there's always a place for loony Neocons at TPM.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
February 5, 2007 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: If G. W. Bush has a 32% approval rating, then even a lot of Americans hate America.
Huh? George Bush is a single human being. America is a nation of 300 millionh human beings. Hating an entire group because of one (or even far more than one) member of it, and attributing that person's (or persons') behavior to the whole is a classic form of bigotry.
Conisder this: I hate Fred Phelps (and some other poobahs of the Religious Right). But I do not hate all Christians.
February 5, 2007 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Add me to the list of people who would like to see more input by Dr. Johnson. I suspect I disagree with him on nearly as many issues as I agree with him on, but it's nice to see a different point of view, put forth by someone who isn't angling for some kind of foreign policy position in the next Democratic administration.
February 5, 2007 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
An American President represents America and not himself. You may wish to convince yourself that this is a Bush’s Iraq war, the whole world does not share the same way as you. There are many protests around the world who would say this is an American war. The President may have chosen an action that may not please many American people a few years later, it is still the choice of the American people who elected him.
Bush alone does not have any power but once he is elected, he has the power to start a war in another country. Europe hates America is not the same as Europe hates Bush alone. It is the whole America. This is not about BIGOTRY, it is the rights to live. The weak are always at the mercy of the rich, in this case, America has started the killing and has shown no mercy to the weak.
February 5, 2007 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is sad that this is Chalmer Johnson’s final post.
On the subject of informed public, there are 2 parts to this subject: the party that provides the information and the people who read the information. First, I agree with the failing of the “free” press in America. Journalism in America has become profit-driven and the survival of the newspaper or Radio or TV station depends on the money generated and not the readership. Next, readers could only retain limited information on the brain and news media tend to use catch phrases such as “Iraq has WMD” and “Iran supports Terrorism”. Regardless of the reliability of the reports, readers tend to believe rather than not to believe. There is no way individual reader could verify the truth of the reports.
During my research and interviews, I have found readers are not well-informed of the outside world. Their comprehension tends to be shallow and their understanding of the subject matter is limited to their intelligence and personal experience. Many rely on the “expert” reporters to inform them. They expect the newspaper to have “check and balance” and expect editorial supervisors to do their home work. Over the past few years, the standard of the news media has gone bad to worse. It is sad, isn’t it?
February 5, 2007 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: An American President represents America and not himself.
Sorry, I disagree, except in a purely symbolic (and largely meaningless) way, much as when we say "the flag represents America".
Re: The President may have chosen an action that may not please many American people a few years later, it is still the choice of the American people who elected him.
Bush was elected by a little more than 1/6 the population of the US (53 million votes out c. 300 million people). That's far from any sort of majority unless the rules of arithmetic changed recently.
Re: Europe hates America is not the same as Europe hates Bush alone.
Well, I have seen no evidence that "Europe hates America", although you can probably find individual Euroepans who feel that way (Europe is a piece of geography; last time I checked geography does not have emotions anyway). But then there have always been anti-American Europeans, even way back when Washington was president. Out of 400 million people you can find just about any attituide. However anyone who hates an entire class of people because of the actions of a few members of that class is, plain and simple, a bigot and should be called exactly that. I do not, for example, approve of the actions of the Russian government, or indeed of the Iranian government or of quite a few others I could name, including my own. But I do not hate Russians, Iranians or Americans because of the actions of some damn-fool ruling class. Bigotry is ALWAYS wrong.
Re: This is not about BIGOTRY
See above. It is most certainly is. Classic case in fact.
Re: The weak are always at the mercy of the rich, in this case, America has started the killing and has shown no mercy to the weak.
I don't know where you live, but in point of fact the vast majority of the American peopel are also "weak". Please visit Elizabeth Warren's section of this blog for some pointers on how the rich and powerful are screwing over the rest of this country. The victism of the Bush regime are not only to be found overseas.
February 6, 2007 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that every American that I talk to, it is always the same answer, Bush’s action does not reflect the action of the majority and yet he has the power to decide for the majority. This is an American culture that the leader does not represent the actions of the population. I think this is a mistaken belief that Americans are holding on to.
