Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- More Damning Evidence Points to Pesticide as Cause of Mass Bee Deaths
- Nobel Peace Prize Jury Under Investigation
- 'Gasland' Film Director Arrested at US Capitol Hearing
- The Cancerous Politics and Ideology of the Susan G. Komen Foundation
- A Journey To The End Of Empire: It Is Always Darkest Right Before It Goes Completely Black
Popular content
Today's Top News
Zinn: US 'In Need of Rebellion'
Al Jazeera speaks to Howard Zinn, the author, American historian, social critic and activist, about how the Iraq war damaged attitudes towards the US and why the US "empire" is close to collapse.
Q: Where is the United States heading in terms of world power and influence?
Howard Zinn is the author of, most notably, A People's History of the United States, a National-Book-Award-nominated text that investigates US history from the standpoint of the oppressed. Other books by Zinn include Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology and his 1995 autobiography, You Can't be Neutral on a Moving Train. HZ: America has been heading - for some time, and is heading right now - toward less and less world power, less and less influence.
This is an empire which is on the one hand the most powerful empire that ever existed; on the other hand an empire that is crumbling - an empire that has no future ... because the rest of the world is alienated and simply because this empire is top-heavy with military commitments, with bases around the world, with the exhaustion of its own resources at home.
[This is] leading to more and more discontent and home, so I think the American empire will go the way of other empires and I think it is on its way now.
Q: Is there any hope the US will change its approach to the rest of the world?
HZ: If there is any hope, the hope lies in the American people.
[It] lies in American people becoming resentful enough and indignant enough over what has happened to their country, over the loss of dignity in the world, over the starving of human resources in the United States, the starving of education and health, the takeover of the political mechanism by corporate power and the result this has on the everyday lives of the American people.[There is also] the higher and higher food prices, the more and more insecurity, the sending of the young people to war.
I think all of this may very well build up into a movement of rebellion.
We have seen movements of rebellion in the past: The labour movement, the civil rights movement, the movement against the war in Vietnam.
I think we may well see, if the United States keeps heading in the same direction, a new popular movement. That is the only hope for the United States.
Q: How did the US get to this point?
HZ: Well, we got to this point because ... I suppose the American people have allowed it to get it to this point because there were enough Americans who were satisfied with their lives, just enough.
Of course, many Americans were not, that is why half of the population doesn't vote, they're alienated.
But there are just enough Americans who have been satisfied, you might say getting some of the "goodies" of the empire, just some of them, just enough people satisfied to support the system, so we got this way because of the ability of the system to maintain itself by satisfying just enough of the population to keep its legitimacy.
And I think that era is coming to an end.
Q: What should the world know about the United States?
HZ: What I find many people in the rest of the world don't know is that there is an opposition in the United States.
Very often, people in the rest of the world think that Bush is popular, they think 'oh, he was elected twice', they don't understand the corruption of the American political system which enabled Bush to win twice.They don't understand the basic undemocratic nature of the American political system in which all power is concentrated within two parties which are not very far from one another and people cannot easily tell the difference.
So I think we are in a situation where we are going to need some very fundamental changes in American society if the American people are going to be finally satisfied with the kind of society we have.
Q: Do you think the US can recover from its current position?
HZ: Well, I am hoping for a recovery process. I mean, so far we haven't seen it.
You asked about what the people of the rest of the world don't know about the United States, and as I said, they don't know that there is an opposition.
There always has been an opposition, but the opposition has always been either crushed or quieted, kept in the shadows, marginalised so their voices are not heard.
People in the rest of the world hear the voices of the American leaders.
They do not hear the voices of the people all over this country who do not like the American leaders who want different policies.
I think also, people in the rest of the world should know that what they see in Iraq now is really a continuation of a long, long term of American imperial expansion in the world.
I think ... a lot of people in the world think that this war in Iraq is an aberration, that before this the United States was a benign power.
It has never been a benign power, from the very first, from the American Revolution, from the taking-over of Indian land, from the Mexican war, the Spanish-American war.
It is embarrassing to say, but we have a long history in this country of violent expansion and I think not only do most people in other countries [not] know this, most Americans don't know this.
Q: Is there a way for this to improve?
HZ: Well you know, whatever hope there is lies in that large number of Americans who are decent, who don't want to go to war, who don't want to kill other people.
It is hard to see that hope because these Americans who feel that way have been shut out of the communications system, so their voices are not heard, they are not seen on the television screen, but they exist.
