Major Newspapers Delivering Anti-Islam DVD to Voters in Swing States

There's a new propaganda war on Islam in this election season, cooked up by "neocons and ex-Israeli diplomats", according to this article:

A group of hard-line U.S. neo-conservatives and former Israeli diplomats, among others, are behind the mass distribution, ahead of the November U.S. presidential election, of a controversial DVD that critics have denounced as Islamophobic.
The group, the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), is working with another organisation called the Clarion Fund, which produced the 60-minute video and is itself tied closely to an Israeli organisation called Aish Hatorah.

According to this version of the report,

Millions of voters in U.S. states crucial to this fall's presidential election received DVD copies of a controversial documentary film as advertising inserts in their morning newspapers over the past week, with more expected to be sent out over the upcoming weekend.

The 2006 film, Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West, ...was reportedly delivered, or slated for delivery this weekend, into tens of millions of households in states such as Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Missouri and other "swing states" that don't vote consistently for either party and usually decide elections.

And who are these newspapers? Oh, not the NYT... "all the trash that's profitable to send?"...

The New York Times alone distributed some 145,000 copies of Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West to 11 markets.

In these economic hard times, that's a lot of money. Why the need to push Islamophobia now? Is this supposed to be a racist plug for McCain?

Republicans and their candidate, Sen. John McCain, have made battling the threat posed by radical Islamists a central platform of their campaign, while presenting their Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, as being weak on the issue. Obama has also fought off persistent smear campaigns, particularly among Jewish voters, that he is a closet Muslim.

Gregory Ross, the spokesman for the Clarion group, which produced and is distributing the DVD, told the Harrisburg Patriot-News that the movie was being delivered to 28 million homes throughout the month of September and that the intention was not to sway voters to either candidate.

Right! Of course, the intention had nothing to do with the election! They just wanted to spend a lot of money in swing states because... because... they're "swingers." And they really, really want to be sure that everybody knows that Muslims are a threat. And we need a Great White Right-Wing Hope to save us from THEM.

Clarion Fund was founded by the writer and executive produce of Obsession, Israeli-Canadian Raphael Shore. The group also runs the website Radicalislam.org -- an educational site which implores its readers to "take action against radical Islam" by exploring its resources under four headings: "fueling terror," "Sharia law," "vote 2008," and "radical Islam overview."

Because of Clarion Fund's non-profit, tax-exempt status, it is not permitted to sway voters in a partisan manner. But Radicalislam.org reportedly was, until it was recently pointed out in the media, carrying an article that explicitly endorsed Sen. John McCain.

Ooops. Well, they didn't mean to endorse him. And... are they still granted non-profit status? Or is this another "unregulated" neocon enterprise? Well, as long as they are promoting hate and Islamophobia, I mean, who would want to "regulate" that? Isn't hating Muslims good for security? Well, it seems Clarion, one of the producers of the DVD, is getting some dividends for their efforts,

"We're getting many concerned calls and emails from Muslims around the country who see this as an attempt to not only marginalize and demonize the American Muslim community, but also to sway the election by targeting swing states," Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told IPS. "People are outraged. I haven't seen this kind of outrage in a long time. It's coming to their homes, it's coming to their neighbors and they believe its going to impact their lives and their children's lives negatively."

Hooper also said there had apparently already been an incident of bias against a bus driver for Islamic school children in Ohio. The biased comments were likely inspired by film.

Is that the kind of security they are trying to "promote" in a "non-profit" sort of way? Well, they did put in a substantial investment, so presumably they want a return. A return named McCain.

"I can't imagine that you can produce, package, distribute and advertise this product for less than 50 million dollars," Hooper told IPS.

He also insisted that the substantial financial push may have been intended to sway the election. "Why did they choose to distribute this hate propaganda to millions of homes in swing states in this election?"

Even EMET's spokesman, Ari Morgenstern, admits

"it costs a great deal -- it's a multi-million-dollar effort." Outside experts have estimated the cost of the operation, including reproduction and distribution, at between 15 million dollars and 50 million dollars.

There must be some motivation, and it's obvious what it is.

Not all newspapers were so eager for the advertising dollars that they would distribute this obviously incendiary and prejudicial propaganda, as the IPS reported,

Critics allege that the movie "Obsession" is "hate propaganda" which paints Muslims as violent extremists and, among other things, explicitly compares the threat posed by radical Islam to that of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

At least two major metropolitan newspapers solicited to insert the paid advertisement into their product have refused to do so because of a perceived bias in the film.

Too bad the NYT had no such moral qualms. All their markets are now inundated with this hate material. And this hate material is just part of a broader effort.

Two weeks ago, EMET sponsored a seminar series on Capitol Hill named for the controversial multi-billionaire casino and hotel magnate Sheldon Adelson, a major donor to right-wing Zionist organisations in the U.S.; the far-right lobby group, Freedom's Watch; and the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), whose efforts to persuade Jewish voters that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is aligned with radical anti-Israel forces in the Islamic world have drawn strong criticism from the mainstream Jewish press here.

Making those newspapers look even worse. Is this the fallout of the economic meltdown? More hate? More racism? Less democracy? Sounds like the Republican agenda melding with the right-wing Zionist extremists. It's a hatefest for idealogues.

Not to mention illegal. It is prohibited by law for non-profits or foreign organizations or agents to try to influence an election in any way. And Clarion is just a front, without even an address, acting for an organization in Israel. So where is the law? Or doesn't it matter if this is legal or illegal, just so McCain gets elected?

No respect for the law. More fear. More walls. More divisions between people. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer. Cooperation between people of different ethnic and religions backgrounds gets trumped by the desperate fear-driven fantasized "need" to build walls and bariers between them, seeing others always as threats. Why does the GOP keep sticking to these ideologues? All these propagandists do is make life in America less free, less secure, and the election less democratic.

Is Georgia War a Neocon/McCain Election Ploy?

Sound outrageous? Maybe, but looking deeper, Robert Scheer of Truthdig asks:

Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?

Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government who ended his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser.

Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, an invasion that clearly was expected to produce a Russian counterreaction? It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain's presidential campaign.

In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia's membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia's Vladimir Putin.

Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate's foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new Cold War, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime it was Putin's Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill.

Yes, it sounds diabolical, but that may be the most accurate way to assess the designs of the McCain campaign in matters of war and peace. There is every indication that the candidate's demonization of Russian leader Putin is an even grander plan than the previous use of Saddam to fuel American militarism with the fearsome enemy that it desperately needs.

McCain gets to look tough with a new Cold War to fight while Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, scrambling to make sense of a more measured foreign policy posture, will seem weak in comparison. Meanwhile, the dire consequences of the Bush legacy that McCain has inherited, from the disaster of Iraq to the economic meltdown, conveniently will be ignored. But the military-industrial complex, which has helped bankroll the neoconservatives, will be provided with an excuse for ramping up a military budget that is already bigger than that of the rest of the world combined.

More...

"Brutal Ethnic Cleansing", Not Surge, Brought So-Called "Success" In Iraq

One of John McCain's strategies to win the election has been to play up the so-called "success" of the Surge, and Obama's opposition to it. In doing so, he has had to confirm that one of his many "gaffes" on Iraq was no mistake:

In a conference call Wednesday, McCain foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann told reporters that the Arizona senator had not misspoken — that he had intended to tell Katie Couric that the troop surge, which began in 2007, had enabled the success of the “Anbar awakening” of major Sunni sheikhs against Al Qaeda, which began in 2006.

Juan Cole's powerful article reveals that the Myth of the Successful Surge is only that, a myth, subscribed to, logic and reason be damned, by John McCain in his bid to seal the neocon-numbed protoplasm imagined to be the "Republican electorate" and that all important fantasy "swing vote" (the "naaa, I dunno" crowd?). First off, is it really "success"?

"Most American commentators are so focused on the relative fall in casualties that they do not stop to consider how high the rates of violence remain."

Secondly, what is the real reason for the decrease in violence? Brutal ethnic cleansing, a Sunni-Shi'a civil war.

Although the "Sunni Awakening" has been rightly credited by Obama and others for helping reduce the "surge" in violence before the actual troop surge occurred, McCain's advisors and supporters, among others, are claiming that the surge provided on-the-ground support for that "Awakening" as well as implied "moral support", knowing that the U.S. would "be there" for them... But Juan Cole has another crucial point on this voodoo logic:

Proponents are awfully hard to pin down on what the "surge" consisted of or when it began. It seems to me to refer to the troop escalation that began in February 2007. But now the technique of bribing Sunni Arab former insurgents to fight radical Sunni vigilantes is being rolled into the "surge" by politicians such as McCain. But attempts to pay off the Sunnis to quiet down began months before the troop escalation and had a dramatic effect in al-Anbar Province long before any extra U.S. troops were sent to al-Anbar (nor were very many extra troops ever sent there). I will disallow it. The "surge" is the troop escalation that began in the winter of 2007. The bribing of insurgents to come into the cold could have been pursued without a significant troop escalation, and was.

And we have another issue:

For the first six months of the troop escalation, high rates of violence continued unabated. That is suspicious. What exactly were U.S. troops doing differently from September than they were doing in May, such that there was such a big change? The answer to that question is simply not clear. Note that the troop escalation only brought U.S. force strength up to what it had been in late 2005. In a country of 27 million, 30,000 extra U.S. troops are highly unlikely to have had a really major impact, when they had not before.

What the "Surge" really did was give the civil war away to the Shi'a. I'm sure Iran is shedding no tears over that, although I doubt anyone but the most callous would condone the way it went down.

As best I can piece it together, what actually seems to have happened was that the escalation troops began by disarming the Sunni Arabs in Baghdad. Once these Sunnis were left helpless, the Shiite militias came in at night and ethnically cleansed them. Shaab district near Adhamiya had been a mixed neighborhood. It ended up with almost no Sunnis. Baghdad in the course of 2007 went from 65 percent Shiite to at least 75 percent Shiite and maybe more. My thesis would be that the United States inadvertently allowed the chasing of hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs out of Baghdad (and many of them had to go all the way to Syria for refuge). Rates of violence declined once the ethnic cleansing was far advanced, just because there were fewer mixed neighborhoods.

CNN's Michael Ware seems to side with this view.

The sectarian cleansing of Baghdad has been — albeit tragic — one of the key elements to the drop in sectarian violence in the capital. […] It’s a very simple concept: Baghdad has been divided; segregated into Sunni and Shia enclaves. The days of mixed neighborhoods are gone. […] If anyone is telling you that the cleansing of Baghdad has not contributed to the fall in violence, then they either simply do not understand Baghdad or they are lying to you.

Does this contribute to Iraq's stability, one measure of real success?

The Shiitization of Baghdad was thus a significant cause of falling casualty rates. But it is another war waiting to happen, when the Sunnis come back to find Shiite militiamen in their living rooms.

As usual, non-military means could have been more effective had they been used earlier, more evidence that the "Surge" is and was not the path to success:

In al-Anbar Province, among the more violent in Iraq in earlier years, the bribing of former Sunni guerrillas to join U.S.-sponsored Awakening Councils had a big calming effect. This technique could have been used much earlier than 2006; indeed, it could have been deployed from 2003 and might have forestalled large numbers of deaths.

Other factors also contributed to the reduction in violence:

The Mahdi Army militia of Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr concluded a cease-fire with U.S. and Iraqi troops in September 2007. Since the United States had inadvertently enabled the transformation of Baghdad into a largely Shiite city, a prime aim of the Mahdi Army, they could afford to stand down.

This was a huge element in the "success" story. Not to mention economic factors unrelated to the surge.

The vast increase in Iraqi oil revenues in recent years, and the cancellation of much foreign debt, has made the central government more powerful vis-a-vis the society. Al-Maliki can afford to pay, train and equip many more police and soldiers. An Iraq with an unencumbered $75 billion in oil income begins to look more like Kuwait, and to be able to afford to buy off various constituencies. It is a different game than an Iraq with $33 billion in revenues, much of it precommitted to debt servicing.

And by what measure does McCain or anyone else claim that violence is now at "acceptable" levels, enough to be called "success"?

I'd suggest some comparisons. The Sri Lankan civil war between Sinhalese and Tamils has killed an average of 233 persons a month since 1983 and is considered one of the world's major ongoing trouble spots. That is half the average monthly casualties in Iraq recently. In 2007, the conflict in Afghanistan killed an average of 550 persons a month. That is about the rate recently, according to official statistics, for Iraq. The death rate in 2006-2007 in Somalia was probably about 300 a month, or about half this year's average monthly rate in Iraq. Does anybody think Afghanistan or Somalia is calm?

The talk about the Surge is more propaganda exploiting the civil war that the U.S. helped inspire and prosecute, wittingly or unwittingly, than it is anything else, much less a "Success Story". The story of Iraq is a tragedy, and McCain doesn't even get it.

Dems Capitulate to Neocons' Spy Bill: New Fisa Bill Gets W Off Hook

According to this article in Alternet entitled "Dems Have Legalized Bush's War Crimes", some of the real story behind the new FISA bill and its passage is detailed:

It wasn't that Bush and his team didn't understand the old law's language;
they simply believed they could violate the law without consequence, under the radical theory that at a time of war -- even one as vaguely defined as
the "war on terror" -- the President's powers trump all laws as well as the
constitutional rights of citizens.
Essentially, Bush was betting that even if his warrantless wiretap program was disclosed -- as it was in December 2005 -- that he could trust his Republican congressional allies to protect him and could count on most Democrats not to have the guts to challenge him.
His bet proved to be a smart one. After the New York Times revealed the warrantless wiretaps two and a half years ago, Congress took no steps to hold Bush accountable. Before the 2006 elections, Pelosi declared that Bush's impeachment was "off the table."

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin, a strong constitutionalist, termed the
new bill "not a compromise; it is a capitulation."
One of the bill's illusions would seem to be that the precedent of a President ignoring the FISA law and escaping any accountability can somehow be negated by restating what the original, violated law had declared.
In her June 20 floor statement, Pelosi said in her view this was a crucial feature of the bill, the statement that the President cannot ignore the FISA law again. However, Pelosi's position sounded like the words of an indulgent parent of a spoiled child: "This time I really mean it!"

Pelosi, she of the "impeachment is off the table" and other disasters, doesn't have the courage to face a criminal administration with consequences. Now the Imperial Presidency is clinched. Let's hope McCain doesn't get the imperial crown, or we may lose our Constitution forever. Oh, and with a flag pin placed ceremoniously on the grave.

Wow! Rumsfeld on Tape Says Americans Need "Another 9-11" To Get Them On the "Right" Track

Conspiracy Theorists, rejoice! Harry Reid and Joe Biden, here's vindication! After the Republican Revolution fizzled in 2006, Secy of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is caught on tape saying:

This President's pretty much a victim of success. We haven't had an attack in
five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not
surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same
thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I
suppose, is an attack.

Which means, of course, another 9/11... Jason Linkins reports here on Huffpost:

An ongoing exploration of the documents related to the Pentagon's "message
force multipliers" program has unearthed a clip of former Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld suggesting that America, having voted the Democrats back into
Congressional power, could benefit from suffering another terrorist attack, and
doing so in the presence of the very same military analysts who went on to
provide commentary and analysis of the Iraq War.
As documented by Newsvine, it all went down at a valedictory luncheon Rumsfeld
hosted for those analysts on December 12, 2006.

The comments from Newsvine also reveal:

...while the USA is involved in asymmetric warfare, we can't lose
militarily--but we can't win militarily, either.

and this gem, where an analyst says to Rumsfeld:

Iraq needs a Syngman Rhee. Rhee, if you are unaware, was the ruthless authoritarian dictator of South Korea from after World War II through the Korean War to 1960. Yeah, he was a son of @!$%#, but he was our son of a @!$%#, to borrow a phrase Franklin Roosevelt said of Somoza. Well, well, well. So much for "democracy," huh? But the special treat in this little clip--before Rumsfeld wistfully closes by bemoaning the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki is "no Syngman Rhee"--is the way Rumsfeld utterly trashes Maliki's predecessor Ibrahim al-Jaafari,
calling him a "wind sock."

And it goes on:

The kicker in this clip is at the very end where he insults the American people
for "weakened will" as he praises the Iraqi insurgents for being a "hellava lot
more skillful" at influencing the American public than is the Bush
Administration.

This is the perfect description of the Republican concept of "influence" and "argument": it's all about the military solution.

Now will someone ever proclaim loudly that it takes a helluva lot more taxes and spends a helluva lot more government money and makes a helluva Bigger Government to solve everything by war and by promoting "security" via more guns, less education, less health care, less social investment, less diplomacy??? So who's about lying, taxing, spending ... and killing? It feeds into the conspiracy theory that 9-11 was a plot to get people to follow the Republican line.

That may be absurd, but everything's possible when there's no conscience evident. And where is it? Where's the conscience?