In many countries around the world, a leader represents the country. In the case of Pakistan, the President is the head of the country. His action reflects the action of his own people, unless in extreme cases, he has to make decision even if his people do not like his action. To give you an example, after 9/11, the President of Pakistan informed the world via Larry King’s show that he accepted US$500 million goodies from the US government, much against the wishes of his own people to allow US forces to use Pakistan as a military base. That was 2001, and last year, he reviewed that a former top white house official had threatened to bomb Pakistan back to “Stone Age”. He made a decision at a time when the country was threatened by a superpower and he made an unpopular decision to avoid a war with America. He is the leader and his people must follow him. This is called homogeneous society and America is called heterogeneous society. I know you have been taught differently in America, I can tell you that many countries in the Middle East, Europe and Asia are against America. I know there are good Americans, this is without a doubt. The question is why do people hate Americans and I believe BLOWBACK is the right word that describes activities conducted by the US government illegally, immorally and secretly outside the country and America is experiencing retaliation.
I have been around the world and I can tell you many Canadians do not like Americans and Canadians are offended when they were mistaken for Americans. Just look at the United Nations news over the past 5 years, how many times American ambassador and senior white officials openly insulted other countries for not joining America against Iraq and now Iran. America isolated herself. Democracy is about electing a person representing the country and unfortunately, in this case, a cowboy is elected and those who did not elect him have to abide by the election result. I sympathize with you. What the World sees is very different from what you see. Those who disagree with you are not bigot, they are just like an ordinary human beings, the difference is America is the superpower and has powerful weapons and substantial amount of financial resources. The people in Europe is the same as the people in America, it is the weapon and money that separate both apart. When they say Europe hates America, it means the whole country, it is not jsut the cowboy.
February 6, 2007 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: It seems that every American that I talk to, it is always the same answer, Bush’s action does not reflect the action of the majority and yet he has the power to decide for the majority.
that's true of every government everwyhere. It's part of the package deal.
Re: This is an American culture that the leader does not represent the actions of the population
He doesn't and it only takes common sense to see that. In the first place, I did not vote for the man so you can no more hold me accountable for his actions than you can someone living on a remote island in the South Pacific. More im,portantly though the man is an adult (ewhether he acts liek it or not). He and his henchmen are responsible for their own actions. To the extent that some Americans cheer them on you may ascribe some small degree of accountability as well. But fpr those of us who are not Bushites it's simply wrong to blame us. Moreover accountability assumes that the perosn being held acountable has some power to affect a different outcome. We don't. We did what we could and we failed. End of story.
Re: In many countries around the world, a leader represents the country.
So every British lady is an clueless snob with a pack of corgis, some oversize but empty handbags, randy children and the fashion sense of a tree stump?
Re: I have been around the world and I can tell you many Canadians do not like Americans and Canadians are offended when they were mistaken for Americans.
I have never found this to be the case. Some Canadians I have found are anti-American in the sense of disliking American policy and the various annoyances that come from having such a powerful neighbor (and I understand that feeling); most however do not have any trouble with Americans, or rather judge them as individuals. Again, it is plain old fashioned bigotry to judge individuals as members of a group rather than looking at each person for him or herself. As a gay guy I find that sort of thing utterly objectionable, and I will not tolerate it from anyone. FYI: I was in Canada when 9-11 went down and anti-Americanism was about as common as snow in the Sahara that week.
Re: The people in Europe is the same as the people in America, it is the weapon and money that separate both apart.
Europe has quite a few weapons (including nukes) and quite a lot of money too. Not too mention some idiot leaders here and there.
Re: When they say Europe hates America, it means the whole country, it is not jsut the cowboy.
A co-worker traveled in Europe a few months ago. She learned hpw to say "I did not vote for Bush" in German, French, Italian and Spanish, and she did just fine. (Actually most people she met did not even bring politics up; most folks are not political junkies like those of us here.) But if there are Europeans who hate Americans then they are as big of fools as they people who would hate me because I am gay and I invite them to kiss my derriere.
February 6, 2007 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me just mention one or two other topics. I fear that 'El Campesino' did not closely read Charlie Wilson's War if he thinks that the Congressman from Texas's Second District offered "oversight" of the CIA. When Wilson became chairman of the House Intelligence Oversight Committee, he wrote to his CIA friends, "Well, gentlemen, the fox is in the hen house. Do whatever you like" (Creel, p. 494). After retiring from Congress in 1996, he became a lobbyist for Pakistan under a contract that pays him $30,000 a month. It is hard to think of a Congressman who more corruptly misperformed his duties on both the appropriations and intelligence committees. He was the prototype for Randy "Duke" Cunningham, ex-50th District of California (where I live), now sitting in a federal penitentiary for over eight years for accepting bribes from defense contractors. You might be interested in my review of George Crile's book in the Los Angeles Times Book Review, May 25, 2003, pp. 6-7.
********************************************
I'm afraid you're trying to have it both ways here Mr. Johnson.