I have gone through, in my life, a number of social movements and I have seen how at the very beginning of these social movements or just before these social movements develop, there didn't seem to be any hope.
I lived in the [US] south for seven years, in the years of the civil rights movements, and it didn't seem that there was any hope, but there was hope under the surface.
And when people organised, and when people began to act, when people began to work together, people began to take risks, people began to oppose the establishment, people began to commit civil disobedience.
Well, then that hope became manifest ... it actually turned into change.
Q: Do you think there is a way out of this and for the future influence of the US on the world to be a positive one?
HZ: Well, you know for the United States to begin to be a positive influence in the world we are going to have to have a new political leadership that is sensitive to the needs of the American people, and those needs do not include war and aggression.
[It must also be] sensitive to the needs of people in other parts of the world, sensitive enough to know that American resources, instead of being devoted to war, should be devoted to helping people who are suffering.
You've got earthquakes and natural disasters all over the world, but the people in the United States have been in the same position as people in other countries.
The natural disasters here [also] brought little positive reaction - look at [Hurricane] Katrina.
The people in this country, the poor people especially and the people of colour especially, have been as much victims of American power as people in other countries.
Q: Can you give us an overall scope of everything we talked about - the power and influence of the United States?
HZ: The power and influence of the United States has declined rapidly since the war in Iraq because American power, as it has been exercised in the world historically, has been exposed more to the rest of the world in this situation and in other situations.
So the US influence is declining, its power is declining.
However strong a military machine it is, power does not ultimately depend on a military machine. So power is declining.
Ultimately power rests on the moral legitimacy of a system and the United States has been losing moral legitimacy.
My hope is that the American people will rouse themselves and change this situation, for the benefit of themselves and for the benefit of the rest of the world.
- Posted in
281 Comments so far
Show AllZinn avoids discussing the biggest problem of all in the US: the failure of the mainstream media to perform its Constitutionally protected function of keeping the American people informed.
Zinn does manage to mention the encroachment of corporate power over the lives and freedoms of US citizens but ignores the mechanism by which that power exerts its influence and controls thought: a completely functionary press.
q
Perhaps he doesnt mention it as much as we would like--but he does say it, in the paragraph under "improve"--about "people see on the tv sets and dont feel involved".I know it seem archaic to some--but, I think we need the Fairness Doctrine back. Sure there is the internet, and alot of peole dont trust cable news (too many do) but we stil have almost nothing on radio (Air Am is only broadcast in a few states, last i heard) and , not everyone can afford the internet at home.It worked for alot of years. Destryong it was just another nod to the supposed "free mkt".
That's a pretty oblique reference for what should have been one of his major points.
Zinn mentions the movements of the past. He fails to understand, however, that those movements developed in the light of media that were still practicing real journalism.
If the Selma riots and the murders of the civil rights workers happened today, the stories would never make the mainstream news.
q
How many major points can you put into an 8 question interview without ending up with such a confused message that you sound like John Kerry?
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I'm not saying that Zinn should have included another major point. I stating that he should have presented the co-optation of the media as THE major point from which all other problems stem. Zinn is smart enough to understand that fact.
q
The root cause is not the media, it is the mentality of the people. The media is how it is because of the mentality of the people who find it to their liking. The American people are aggressive, hyperreligious, ultrapatriotic, ignorant and obtuse. They get a media that fits them...... duh......lizard
Wow. Have to agree. We get the media/govt/food/wars/bills we will put up with. The media is basically an extention of the "not angry enough" electorate.
You cannot have a corrupted political system without having a corrupted mainstream press.
And lies work, for a while anyway. Just ask any 15 year old.
And yes, the people are asleep because it is easier to believe the lies than to confront them.
But things will only change if we confront them.
Don't support the status quo and the status quo candidates.
You are sooooo right!! We have to understand, if history serves me correctly, that these policies have been going on since our government was formed. Wars are fought to defend our freedoms, although some may disagree, otherwise we currently wouldn't be excercising our 1st ammendment rights.
Wars are fought to defend our freedoms?? Very rarely...if at all! They are fought to keep us enslaved and add to the coffers of the elite.
lizard, you're my current hero.
I beg to differ, lizard. The media - particularly television - is what has created the mentality of the people.
Television is an incredibly persuasive medium, a very powerful way to program people's minds. And the advertising/marketing industry has honed its persuasive abilities to a fine edge. Those wealthy enough to pay for the research and do the marketing can sell their ideas and products, whether hyperreligiosity, Hummers, or the war in Iraq. The people are turned into zombies who watch American Idol and Survivor while the corporations rob them blind and the planet chokes on its own waste.
I think Zinn would be right, that ultimately there would be an uprising, if it weren't for one inconvenient truth. Unfortunately, we are out of time. By the time the revolution comes about, we will already be on an irreversible course to a dead planet.
I see little room for hope. When we go down we will take life as we know it with us.
I agree. The US will take the world down with us.
http://wagelaborer.blogspot.com/2008/08/how-will-american-empire-end.html
There was no TV when the people were lining up to go to war with Spain. Boy they were keen. They didn't need TV to go at each other during the civil war. And those 2 glorious world wars can be blamed on TV either. The indians didn't die because of the main stream media and the US wasn't the last country to give up slavery because of the press. When the movies showing the indians getting killed appeared nobody forced the parentsd to send their children to them. And blacks didn't get srung up because they had a bad agent.....................lizard
Back then, the (s)word was the bible. Today the (s)word is t.v.
Propaganda always has a tool.
I disagree. I talk to people about TV, and don't know anyone who has anything but contempt for the base, stupid level of most programming. The programming does not at all reflect what people "find to their liking." The root cause of massive ignorance of our political problems is a concentration of media ownership in a handful of giant corporations, and the dedication of the corporate owners to deceive and dumb-down We the People. One of their chief aims is to make people cynical, to make people believe that Americans are "hyperreligious, unpatriotic, ignorant and obtuse." I strongly disagree. The average American is FAR smarter than the dumb-ass corporate pundits that regularly promulgate their pompous, puerile perspectives on TV.
I'm not saying the average American is brilliant and informed. I am saying they are manipulated by a corporate controlled media, and this media in no way reflects "what the people want" - it reflects what the corporate controllers want.
Hard to argue with that. If the bakery down the street makes bread that isn't very good, but it sells every loaf every day, they ain't going to change.
Perhaps we can say that Americans just aren't curious enough to look for more information. Anyone reading this article has gone looking for more information from alternate news sources. I think it's fair to say that 97% of Americans do not do this. So if we're dumbed down, it's because we're a nation of lazy, unquestioning people, whether or not that indicates idiocy.
"Air Am(erica) is only broadcast in a few states."
Air America is, or at least should be, an embarrassment to the left.
They're intolerance is breathtaking. They rarely if ever allow anyone on the air who either a.) disagrees with them or b.) takes an anti-Obama, pro-3rd party position. ... If and when they do, they self-righteously shout them down.
In 2004, when Ralph Nader was a guest on the Randi Rhodes show, she became hysterical, screaming and shouting at him like an insane person.
This isn't informing the public, it's insulting public, insulting their intelligence.
Behold their lineup of on-air Air America hosts. ...
-- Alan Coombs -- as obnoxious as any right-wing clown. (He brings to mind the late Alan Berg: small, nasty and mean-spirited.)
-- "Lionel" -- immature beyond description.
-- Randy Rhodes -- a shrill; as closed-minded as any right-wing true believer.
-- Thom Hartman -- Thom Hartman is one of the few intelligent, civilized host they have; albeit he, too, is closed to the idea of airing any pro-3rd party views.
-- Mike Malloy -- Mike Malloy was on Air America, but he was fired. Why? Because he dared to a.) speak out about the Israeli government's brutal treatment of the Palestinians and b.) to suggest that the left break away form the Democratic Party.
The upcoming "cruise" Air America is sponsoring will have on board, among others, Ron Reagan Jr. and Bob Scrum -- Bob Scrum being one of the higher-up in the DLC, the Democratic Leadership Council -- for whom Air America might as well be working.
Also, not that this is Air America's fault, I suppose, but the affiliate in my area that carries Air America also carries "Imus in the Morning," "The Phil Henreid Show," and a weekly broadcast by former Republican Congressman Lou Frey, a dyed in the wool Bush supporter. All of whom are about as far from progressive values as I am from another solar system.
Some "progressive" network!
Air America is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Well, I'd say some words in defense of Air America. We should not make the ideal the enemy of the good. Shows like Thom Hartmann and Mike Malloy's are FANTASTIC, far and away better than the thousand plus right wing ranters like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Oh, and I thought Malloy was fired for espousing the view that Nine Eleven was an inside job. That alone makes him my hero.
Sure, I have differences with Hartmann -- he's not open enough to 3rd parties, for example. But he informs people and is not just a propagandist like Limbaugh.
So, no, Air America is part of the solution, not part of the problem. The problem is, Air America has, according to Hartmann, about sixty or seventy stations broadcasting its shows. In contrast, the right wingers have a thousand. We need more radio shows hosted by people like Hartmann and Malloy.
A show where the host complies to censorship on issue's like 911, part of the solution? Joking right?
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
Memory Hole;
Mike Malloy is not on Air American---he is on Nova M, and was fired from Air America.
Mike's show may air on the same progressive station that some AA shows air on, but he hates Air America for what it did to him.
Thomm Hartman is brilliant and he, in fact, wrote the forward to my first book, but he does buy the Obama-crat crapola, hook, line and sinker. I will listen to him if I have a chance because he does have a good grasp of history and rarely gets blustery.
I love Mike Malloy because he really tells it like it is: no sugar coating or Obama-crat worshiping for him.
Cindy
www.CindyforCongress.org
Thanks for posting here Cindy and good lucking beating your me too war mongering Democrat opponent! It would be nice to have a hero on the peoples side in Con-gress for a change.
You make an accurate analysis of Mr. Hartmann. His strength is certainly history and his weakness is his overriding loyalty to the two party system. He is the best of AAR, which has been a rather large disappointment over all.....Limbaugh Left for the most part.
I wish you great good luck in your race to oust another large disappointment, Nancy Pelosi.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Memory Hole,
I agree with some of your post, but not the overall point you're making, that is to say, that Air America is part of the solution. It's not. It's part of the problem.
Yes, Thom Hartman is intelligent, civil, highly respectful of his callers, and his program is very informative. But he’s the *exception* at Air America. Most Air America hosts are either vapid, obnoxious or closed-minded.
Hartman truly believes that the Democratic Party is a force for good. Somehow he’s convinced himself that Barack Obama represents genuine progressive values. Thus, he rarely if ever allows a caller or a guest to challenge the notion of voting anything other than Democratic.
The fact is, Air America is hardly an open forum for ideas -- a "marketplace of ideas” being a fundamental progressive value.
Instead, Air America's corporate marching orders -- which its hosts implicitly understand and have long ago internalized -- are to act as a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party mainstream. Anyone who disagrees quickly gets the boot.
Thom Hartman doesn't disallow dissent in an obnoxious way -- but, still, he disallows it.
Back in 2004, someone wrote an article for counterpunch.org explaining how he called into Randi Rhodes’ show and tried to express the opinion that John Kerry -- the “reporting-for-duty” Democratic war candidate -- may not be the best person to represent progressive values. ... The guy explained that he didn’t have a chance in hell of getting on the air. Randi, he was told, doesn't like to hear those kind of things. (Indeed.)
As far as Air America and Mike Malloy are concerned -- they fired him! Mike Malloy is now broadcasting on NOVA.
And Air America fired Mike Malloy precisely because he didn't tow the Air America "party line," which is basically that of a "DPAer" -- a Democratic Party Apologist.
Also, when you write: "So, no, Air America is part of the solution, not part of the problem." … Here's where I *strongly* disagree with you.
"DPAers" (Democratic Party Apologists) ... a.k.a., "cruise missile liberals"
... a.k.a., “vote-for-the-lesser-of-the-two-evils” liberals ... a.k.a, “Democratic Leadership Council liberals" ... *ARE* the problem!
For one thing, they're not at all liberals, and they're certainly not progressives -- they're neoliberals.
The neoliberal/DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) "con game" of convincing people that it's in their best interest to vote for the lesser of the two evils has, over the past 40 years, dramatically shifted the political consensus to the right. So much so that Republican Richard Nixon in the 1970s signed more progressive legislation than Democrat Bill Clinton did in the 1990s!
That's hardly a progressive trend.
Worse yet, the corporate consensus at Air America is that the Democratic Party is actually a force for *good* for the general public. ... Again, not something a progressive with a pulse would agree with.
The solution is to fight for progressive values, very few of which are espoused by the Democratic Party.
Air America and other DPAers support Barack Obama, however ...
-- Obama is ok with two Middle East wars, Iraq and Afghanistan -- and he's indicated that, if necessary, he would also invade Iran and Pakistan, with the use of nuclear weapons “not off the table.”
-- Obama voted for FISA, after vowing not to.
-- Obama went out of his way to campaign for Joe Lieberman, in Lieberman's primary fight against antiwar candidate Ned Lamont.
-- Like McCain and Hillary, Obama is against single-payer healthcare -- something that every advanced industrial country in the world has, except the United States.
-- Like McCain and Hillary, Obama hasn’t uttered a peep about impeachment.
-- Like McCain and Hillary, Obama wants to increase the Pentagon budget.
-- Like McCain and Hillary, Obama has made it clear that he's not going to stand up to Big Oil. ... Not going to stand up to Big Pharma. ... Not going to stand up to the banks. ... Not going to stand up to the insurance companies. ... Not going to stand up to Wall Street. ... Not going to stand up to the far right. ... Not going to stand up to the Christian fundamentalist -- those Christian fundamentalists who want to turn America into a theocracy.
In short, like McCain and Hillary, Obama has made it clear that he’s not going to stand up to the increasing dominance of corporate power over the “felt-lives” of millions of people throughout the world.
And why should this surprise anyone? Barack Obama has more corporate money behind than John McCain.
And, yes, if you’re a progressive, all that is most certainly part of the problem.
Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are the left wing of the "Business Party." And the Business Party in the United States -– the Democratic/Republican duopoly -- doesn't support broad-based, grassroots progressive values or broad-based, grassroots progressive movements.
Instead, the Democratic/Republican duopoly represents the narrow interests of the oligarchic-few.
The Democratic Party is the Business Party’s “safety value,” should things start heating up on the left. Historically, the Democratic Party has co-opted, diluted and eventually betrayed broad-based progressive movements.
The Democratic Party, and its "radio-rationalizer," Air America, stand in the way of true political progress for the great masses of people throughout the world. They *perpetuate* the Democratic/Republican duopoly instead of standing up to it. And that does nothing but guarantee the continued exploitation the democratic-many.
Air America and the Democratic Party legitimize corporatist candidates such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Barack Obama, et al -- none of whom are anything but "business candidates" -- bought, marketed and paid for by Corporate America.
Just take a look at Obama and Hillary and the Democratic leadership’s *VOTING RECORD* -- as opposed to their fancy suits, their multi-million dollar Madison Avenue images, and their empty rhetoric.
wsws.org I agree. They are pseudo-left "liberals" pushing Obama who differs little from Republicans in policy. Air America is an embarrassment.
If you want detailed discussion, try reading one his books. This is an 8 question interview for a foreign news agency for Pete's sake.
Nobody asked for "detailed dicussion." The complaint concerns Zinn's failure to highlight corporate control of the mainstream media as the primary problem facing the American people. The solutions to all other problems are stymied by a lack of broad public discussion.
q
Corporate control of the media relates directly and immediately to four of the questions that Zinn was asked: "Is there any hope the US will change its approach to the rest of the world?"; "How did the US get to this point?"; "Do you think the US can recover from its current position?"; "Is there a way for this to improve?"
Only for the last question does Zinn include even an indirect reference to the media.
q
He said the opposition is shut out. What more do you want? He said the most important thing to say, that the American people, unlike the rest of the world, does not know that their country is an aggressive expansionist since the American revolution. Why don't they know? The press of course...lizard
I think if we start a war with Russia in October, we will see some sort of rebellion.
Starting a war is usually not what causes rebellion.
That's usually a time of flag-waving and faux-patriotism.
The revolution usually comes when the leaders have over-estimated their abilty to fight a war, and instead find themselves in a war they can't win. It usually comes when people start reading between the lines of the news reports and start to realize that their nation is not winning the war. It usually comes when the wars start to consume so much resources that real hardship starts to hit at home.
Think of Nazi Germany. In the early part of WWII, two things were happening. The German military was winning victories. And Hitler made sure that the consumer economy was unaffected by the wars. So, the Germans were at home, living relatively prosperous lives, reading of victories by their amries. Hitler and the wars were very popular then.
Rebellion will come when people don't have any other choice. When they are pushed up against the wall economically. When they litterally can't play by the rules and survive. And when its so obvious that the military has over-extended and is now losing, thus the military flag-waving comes to an end and the cold reality of defeat in a war starts to sink in. That's the sort of combination that led to Mussolini hanging from a meat hook in a public square.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"Starting a war is usually not what causes rebellion."
Well, yes and no. The American Revolution was sparked by increases in taxation levied upon the colonies to help the British crown pay for the Seven Years' War (The French and Indian War in North America).
So, yes paying for a war rather than starting one can lead to rebellion. However, it's incorrect to imply that wars have no negative effect on public sympathies.
q
Therefore, if you want change, vote McCain............and it rhymes...........lizard
Do you really think we have to wait that long? Honestly?
Samson: Good post and I would say historically accurate.
Wow. Once again, Howard Zinn puts it plainly and clearly. My favorite book is his "You Can't Be Neutral on A Moving Train",2003 edition (Beacon);even if you only read the introduction, you'll have a "handbook" for activism. Examples of things people have done/are doing:small and larger. (I'm totally biased in favor of Howard Zinn.)(But like H.Zinn says, "bias is ok, just have your facts right" (loose quote)
[Very often, people in the rest of the world think that Bush is popular, they think 'oh, he was elected twice', they don't understand the corruption of the American political system which enabled Bush to win twice.]
I think he's missed the point, much of the world knows full well that bush isn't popular. We're also much more aware than the yanks are about the electoral system in the states; one which would not be allowed to exist in any democracy.
He's quite right about the violent nature of the american polity, it's reflected in the history of your country as well as the rather high murder rate that continues to this day. (by UN standards the level of violent death in the usa is the equivalent of a civil war in most other countries)
I don't see any hope of a rebellion until the price of bread is the same as a day's wage. You'll rally round the flag if there's a war against Russia or Iran. No matter who starts it, or how it's done. Sure there'll be a few who say don't, none will be in a position to stop the bombing.
Where are you? I remember after the 2004 election, which, unlike the 2000 election, most people were unaware was stolen, there was a website, We Tried, or We're Sorry, or something, in which Americans apologized to the world for the Bush "re-election"(not).
I looked through a lot of it. Even on that website, no one seemed, in America or the rest of the world, to realize that most Americans hate Bush, and the election was stolen again.
to point out that the us has this long and bloody history of expansion - now world wide - is to state the obvious - anywhere in the world but the us
this is a tribute to the corporate media who has always been behind the curtain manipulating the minds of the citizens
mark twain said: show me a man who doesn't read the papers and i'll show you someone who is uninformed. show me a man who reads the papers and i will show you a man who is misinformed
then there is the penchant for killing - first nations, mexicans, presidents (both foreign and domestic) of anyone who doesn't do what they are told
chomsky says it is like the mafia: they can't tolerate anyone who appears to undermines their total control
kill kill kill
it is and has been a one dimensional foreign policy since the first days of the republic
time for it to end
one way or another
cheers, b
Frankly, I do not see much hope. There is some, but not much. The answer to the problems here at home is that the USA MUST come to the point where it acts in the interest of AMERICA FIRST and FOREMOST, and NOT foreign interests.
The elites running America into the ground are doing it for their own financial interests, not for the benefit of any one else. After despoiling the planet for so long, it would be comical for Americans to now blame their downfall on “foreign interests”.
Your "elites running America into the ground" are the very same ones who put the interests of a foreign nation FIRST. The exact same people. Just ask Wolfowitz, or Perle, or Feith, or Paulson,
or Abrams, or Bolton, or Fleischer.
How right you are.
Someone yesterday posted a link about the plot to put everyone into concentration camps. It led to a site that claimed the jews were behind it (refered to the Protocals of the Elders of Zion, of course) and ranted on... I swear, I'm more amused by the claims these days than I have been in the past...
He has a valid point and you can stuff your antisemitism label too. Screaming anti-semitism is worn out now. Screw that. The Likud branch has bought congress and you don't want that discussed? Curious given your usual intelligence. Blind spot? Why? What about the spies that have been caught? What about the role of Mossad in 9-11. What about AIPAC? Not important? We all know you are a smart fellow, what happened to your brain today?.......................lizard
Sorry I wasn't clear. The claim that it's all the jews fault is as true as the idea that it's all the fault of the Republicans, the democrats, the liberal, the indian, the whatever...
My intent was to agree with your post. Then I went further and expressed my amusement at those who say it's brand X human that is the cause of all our woes.
The reply feature on this new system doesn't seem to be working that well. It's not clear who's talking to whom.
You seem like a smart person. No antisemitism.......just the facts. You can not stand the facts. Do a little research on the following and report back to us with FACTS:
Harry Gold
David Greenglass
Abraham Brothman
Miriam Moskowitz
Sidney Weinbaum
Julius & Ethel Rosenberg
Morton Sobel
There are many others....just did not want to embarrass you further.
no, of course it's not antisemitism to point out only the names of the jewish people you think have betrayed you, or stabbed your country in the back. Do you really not think that for each name you list there are 3-5 Christian traitors? Do you believe that only jews are rich in america?
I see................lizard