Your quote about "the fox in the henhouse" is out of context. Lower level CIA operatives had been frustrated that the topo CIA people wouldn't let them smuggle enough weapons into Aghanistan. In this case, Wilson was letting them know that he had broken through and that it was okay for them to ship the AK-47s, machine guns, and Stinger missiles that they couldn't before.
Earlier you asserted that there was no Congressional oversight for this program. Now you conceed my point that there was but complain that it was done by the wrong congressmen, corrupt ones like Wilson and Murtha. Afraid that was a point that you should have taken up with Tip O'Neil back then or Nancy Pelosi now that she has taken the steps to put the fox Murtha "back in the henhouse."
It's been amazing to watch the anti-war Left lionize Murtha when he came out agains the war and shove Abscam and his murky history of earmarks and logrolling down the memory hole. Culture of corruption indeed
February 6, 2007 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
One or two Congressmen or Senators make not full transparent congressional oversight... Example : Pat Roberts, circa 2001-2005
Memory hole indeed...
~OGD~
February 6, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
At that point in time, you must remember that was the Democratically controlled Congress' choice. We were in a period of divided government: Republican President, Republican Senate, Democratic Congress. This is the committee set up by the Democrats for oversight of CIA activities. Murtha and Wilson thought the CIA was too slow to respond to the Soviet invasion and pushed them.
You and many others on this site have complained that there has been no oversight of Republican administation activities by the Republican Congress over the last few years. Here you had exactly the situation you wanted and you complain about that too.
February 6, 2007 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
My research has found that it is no use to argue with an American or any American, it is just a waste of time, and it is not going to be a fair argument. American has lots of money and weapons and the American culture is to be number 1 and winning is the strategic. It is a bullying tactics mainly used by American businessmen, ambassadors and white house officials to intimidate those who disagree. That's why America has become the most hated nation in the world.
I would certainly encourage you to join the marine and fight in Iraq for 18 months. In this way, you would find out whether the Iraqis hate you or hate the person who voted for the Cowboy. 6 out of 10 Iraqis interviewed said that they blamed the Americans and they would kill the Americans (not any other nationalities, it is just the Americans), this was a research reported in the press.
I would certainly like to hear from you 18 months later.
I have recently watched "The Apprentice" and Donald Trump fired a Gay man because he was trying to convince Donald that his swim ware was a good idea among the Gay community. Donald has the leverage and he would listen to the buyers, who are mostly straight and willing to buy his products. Donald fired him because Gay culture is still not deeply accepted in America. Money talks and as long as it is bringing money to Donald, it does not matter the truth. It is the same as the rest of the world, the truth does not sell the newspaper. Comeback in 18 months and tell us your story. I hope someone will buy your true story and that is, if you are still alive and mentally stable.
February 6, 2007 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hate to do it but I will...
Refer: this comment:One or two Congressmen or Senators make not full transparent congressional oversight... Example : Pat Roberts, circa 2001-2005
Memory hole indeed...
~OGD~
February 6, 2007 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Building a dialogue on these issues needs two components -- one is the media, the other is politics. Clearly they intersect important ways, like the work that FreePress.org does to keep a political focus on the media. Also, in the absence of an anti-imperial, pro-democracy political coalition or movement, there won't be much for the press to report on! Except the dangerous behavior of the Imperials.
I don't pretend to be an expert on the current status of grass roots progressive politics, but it needs to be factored in whatever the underlying reality is.
There is a lot of optimism in the posts on this site for the positive intersections of movement politics and the media, especially the Internet. Seems fewer of the foreign affairs types are convinced by the same arguments.
February 6, 2007 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but it is very evident that you have NOT read the book. Murtha headed the committee and Wilson was a member, and not the only member. They were the two, of several members of the committe, who pushed the CIA to do more to aid the Afghan rebels.
Hate to do it but I will: you really shouldn't comment like this when you have no familiarity with the material.
February 7, 2007 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
FOX and the Wars
FOX is a special case. Murdoch gave a seat on the board to ex-Pres Aznar of Spain. He has offered the same to Blair, upon his retirement from politics. And then there's the third ally, John Howard in Australia. One better understands Howard's attacking Obama as a Murdoch ploy... spike the race angle from offstage, down-under. Then echo it 'innocently' through the Halls of FOXUSA. Howard is covered apparently, otherwise why drive himself further down in the OZ polls? He looks like a fool there. He's investing in his future... with News Corp.
Leaders who took their countries into an illegal war against the popular will, in collusion with FOX/News Corp Media. Run by a reactionary globalist billionaire...
Ring any alarms??
February 14, 2007 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You asked:
Yup! Someone get a rope... quick!
~OGD~
February 14, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink