Friday, December 15, 2017
  Home
RSS Feed
Facebook
Twitter
Search:
Media Analyses
Journalists
Middle East Issues
Christian Issues
Names In The News
CAMERA Authors
Headlines & Photos
Errors & Corrections
Film Reviews
CAMERA Publications
Film Suggestions
Be An Activist
Adopt A Library
History of CAMERA
About CAMERA
Join/Contribute
Contact CAMERA
Contact The Media
Privacy Policy
 
Media Analyses





C-SPAN November – December 2013


Send your comments about C-SPAN's platform for the defamation of Israel and Jews to CAMERA:  
c-span-watch@camera.org
 

December 30, 2013 – 7:25 AM

Host: PAUL ORGEL (porgel@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org)

Topic: Biggest political loser in 2013?

Caller: John from Paris, France (click here to view).

[Washington Journal here provides a Palestinian Arab propaganda international platform for a Paris caller encouraged by host Orgel to defame Israel in a 2.5 minute diatribe.]

Caller: “Good morning, bonjour and I will add ‘sabah el kheer' which is Arabic for ‘good morning.' I'm phoning because I've been following a little bit your conversations, your callers and I believe the unemployed and the voters are the big losers. But I'm thinking more from the international stage and scene. I really think that the U.S. as a whole is the big loser internationally simply because of the weak role that it is playing in so many areas. In the Middle East, in particular, where I have lived and been very often, in Egypt in particular but also in the peace talks between Palestine [Sic.] and Israel. And I think really the U.S. is losing despite that Secretary Kerry has been making huge efforts, but unfortunately the odds are against a peaceful settlement because of the uneven balance between information coming out of Palestine and out of Israel.”

Host: “What are you looking for? What are you expecting from the United States moving forward?”

Caller: “I would expect – first of all that there should be better information flow from the occupied Palestinian territories to the U.S. and from Palestinians elsewhere to the U.S. so that the voice of the Palestinians could be better heard in the U.S. Therefore, if that were possible, then Secretary Kerry could hold a firmer line with Israel in terms of things like, well, all kinds of rights that are denied in that region in terms of – well, everything – land, air and water are the three big things but also things like just political rights. So those rights are difficult to uphold when the Palestinians' situation is not being heard, I would say, by the American public and, therefore, it's not being supported by the administration in its talks with the different partners in the Middle East.”

Host: “Thanks for checking in, John, calling from Paris; France this morning – international caller there.”

NOTE: First, there is no such place as “Palestine” and there has never been a nation of Palestine. Moreover, the caller's false allegation – about Palestinian Arab “information” complaints not being communicated to Americans – is characteristically readily accepted by the C-SPAN host. The allegation is largely nonsense because major newspapers (and several news magazines) including the “newspaper of record” – the New York Times – and major wire services – employ Arab (usually Palestinian) correspondents onsite to regularly report detailed information including complaints about Israel from Palestinian Arab leaders and ordinary residents. Most of the television news networks do likewise, especially Al-Jazeera America which is virtually a Palestinian Arab propaganda outlet when it airs news reports from Israel and the Palestinian Arab territories (see CAMERA's Web feature “Al-Jazeera America Watch”).

Caller John's canard about Israel's denial of Palestinian Arab rights, like other anti-Israel propaganda from Journal's cadre of anti-Israel callers, can always be counted on to be aired unchallenged by C-SPAN except on the exceedingly rare occasion when an informed unbiased guest is present.

December 26, 2013 – 7:11 AM

Host: PETER SLEN (pslen@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Is the U.S. a police state or becoming one?

Caller: Patrick from Carnegie, Pennsylvania (click here to view).
 
[This conspiracy mongering repeat caller is allowed a lengthy rant in which he vilifies Israel as he has done in previous calls (see NOTE). Lunatic fringe callers such as “Patrick” are routinely indulged on Washington Journal.]

Caller: “Not only is the United States creating a police state, but we note the acquisition of over two billion bullets by Homeland Security and 3000 Armored vehicles by Homeland Security. It is the modern version of the Gestapo. The American people are looking at a new form of totalitarianism that is compartmentalized, that is corporatized, in order to make it blameless to say that one arm does not know what the other arm is doing. And yet, the concentration camps are being built and the American people are going to be placed in them when they choreograph yet another false flag operation on this country. I can tell you that the corporate ties direction begins and ends with the state of Israel and the ...”

Host (belatedly terminating caller's rant): “That is Patrick in Carnegie, Pennsylvania.”

NOTE: Most of the dozen or so callers in this segment represent the lunatic fringe – especially “Patrick” and two others blaming Israel – obsessed with conspiracy theories. C-SPAN continues to cater to this type – possibly aiming at boosting or maintaining audience ratings – to the detriment of its ostensible mission “to provide public access to the political process” and implicit mission to enhance the public discourse. Nearly all these callers stated that they believe America is becoming or is already a police state. One caller stated that “unmanned drones in the air track our movements.” The chronic journalistic malpractice characterizing Washington Journal is particularly indicated by the callers here when naming who are what they condemn for triggering what they believe to be the evolving of the United States into a police state. Did any caller in this segment condemn Al-Qaeda, jihadists, Muslims, Islamists, Afghanistan Taliban? No. Irrationally condemned was Israel – Only Israel.
 
Caller, “Patrick,” phoned in at least twice previously in which he claimed that. Israel controls the United States. On Sept. 24, 2013 host Echevarria indulged at length and even encouraged “Patrick” (click here to view). On Nov. 22, 2012 this same host, Peter Slen, neither interrupted nor challenged Patrick's lengthy diatribe (click here to view).

December 26, 2013 – 7:19 AM

Host: PETER SLEN (pslen@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Is the U.S. a police state or becoming one?

Caller: Daniel from Vancouver, Washington (click here to view).

[Caller Daniel accuses Israel of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks despite overwhelming evidence that the perpetrators were terrorists from the Islamist terrorist group Al-Qaeda.]

Caller: “Yes, we are becoming a police state. Let's take a walk backwards to see how this happened. 9/11 was the trigger that set us on this path. It is interesting that Senator Wyden from Oregon was just on the air discussing the fact that there has been no discussion of public input into the state of affairs that we are faced with today. 9/11 happened because Israel …”

Host (interrupting): “What does this have to do with Israel?”

Caller: “We were attacked by Israel on 9/11…”

Host (interrupting): “Alright, we'll let Daniel go. He is one of the ‘9/11 Truthers' [activists who condemn the generally accepted explanation of the attacks, especially as to the cause of the World Trade Center 7 collapse on September 11, 2001, tending to blame Jews and Israel]. That is not what we are talking about this morning. Back to the question, do we live in a police state?”
 
NOTE: The official United States government 9/11 commission report highlights the primary reason for Al-Qaeda's Sept. 11, 2001 destruction of New York City's World Trade Center and strike at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.: Osama bin Laden's hostility to the United States and West was mainly driven by Islamic extremism, his obsession with ousting "un-Islamic" regimes in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, desire to re-establish an international Sunni Islamic caliphate, and, in essence, bin Laden's Islamic superiority complex.
 
December 26, 2013 – 7:26 AM

Host: PETER SLEN (pslen@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Is the U.S. a police state or becoming one?

Caller: Tony from District Heights, Maryland (click here to view).

[Conspiracy mongering caller “Tony” spins unchallenged disinformation and lies.]

Caller: “Yes, I believe this country is becoming a police state. You are kind of like a prime example of that in a minor way sir. Because I noticed while listening that you like to cut callers off that have an opinion about why it is becoming a police state when it comes to the issue of 9/11 and Israel. You give them half a second on 9/11, but you won't give them any time if they mention Israel and it is a shame. Now, let me tell you something else. Terrorism is a business folks and that's just the way it is. It's like war. It is a never ending war. But a lot of companies are making money off of terrorism, especially in the Defense Department. It is a lifestyle for the rich and famous. Some die with a name, some die nameless.”

Host: “That is Tony in District Heights, Maryland.”

NOTE: Caller alleges wrongly that Washington Journal doesn't allow callers to impugn Israel. The opposite is true as CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch has documented continuously since November 2008.

December 19, 2013 – 7:21 AM

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@eenews.net, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org). Guest host McArdle is a reporter for E & E Publishing which is mainly concerned with energy and climate policy.

Guest: SUDEEP REDDY, Wall Street Journal economics reporter.

Topic: Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke's legacy – your thoughts?

Caller: Rick from Louisville, Ohio (click here to view).

“Ranting Rick” is a Washington Journal conspiracy theorist serial caller who advocates violent (apparently) revolution in America and uses economic gobbledygook in casting blame on the Jewish people. “Rick” has made several previous calls all enabled by a Journal host (see below in the NOTE).

Caller: “To understand this, let's go back to our constitution. Our forefathers wrote that a corrupt banking system was more of a threat to our country than a freestanding army. I'm 55 years old. I grew up in Detroit. I watched – I grew up when there was a banking system that was not corrupted. The beginning of this is Ronald Reagan. You can look at the Treasury. When I was growing up – when you go back to the 1930's, the Treasury Department issued bonds. What they would do – that is how the Hoover Dam was built. This Treasury Department actually manipulates 1000 trillion dollars worth of derivatives and from the derivatives it actually creates 75 percent of our GDP. Now also what this Treasury does – it quadruples the price of oil. So, you got the 250 billion barrels of oil that are contained around the world. You triple the price of that. You leverage it 30 times. And you buy bonds with that oil money to bring interest rates to zero and then you take the China trade – now, we have a deficit with China, they have a surplus. China sends that surplus to the Treasury and they buy bonds to run down interest rates. Now finally, the …”

Host (interrupting the lengthy rant to encourage caller in another direction): “Now, let me jump in and ask you – the way the Fed [Federal Reserve Bank] has been run now, you are fairly concerned about it. What do you think about the future of the Fed? What do you think about the possibility of a [Janet] Yellen chairmanship?”

Caller: “Well, we have to have a revolution in this country. Now, this is where the freedom of speech and the freedom of press comes in with the Fed and the Treasury. The Jews! These are the Jews that run ...”

Host: “Now Rick, I will cut you off there. Sudeep Reddy, I want to go to you on the Janet Yellen question. She was brought up in this press conference yesterday. How much role did she have to play in this decision that was announced by the chairman yesterday?”

[Guest's comments did not involve either the caller's economic “points” or caller's defamation of the Jewish people.]

NOTE: The use of a ten second delay mechanism, standard for a majority of call-in shows, could have been useful here as well as for this ranter's previous calls involving gibberish and antisemitism (the only ethnic/religious group he defames are Jews): April 28, 2013 (click here to view), March 1, 2013 (click here to view), Dec. 31, 2012 (click here to view), and May 3, 2012 (click here to view).

Typically for Washington Journal's cadre of antisemitic callers, “Rick” deceives regarding his own identity (although less so than the other such dedicated obsessive callers). “Rick” has always been “Rick” except when he was “Mark” (Dec. 31, 2012) and he's been from either Louisville or Canton Ohio. C-SPAN remains remarkably consistent in failing to challenge this deception as well as that of the antisemitism of such callers.

December 10, 2013 – 7:20 AM

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@eenews.net, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org). Guest host McArdle is a reporter for E & E Publishing which is mainly concerned with energy and climate policy.

Topic: Should unemployment benefits be extended?

Caller: Darrell from Defiance, Missouri (click here to view).

[A Washington Journal host typically indulges and encourages this off-topic, lunatic fringe, frequent caller who invariably focuses his huge reservoir of wrath upon America's policies and the Jewish nation. Responsible handling of such callers requires C-SPAN hosts to repudiate or at least seriously challenge such callers rather than outrageously according them unmerited respectability.]

Caller: “We ought to extend unemployment benefits for the unemployed and we can start by cutting the foreign aid to the apartheid state Israel. I think that would be a good start. Also, we can look into this war on Iraq that has cost $1 trillion brought on by George Bush and Congress. They are a do-nothing congress. They vote all the time for killing people but when Americans need help, they are nowhere to be found. But they're all millionaires so why would they care.”

Host: “Darrell, you are of the mindset that the foreign money spending is a place to find money to fund this sort of extension?”

Caller: “Yes, especially to the apartheid state of Israel. Jimmy Carter called it right. That's what it is. They are building walls with my tax dollars. Why would I want to send money to Israel?”

Host: “That's Darrell from Defiance, Missouri.”

[Host has nothing more to say relating to the caller.]

NOTE: The caller's anti-Israel sound bite not withstanding, the often heard apartheid slur against Israel is based at least partially on the erection of Israel's security barrier to keep citizens safe from terrorists. But there are separation barriers  all over the world yet only Israel's security barrier is criticized. Historian Richard Landes (Department of History Boston University) has succinctly stated why the term “Israeli apartheid” is propaganda: “… traditional Arab-Muslim society has much in common with South African apartheid, substituting religion for skin color/biological race, as in South Africa. The apartheid paradigm has never fit Israel which has Arab members of Knesset, an Arab minister, an Arab on the Supreme Court, and where Arabs can ride public transportation with Jews [how did the suicide bombers get on the buses], sit with Jews in restaurants, go to university with Jews, etc. In South Africa, by contrast, there were separate trolley cars for Blacks, no Blacks with equal voting rights in parliament or on the Supreme Court, etc. The very charge of ‘apartheid' against Israel is not merely a lie but a lie with genocidal purposes.”

Caller mentions promoter of the apartheid-slur Jimmy Carter. But even he admitted on CNN: "I recognize that Israel is a wonderful democracy with freedom of speech and equality of treatment under the law between Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis.”

Caller's nonsense demanding “cutting foreign aid” to Israel as a start in extending “unemployment benefits for the unemployed” is of course typically accepted by C-SPAN. No one tells C-SPAN viewers of the mutually beneficial relationship between America and Israel. At least three points are relevant here. First, financial (military only) aid to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Second, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid (which totals $3 billion per year) in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Third, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals.

Caller “Darrell” has also identified himself in past years as "Bill" or "Bob." His most recent anti-Israel call was on June 16, 2013 (7:19 AM) (click here to view). Darrell's calls go back to at least Sept. 2009 and include: Apr. 16, 2013 (7:04 AM) Darrell from St. Louis, Missouri (click here to view); Jan. 13, 2013 (8:40 AM) Darrell from Defiance, Missouri (click here to listen); Jan. 8, 2013 (7:04 AM) Darrell from Missouri (click here to listen); Nov. 21, 2012 (7:34 AM) as Darrell from Defiance, Missouri (click here to listen); April 15, 2012 (7:36 AM) as Darrell from St. Charles, Missouri (click here to listen); Feb. 5, 2012 (7:19 AM) as Bill from Defiance, Missouri (click here to listen); Oct. 21, 2011 (7:16 AM) as Bill from St. Louis (click here to listen); Oct. 12, 2011 (7:19 AM) as Bill, Sept. 21, 2011 (7:06 AM) as Bill, May 19, 2011 (7:15 AM) as Darrell, May 2, 2011 (9:18 AM) as Bill, March 18, 2011 (7:30 AM) as Bob, Feb. 26, 2011 (7:16 AM) as Bill, Feb. 1, 2011 (7:21 AM) as Darrell; and so on back to Sept. 30, 2009 (8:21 AM) as Darrell from St. Louis (click here to listen).
 
December 10, 2013 – 7:43 AM

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@eenews.net, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org). Guest host McArdle is a reporter for E & E Publishing which is mainly concerned with energy and climate policy.

Topic: Should unemployment benefits be extended?

Caller: Emile from Laurel, Maryland (click here to view).

[In another case of Washington Journal's chronic journalistic malpractice, host typically indulges uninformed, biased caller who absurdly claims that financial assistance to Israel deprives needy Americans of financial help.]

Caller: “Thank you for taking my call and thank you C-SPAN. That is the only place that we can state our opinion. My opinion is that we need efficiency, efficiency, efficiency. There is so much waste in every part of the government organization. It doesn't matter what it is. If they take those, it is going to be surplus in the budget. It is not going to be deficit. There is no way for me to accept handout. If you are unemployed, you look for work. You have pride as a human being. If they pay you less, take the less. It is better than taking the handout away from the people that need it most. On the foreign aid, some of the callers mentioned Israel [just one other caller, Darrell, mentioned Israel in this broadcast]. I want to let you know that the Jewish people hate that. That is the government of Israel which are taking that and putting that in their pocket.”

Host: “In other words, you're saying that some of the money the United States is spending on foreign aid to different countries should be spent here at home to extend unemployment insurance benefits. Do you think that is a good route to go, Emile?”

Caller: “That is a copout because United States as a super power has to have some helping hand. It doesn't have to all go to Israel. It has to go somewhere to the people because they need it too. But the efficiency -- if they go to a welfare department, to the State Department, to the Defense Department, you will see that these people are charging $100 for a meal which costs $.50 and nobody is overseeing it.”

Host: “Emile from Laurel, Maryland.”

[Host has nothing more to say relating to the caller.]

NOTE: A refutation of this caller's absurd notion about aid to Israel is contained in the NOTE for the prior caller (“Darrell from Defiance, Missouri”).

December 7, 2013 – 8:00 AM

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ROBERT ZARATE, Foreign Policy Initiative policy director (FPI is a non-partisan, non-profit organization “that educates and engages U.S. decision makers, journalists, and the public … in matters of security, diplomacy, international trade, and human rights and democracy promotion.”).

Topic: Obama administration foreign policy challenges.

Caller: Jim from Marina del Rey, California (click here to view).

[“Jim” is actually Washington Journal notorious anti-Israel frequent caller James Morris allowed here yet again to violate C-SPAN's ostensible and fecklessly enforced one-call-per-30-days rule (he called on Dec. 6). Morris' 68 Journal (mostly indulged) calls monitored by CAMERA and documented since Nov. 2008 feature his obsessively spewed anti-Israel falsehoods and distortions about America's policies. Refer to the Dec. 6 entry below for more on Morris' dossier.]

Caller (James Morris): “[Guest] Robert Zarate is with the neocon Zionist think tank that pushed us into war with Iraq for Israel and now wants the same for Iran. Go to [names an anti-Israel propaganda Web site featuring contributions from Morris] and we got attacked (indistinct) because of support for Israel.”

Guest: “Well Jim, thank you for your comment. I am a former U.S. Congressional staffer and I actually take personal offense from you that I put any foreign country's interest over U.S. interest. It is easy to smear someone. I am trying to engage people on the issues. I encourage you to call back at some point and actually ask a substantial question, but thank you for your call.”

December 6, 2013 – 7:09 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Nelson Mandela's legacy.

Caller: John from Los Angeles, California (click here to view).

[“John” is actually Washington Journal notorious anti-Israel frequent caller James Morris misusing a segment devoted to honoring the memory of South Africa's Nelson Mandela.]

Caller (James Morris): “Thank you for taking my call. You can go to [names an anti-Israel propaganda Web site featuring contributions from Morris]. Nelson Mandela was also against Israeli apartheid.”

[Call ended at this point – host Scully, without comment, apparently cut Morris off  – possibly recognizing his distinctive voice and phrasing – but not before he was able to inject his mendacious sound bite. But nearly all of Morris' dozens of previous calls were indulged ad nauseam by Washington Journal hosts.]

NOTE: The apartheid slur against Israel is based at least partially on the erection of Israel's security barrier to keep citizens safe from terrorists. But there are separation barriers all over the world yet only Israel's security barrier is criticized. Historian Richard Landes  (Department of History Boston University) has succinctly stated why the term “Israeli apartheid” is propaganda: “… traditional Arab-Muslim society has much in common with South African apartheid, substituting religion for skin color/biological race, as in South Africa. The apartheid paradigm has never fit Israel which has Arab members of Knesset, an Arab minister, an Arab on the Supreme Court, and where Arabs can ride public transportation with Jews [how did the suicide bombers get on the buses], sit with Jews in restaurants, go to university with Jews, etc. In South Africa, by contrast, there were separate trolley cars for Blacks, no Blacks with equal voting rights in parliament or on the Supreme Court, etc. The very charge of ‘apartheid' against Israel is not merely a lie but a lie with genocidal purposes.”
 
Perhaps Nelson Mandela has an undeserved reputation for being anti-Israel. It is apparently based at least partially on an incident when questioned by a Jewish student at the University of Wittwatersrand about ties between his African National Congress' and Libya, Cuba and Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization – when the PLO was still one of the world's leading terrorist groups. President Mandela replied: "Your enemies are not my enemies .... We will continue to determine our attitudes to any country, toward anyone, on the basis of their attitude toward our own struggle." But in fact Mandela had Jewish allies  in South Africa and elsewhere, allied with Israel, in opposition to apartheid. Mandela said in an Oct. 18, 1999 speech that "I owe a debt of honor to the Jews," he may have been thinking about Helen Suzman, the Jewish anti-apartheid activist and South African parliamentarian. So, whatever were Mandela's views about Israel it's likely he was double-minded just as is promoter of the apartheid-slur Jimmy Carter who admitted on CNN:  "I recognize that Israel is a wonderful democracy with freedom of speech and equality of treatment under the law between Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis.”

CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch" Website feature has documented 67 calls to Journal by Morris since November 2008 in which he has obsessively spewed anti-Israel falsehoods and distortions and invariably misled about America's policies. Usually, Morris parrots what amounts to the Iranian propaganda line (he has been cited approvingly by Iran's Press TV, an official government mouth-piece). He last called in as John from Canyon Country, California on Sept. 9, 2013 (click here to view).

Previously he had phoned on Sept. 2, 2013 as “Tim” (click here to view), on May 27, 2013 as “Tony” (click here to view) and on April 22, 2013 as "James" (click here to view). Morris' previous calls (with very few exceptions each has been anti-Israel, anti-America, pro-Iran) to Washington Journal since December 2008 are chronicled. Morris' Iran connection is indicated by the government-funded propaganda Website, which refers to Morris as a “Los Angeles-based political analyst” in a propaganda video (posted May 23, 2011) featuring Morris (includes his photo).

December 4, 2013 – 8:50 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: Congressman DUNCAN HUNTER (R-California) Armed Services Committee member.

Topic: Deal on Iran nuclear program.

Caller: Kristen from Oklahoma (click here to view).
 
[Caller is uninformed and is antagonistic towards Israel.]

Caller: “First of all, I cannot believe that this gentleman, who was lied to when he went to Iraq, is not more upset about Bush and his administration sending and killing 2,300 of our soldiers. Spending trillions of dollars and bankrupting us. Also, think about the thousands of soldiers coming back maimed. But this guy wants to talk about let's not give peace a chance. Talk to your buddy [Congressman Darrell] Issa (R-California) and find out why the Bush administration sent you over there without the proper body armor. Look at what the Republicans had done to the Middle East in the last ten years. Another thing, like my brother said the other day, you always say Israel is our closest ally. How many Israeli soldiers died in the Afghanistan war? How many Israeli soldiers died when you were over there fighting in Iraq? We talk about Israel this, Israel that. Israel would not join our Coalition. You're making fun of President Obama; he cannot have anybody follow or get in the Coalition. If Israel were our ally they should have been the first ones with the Coalition.”

Guest: “With Israel, we do not want them in our coalition. There are some problems between Israel and Palestine [Sic.]. It would make things more complex and we would not have been able to get a lot of our partners and allies that we got in Iraq and Afghanistan if Israel had been part of that. They understand that. Israel helped us with intelligence and other things. Putting them in the Coalition ground in these countries -- putting them in this Coalition and having Israeli boots on the ground would have done more harm in these countries. President Bush did not kill any … We went to Iraq for the right reasons. We know now that [Syria's] Assad has used these chemical weapons that Iraq had. They went straight to Syria. We went in there for the right reasons. We underestimated what we needed to do after the initial attack. And after taking over the entire country, what it would take to build it again. I did two tours in Iraq. A lot of my marine brothers lost their lives or came back wounded. Because of this president, we do not have a military presence in Iraq. Iran is unchecked, Syria is unchecked; the ten years we have spent in Iraq -- we do not have anything to show for it. This president wandered what our military did for ten long years.”

NOTE: Guest's remarks concerning Israel were appropriate. Callers' (such as Kristen) animosity toward Israel comes mostly from within themselves and is essentially entirely unrelated to anything Israel does. Therefore, they will grab onto any presumed talking point that might seem to further their obsessive need to defame the Jewish nation. Such a point is the absence of Israeli troops in the Coalition. The reality of this matter, however, is that Israel offered troops for the first Gulf war and subsequent Middle East military efforts but the United States (and the Coalition) refused since the presence of Israeli forces would have inflamed Muslim sensibilities. However, the offers of Israeli sea port and hospital facilities have been accepted and utilized as needed.

December 4, 2013 – 8:58 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: Congressman DUNCAN HUNTER (R-California) Armed Services Committee member.

Topic: Deal on Iran nuclear program.

Caller: Milo from Jefferson, Iowa (click here to view).

[Caller is a rarity for Washington Journal Middle East discussions – not negative towards Israel.]

Caller: “I am honored to speak with you. I have a problem with the manner that we are negotiating with these people. It is in a secular way. I do not think a lot of people understand that the Iranians -- their negotiations are in a radical, religious way. A lot of people do not understand that to them it is honorable and heroic to successfully lie and deceive the infidel, which is us, and the Zionists, which is the Israelis. We are naive to think that they do they do not understand what they are doing is actually deceiving us. And totally -- their whole idea through their religion is to destroy us.”

Host: “We will have you respond to that. What about negotiating in a religious way?”

Guest: “He is right to a great extent. The Iranians have said we are the great evil and they're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. In the Middle Eastern culture, it is looked upon with high regard to get the best deal possible no matter what it takes, that includes lying. That is one reason the Gulf states like to work with the U.S. because we are honest and transparent. They like doing business with us as opposed to their partners or even the communist Chinese. They like doing business with people that are honest and transparent. That is an underpinning to these negotiations. Once again, if you are willing to blow yourself up and commit suicide in order to blow up other people, you are not a rational person. That is what you are dealing with when you are dealing with the Iranians.”

Host: “You are saying that all Middle Eastern countries are this way?”

Guest: “It is part of the Middle Eastern culture to get the best deal that you can, whether you are in the marketplace, haggling over a deal, or whatever, yes, this is part of the Middle Eastern culture. Try going into a store here and try to barter for your food, but they still do that in the Middle East. The shop owner will say whatever he or she has to in order to sell something. People barter back and forth and try to get the best deal for each other. Iran is the epitome of that. They have lied over and over. They are liars. The Arabian government run lies all the time. Why trust them now?”

Host: “Are you speaking from personal experience?”

Guest: “I know this is a big generalization. They do business different than we do business in the west. They have markets, they like to barter, they like to do whatever they can, say whatever they can to get the best deal.”

December 4, 2013 – 9:04 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: Congressman DUNCAN HUNTER (R-California) Armed Services Committee member.

Topic: Deal on Iran nuclear program.

Host: Tracy from Minneapolis, Minnesota (click here to view).

[Caller inverts reality in blaming U.S. and Israeli policies for Middle East problems while absolving, by implication, Middle East Islamic states.]

Caller: “With all due respect, Mr. Hunter, it sounds like you want to wipe Iran off the face of the earth. You talked about having a nuclear free Middle East except for Israel. I think that is a double standard that is causing a lot of problems. Maybe we should get rid of Israel's nuclear weapons first and start from there. That is my opinion, but that is not exactly why I am calling. I noticed that a lot of these countries decide to sell their oil in other currencies and get off the petrodollar. The immediate drum roll of this is that they are terrorists, rogue states. I could be wrong, tell me why I'm wrong. It just seems really common sense to me to see that, to see the exchange of oil, you immediately go in there, we bomb and take over the central government and get them back on the petrodollar.”

Guest: “I do not quite understand the last part of your question, sorry. You say that when countries try to get off oil production, America goes in and bombs them and sets them back up?”

Host: “By selling oil in another currency rather than U.S. dollars, then the United States has an issue with it. That is what I got from it.”

Guest: “I have no idea. When it comes to Israel, Israel has not threatened anyone. They do not say they are going to threaten anyone by wiping them off the face of the earth, no suicide bombings, they have not tried to attack Americans on American soil. Iran has done all of these things. Israel has not done any of these things. You cannot look at Germany, the United States, France, Israel, many of these free, transparent Western democracies and compare us with Iran. It does not work that way and I do not work that way. You have good actors and bad actors and you can see by people's actions over and over again if they are good people or bad people, good nations or bad nations. You have to be a realist and say -- we are not all the same, there are good countries and there are bad countries. Once again, if Iran came forward and said they were going to stop at all today, no more centrifuges spinning, you can come in and look at every single thing that we have, we will be totally open, totally transparent, that is fantastic. That is the greatest thing in the world and everyone would be happy to see that, but that is not what is happening here. I would say to the people watching, do not the confused with what the administration would like you to believe about this deal and the reality of it. They are not giving up nuclear reactors, they are not opening up their country and saying come on in, we will prove to you we …”

NOTE: Guest's remarks are appropriate. Caller's problem with “Israel's [purported] nuclear weapons” is often cited by Israel's enemies in order to mislead and distract from the relevant issues. Israel has never threatened to annihilate other states as, for example, Iran has threatened to destroy Israel. Israel's purported nuclear weapons role, for deterrence in the volatile Middle East, is analogous to the role of America's nuclear weapons role in keeping the Cold War with the Soviet Union from turning hot. Israel, a close ally, consults with the United States on defense matters, including concerning threats from Iran, Hezbullah or Hamas. Israel has not participated in the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to other countries as have Pakistan, China, North Korea and, reportedly, Iran.

December 2, 2013 – 8:19 AM

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@eenews.net, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org). Guest host McArdle is a reporter for E & E Publishing which is mainly concerned with energy and climate policy.

Guest: SCOTT WILSON, Washington Post White House bureau chief.

Topic: President Obama's second term.

Caller: Rachel from California (click here to view).

[“Rachel” is a habitually indulged lunatic fringe caller to C-SPAN's Washington Journal. She obsessively has conveyed anti-Israel, anti-Jewish distortions and lies using aliases (27 different names) in 39 calls potentially heard by millions of viewers (C-SPAN claims 28 million weekly viewers) as monitored by CAMERA since December 2008 in which her distinctive voice and repetitive phrasing has been heard.]

Caller: “Thank you for taking my call. The only place I really get my news is from RT [Russia Today] or PressTV on presstv.com [Iran's Press TV and RT are government-directed propaganda operations. That the C-SPAN host fails to point this out amounts to journalistic dereliction of duty.] I am an independent now but I used to be a diehard Republican but my priorities have changed seeing as how the country has changed its foreign policy.

I thought at least Obama, even though I voted third party after Ron Paul and after what Republicans did to Ron Paul at the convention was just totally disgusting, I left the Party because their priority is – you know, the neocons took over Republican party, which is a Jewish movement. AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] controls our foreign policy and Obama is still being led by the nose by AIPAC and [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and they run our Congress – and it is horrible.”

NOTE: The failure of either host or guest to rebut or at least question caller's falsehood filled anti-Jewish tirade is inexcusable. Iran's Press TV and Russia's RT are her news sources yet host and guest take the call seriously? The Republican Party "is a Jewish movement"? President Obama is "led by the nose by AIPAC" – which under pressure disappointed many of its friends in Congress by supporting the administration's about-face on Syria's chemical weapons? AIPAC and Israel "run our Congress," which took years to impose biting sanctions on Iran despite the urging of the committee and various Israeli governments? These are antisemitic, lunatic charges and yet host and guest treat the caller as credible. But this comes as no surprise given Washington Journal's chronic journalistic malpractice pertaining to defamation of Jews and Israel – and guest Wilson's occasionally problematic Middle East reporting, such as here, here and here.

Host: “Scott Wilson, who do you think are the big influencers on this White House, outside of the political realm?”

Wilson: “To Rachel's point on AIPAC and Netanyahu, they are of course in strong opposition to Obama at the moment on the Iran deal. So, whether or not in six months from now, where Obama is on that deal, will in some ways reveal how much pressure is being applied from some pro-Israel groups and the Israeli government. He [Obama] governs in a very insular way. That is a phrase used a lot. He keeps his own counsel. He listens to a small group of people. He pays attention to the Democratic Party base. He has been raising a lot of money for the midterm elections, which makes him responsive quite a bit to Democratic concerns. But he pays careful attention to Israel and its government and its powerful allies here. But a lot of that has to do with his own ideology and the importance he places on Israel's security. But I am not sure the influences are overstated or bigger than its [indistinct]. At the same time, it is an important part of the way he thinks about Iran and how he'll think about it going forward.”

NOTE: Caller, in her numerous calls, has habitually and massively exaggerated the extent of Israel's power and influence. Such behavior is a classic psychological marker of the antisemitic bigot. Rachel often rails against alleged Israel's cynicism regarding not trusting Iran's leadership. But cynicism here is obviously prudent in view of Iran's record of deceit regarding its nuclear intentions as spearheaded by even ostensibly "moderate" leaders such as President Hassan Rouhani as former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, has pointed out.

Nevertheless, host and caller indulge "Rachel." With the cooperation of guest and host, caller freely impugns AIPAC which is is not a political action committee. It is not a foreign agent. It is not financed through political action committees nor does it act like a political action committee. It does not make political donations. It is a domestic U.S. lobby that supports close U.S.-Israel ties. Examples of AIPAC opposition defeating a major American Middle East policy initiative are virtually non-existent. The organization's influence primarily is due to its presentation of facts to political leaders and the fact that a large majority of the American public, according to numerous polls, sides with Israel in its conflict with Arab neighbors. AIPAC may be one of the most influential foreign policy lobbies, but bigger groups with clout on broader legislation would include, for example, the American Association of Retired Persons, the Catholic Church in America, labor unions and the dairy lobby or the National Rifle Association.

An example of a lobbying heavy-weight that is rarely if ever brought up in a C-SPAN Washington Journal discussion, is the petro-dollar funded pro-Arab lobby, whose influence is felt not only on Capitol Hill, the State Department and Pentagon, through multi-billion dollar weapons purchases but also in academia, with large-scale grants to prominent universities, and in society in general through subsidies and material support to mosques, religious schools and advocacy groups. But Washington Journal hosts rarely deal with such substance when the subject is Israel and the Middle East, often instead tolerating and even encouraging anti-Jewish fantasists such as "Rachel."

This caller's "blame the Jews for everything" reflex recalls the slogan in Nazi Germany that "the Jews are our misfortune." Her most recent call was on Nov. 9, 2012 at 7:37 AM as “Batma from Valencia, California” (click here to view) and was also hosted by McArdle. Her previous most recent calls were on Sept. 26, 2012 at 7:24 AM as “Jody from Reseda, California” (click here to view) and on June 9, 2012 as “Rachel from Reseda, California” (click here to view).

A particularly feckless performance by C-SPAN involving this same caller was that of Journal host Paul Orgel who indulged her twice only 22 hours apart in January 2010 when she said virtually the same thing each time. Click here for a 3.5 minute video clip of Orgel indulging "Janet from Birmingham, Alabama” on January 1, 2010 at 9:51 AM and then again on January 2 at 7:50 AM with "Carol from Scottsville, Arizona.”

November 30, 2013 – 9:56 AM

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: KEVIN PERAINO, author of “Lincoln in the World: The Making of a Statesman and the Dawn of American Power.”

Topic: Lincoln, America, and World Power.

Caller: Joseph from Owensboro, Kentucky (click here to view).

[Caller is another of Washington Journal's numerous antisemitic conspiracy mongering callers.]

Caller: “Thanks for taking my call. Right after the Civil War, there was a Confederate general, the only one that had a statute made after him in Washington, by the name of Albert Pike. A letter was sent by him to Mazzini in Europe. That letter was found on a dead courier and it read about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion about their wanting to take over the world. If you look at that letter, everything in that letter has come to pass.”

Guest: “That's absurd. It's an absurd question [by caller] and I think we should pass on it.”

[No comment by host.]

NOTE: Guest Peraino properly characterizes caller's claim as “absurd.” The document known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is one of the most infamous works of modern antisemitism. The book, often promoted by those who blame the world's ills on Jews, is a notorious forgery from nineteenth century Russia. It drew on popular antisemitic notions and, despite being exposed as fraudulent, has been a touchstone for Jew-haters everywhere for more than a century. Caller's particular version involving Protocols seems to be referring to an alleged letter, often quoted on conspiracy mongering websites and forums, supposedly sent by Confederate military officer Albert Pike to Italian Freemason and revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzini.

This off-topic caller's promotion of the notorious forgery is a repeat of his Washington Journal June 23, 2013 (9:08 AM) call as “Kelly from Owensboro, Kentucky” (click here to view) when the topic was “The week ahead in Congress.” At that time neither host nor guest, as is the norm on Journal pertaining to antisemitic promotions, repudiated the promotion of the notorious forgery.

November 25, 2013 – 8:07 AM

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@eenews.net, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org). Guest host McArdle is a reporter for E & E Publishing which is mainly concerned with energy and climate policy.

Guest: TRITA PARSI, National Iranian American Council president.

Topic: Next steps in nuclear deal with Iran.

Caller: Jamie from Indianapolis, Indiana (click here to view).

[Response to anti-Israel caller fails to include mention significant problem of fanaticism of Iranian leadership's theological doomsday scenario.]

Caller: “I have been observing this for quite a while. One conclusion I have reached is that the zealousness and the hawkishness of the Israeli leader [Prime Minister] Netanyahu, it seems he would not be satisfied unless we invade Iran and occupy them to make sure that they don't have the things that he is worried about them having that some people say Israel already has and is not a part of any treaty to regulate their so-called nukes that they actually do have now. I do not really think that the United States has allowed Israel to have nukes because of their hawkishness and overzealousness. Our foreign policy cannot be dictated by Israel. We are already over ten years in conflict now. If we mess with Iran on that level, that strait over there will be messed up and gasoline prices around the world will be astronomical. We need to tone down Netanyahu and not be overzealous and go to war with another country. Iran is trying to get nuclear things because Kadhafi did not have them and Saddam did not have them and look at what happened to them.”

Host: “Trita Parsi, the issue of unilateral action on behalf of Israel – how likely is it? Were you reading in papers what members of the Israeli government are saying?”

Guest: “I do not think it is particularly likely. The Israelis have used threats of taking military action in the hope of getting the United States to adopt as tough and as hawkish position on Iran as possible. But the Obama administration and the United States position has been that they wanted to use pressure in order to have leverage in a negotiation and not to use pressure to pave the way for war. It's very interesting that what the administration is saying right now that if there is not a deal, if diplomacy is not permitted to succeed, the only options that the administration will have left is down the road -- a military confrontation. That's why the White House is using the talking point of saying that clearly the American public does not want to have a march to war.

The sentiment expressed by the caller is frustration with the overzealousness of the Israeli position. It … a lot of people in Washington but of course it doesn't mean that anyone wants to have a clash with Israel. It doesn't mean that the United States and Israel's relationship in the long term is going to be damaged but there is a tactical difference on this issue. But the determination on the American side is not to have this lead to a war is very, very strong. On the Israeli side, there has been a very explicit preference to see United States take military action.”

NOTE: Iran's existential threat to Israel is largely ignored by C-SPAN's guest and this anti-Israel caller massively exaggerates Israel's influence in anger because Israel has strongly expressed cynicism about trusting Iranian President Rouhani. But cynicism here is obviously prudent in view of Iran's deceitful record on its nuclear intentions as spearheaded by leaders like Rouhani as shown by John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations: “We know that Hassan Rouhani himself, ten years ago when he was the chief nuclear negotiator, used the appearance of negotiations and conciliation to buy time at that point for the Iranian program to overcome a number of scientific and technical glitches. So Rouhani has used this playbook before."

November 25, 2013 – 8:11 AM

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@eenews.net, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org). Guest host McArdle is a reporter for E & E Publishing which is mainly concerned with energy and climate policy.

Guest: TRITA PARSI, National Iranian American Council president.

Topic: Next steps in nuclear deal with Iran.

Caller: Mark from New York City (click here to view).

[Caller's criticism of Parsi's NIAC group seems to be legitimate.]

Caller: “I found the discussion to be very interesting. My question is about Dr. Parsi. He uses very strong language. He says that Israel's policy is disruptive. His book is called ‘Treacherous Alliance.' My point would be that Iran has outwardly stated that it is going to destroy Israel. As recently as a few days ago, the [Iran's] Supreme Leader called Israel a rabid dog. So, therefore I think a country like that is entitled to take strong positions and we should not forget about Saudi Arabia. Finally, my question about the NIAC, the National Iranian American Council -- is that an objective organization or is it a lobby for Iran and if it is, why don' t you have on someone with a different point of view who is actually objective? From what I have read on Wikipedia and elsewhere -- I'm reading a lot about this organization and it appears to be, at least it's been stated, a lobby for the Iranian administration.”

Guest: “That of course is completely false. There is no such thing as the lobby for the Iranian government. That would be illegal. We have been operating in the country for more than ten years. We have an excellent relationship with the U.S. government. So, if there were any truth in that, it would have been dealt with. There are unfortunately those who are taking very hawkish positions and spread false rumors of that kind perhaps because they don't have better arguments and they are trying win by slandering the other side. But the important thing that the caller brought up, however, is that there is a problem with the rhetoric that the Iranians are using against Israel. And there is a problem between Iran and Israel. From the Israeli side, there's obviously going to be a need to respond to that in a way that is effective. The question is, is the response of the Israeli government under Netanyahu effective?

It's not whether Israel is right in feeling a threat from Iran or is Iran feeling a threat – it's does the approach that the Israeli government has taken effective or not? If it would be, one would expect that over the last twenty years in which the Israeli government has said Iran is only two or three years from a [nuclear] bomb, time passes, and they continue to say that they are two or three years away from a bomb, but we have not seen that. So, there is no progress or a solution. We have seen a deterioration of the situation. For the first time, we have now through this deal that the White House has managed to negotiate, something that can turn the trajectory of this and make sure that the nuclear program does not advance and that it cannot reach a nuclear weapons stage while at the same time reducing Iran's hostility towards the United States and other countries in the region.”

Host: “Does this deal delegitimize the regime? Considering the remarks that Mark made, and the United States has been concerned about human rights abuses -- what does this deal do with how Iran is seen in the international community in view of human rights abuses?”

Guest: “The Iranian government human rights abuses are extensive. It is interesting to see that human rights defenders in Iran and outside have favored this deal for a simple reason -- as long as the situation is not dealt with and the nuclear issue overshadows all issues with Iran and puts the United States and Iran at the risk of war, it will be impossible to make progress on human rights in Iran. They need to have an opening up of the space in Iran by taking away the threat of war that exists as a result of this issue. There is expectation and pressure from Iranian civil society that as this issue is getting resolved, they want to see the government start changing its behavior on human rights. It was interesting when the foreign minister returned and the crowd was welcoming here. The slogans were calling for the release of political prisoners, of the leader of the green. movement.”

NOTE: Caller's points, opposed by guest Parsi, are valid including suspicion that guest Parsi's NIAC acts like a lobby for Iran. Caller appropriately suggests that for balance, the C-SPAN discussion required a capable panelist with views unlike Parsi's. Despite vehement denial by Parsi, it is not far fetched to view NIAC with suspicion. In an entry for a Dec. 12, 2009 broadcast of Journal, C-SPAN Watch characterized guest Parsi's response to a caller who defended Iran's leadership: The guest, Parsi, NIAC's president, rationalized the Iranian government's anti-Israel rhetoric and conflict with Israel – claiming it is driven by strategic rivalry rather than ideology. In reality, Israel an Iran were de facto allies for years; this relationship became impossible only when Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah and led Iran's Islamic revolutionary government.

This Shi'ite Muslim fundamentalist regime saw the United States as "the great Satan" and Israel as "the little Satan." Guest and host failed to mention President Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic belief in the imminent return of "the 12th [or hidden] imam," a messianic figure. The hidden imam's return is to be hastened by a select few, of whom Ahmadinejad includes himself. Iran's foreign and military policies cannot be analyzed without reference to this mentality, in which the destruction of Israel and the West would speed the arrival of a messianic era.

Little has changed for Trita Parsi and C-SPAN since Dec. 2009.

November 25, 2013 – 8:20 AM

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@eenews.net, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org). Guest host McArdle is a reporter for E & E Publishing which is mainly concerned with energy and climate policy.

Guest: TRITA PARSI, National Iranian American Council president.

Topic: Next steps in nuclear deal with Iran.

Caller: Kevin from Boston, Massachusetts (click here to view).

[C-SPAN outrageously lends respectability to caller's antisemitic accusation falsely equating Israel to Nazi Germany.]

Caller: “I agree with the caller earlier who was saying why is Netanyahu screaming about Iran having nuclear weapons? Because I think it's beneficial for them to have that to have energy throughout their country and it creates jobs for their country. I also think we need to put Israel in check because they seem to be trying to take focus off of what they are doing in their country. They are taking all of the Palestinians' land and seems like they are dividing that whole country. The Palestinian people – I really have sympathy for them. Netanyahu – how can I say it – Israel feels no pity because they are treating Palestinian people just like Germany treated the Israeli people. I think we should be focusing on why they are the way they are today because …”

Host (interrupting): “We'll leave it there. Do you think that is a fair assessment that he made between Germany and Israeli – Germany and Jews?”

Guest: “I would say this – when it comes to the idea that Iran would need or would want nuclear weapons – in fact, I would say that actually because Iran is a signatory to the NPT, they have foresworn nuclear weapons and the International community is mindful of the fact that they should not have nuclear weapons. Moreover, I don't think that the Iranians actually need nuclear weapons. I think that the strategic thinking of Iran is such that if they, as a very large country in the Middle East, go nuclear and by that it causes a nuclear domino effect in the Middle East, then you have other countries, much smaller countries, starting nuclear weapons programs. That would actually eliminate a conventional superiority that Iran has. So, it actually would be a strategic mistake for them to do that. But a civilian peaceful nuclear program is something of a completely different matter. That was started during the Shah's time, incidentally with the very, very strong encouragement of the United States … ”

NOTE: Guest avoids answering host's question – about comparing Nazi Germany and Israel -- instead voicing another apologia for Iranian policies. Washington Journal routinely tolerates callers' anti-Jewish racism and anti-Israel defamation including blaming Jews for problems throughout the world. No other ethnic or religious group has been subjected to such continuous and virulent defamation on the network. Israel is the only country defamed on a regular basis by a cadre of determined, indulged callers who are rarely challenged by hosts or guests.

November 25, 2013 – 8:23 AM

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@eenews.net, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org). Guest host McArdle is a reporter for E & E Publishing which is mainly concerned with energy and climate policy.

Guest: TRITA PARSI, National Iranian American Council president.

Topic: Next steps in nuclear deal with Iran.

Caller: Carol from Rockaway, New Jersey (click here to view).

[Yet another Journal indulged caller delivers a pro-Iran, anti-American foreign policy, anti-Israel polemic. Guest delivers apologia for Iran's fanatical leadership.]

Caller: “As I understand it, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation pact [Treaty] and recorded in that pact is their perfect right to supply themselves with nuclear energy. Where we get our authority from, muscling in there, is beyond me. We overthrew their government in the past to get our hands around their oil products, their energy and we installed the Shah as a puppet for years. Now we are doing the supposed bidding of Israel. Israel is armed to the teeth thanks to the U.S. of A. and if I were Iran, sitting in the position that I am sitting in, knowing how the government of Israel is so hot to trot about the criminal facade that they try to paint to the rest of the world, I would be hot to trot about gaining nuclear weaponry.”

Guest: “I think it is correct to point out that what's to stop a country from building nuclear weapons? Making threats of bombing them is probably not the most helpful thing because the more they sense a threat, the greater the incentives are going to be to produce a deterrence against that threat. This is what this deal actually has achieved. It has reduced the tensions and as a result also reduced any incentives for the other side to feel about nuclear weapons ... That is exactly how you make sure that you reduce the number of nuclear weapon states in the world. Not by adopting overzealous, hawkish positions and making threats and actually giving the other side the impression that the only way they can avoid being attacked is by actually building nuclear weapons. That is why this deal is a great achievement. Again, I want to emphasize that this is the first step of the deal. This whole thing can fall apart unless both sides implement all of the provisions of the first deal and move closer towards implementing the final stage of this.”

November 24, 2013 – 8:24 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Future of Health Care Law.

Guest: George Zornick, Nation magazine Washington reporter.

Caller: Kathleen from Dayton, Ohio (click here to view).

[Host Scully, allowing off-topic calls, again indulges the obsessive anti-Israel Dayton deceiver who has variously identified herself in previous calls as "Kathleen," "Ann," "Mary," "Rebecca," "Patricia," "Jackie," "Kay," "Kate," "Maryann" and "Anna."]

Caller: "I just wanted to say that C-SPAN is an incredible treasure. I just hope I get as much time as the three fellows [callers] previous to me."

Host (laughing): "I can't cut you off after you said that. Go ahead."

Caller (laughing): "Exactly. I just want to ask the guest, we keep hearing about how many pieces of legislation that the Republicans have obstructed over Obama' s previous administration. Now this one – I wish he'd talk about that. I wish he could talk specifically about how many. And then Bob called and he started talking about how this [guest] Zornick is a socialist and communist. Bob sounded like he is collecting medicare, so that is a socialized program and I was wondering if he would want to be cut off of that..."

Host (interrupting): "Your question is on the table, so stay on the line and we will have George Zornick respond and follow up with you."

Guest: "Sure, a lot of people forget that in 2010 ... they passed a disclosure act that would open up a lot of the money that is influencing elections. In the Senate you have seen just this year, a very incrementalist narrow gun control bill which would institute universal background checks and close the gun show loophole and that died in the Senate. These are some of the things that would get through, it might take longer but you would not need a super majority to get through."

Host: "Kathleen, do you want to follow up?"

Caller: "Yes. Bob (caller) made some inaccurate comments about Iran. I've asked C-SPAN – you guys are great – but I have asked C-SPAN to have former Bush administration officials [critics of Israeli policies] Flynt and Hillary [Mann] Leverett on and they have the most amazing Web site (indistinct). He was a former Middle East analyst and she has directly negotiated with Iran. They talk a lot about how Iran has signed the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]. Israel hasn't. Iran has the right to enrich uranium up to twenty percent. Israel who is sitting on a massive stockpile of nuclear and biological and chemical weapons and who will not sign the NPT, is demanding that Iran abide by – which they are signatories to the NPT – but do have the right to enrich. So, I wish you would have a program about those who have not signed the NPT and those who have. Iran has the right to enrich uranium and has never threatened the U.S. but Israel is pushing us to a military encounter with them. So, I wish you guys would have the Leveretts on the program."

Host: "Okay, Kathleen from Dayton, Ohio."

[Neither host nor guest comment.]

NOTE: This caller – invariably indulged by C-SPAN in each of her numerous calls – always rails against Israel and U.S. policies (especially support of Israel) and she lies about her own name. Her easily recognized distinctive voice has been heard on Washington Journal variously identifying herself with different names. Her most recent calls – both hosted by Scully – were on Sept. 8, 2013 as "Kate from Boulder, Colorado" (click here to view) and on June 21, 2013 as "Anna from Athens, Ohio" (click here to view). In the Sept. 8 call, this caller made false allegations about the United States "using napalm on children in Vietnam and white phosphorus on Palestinian children by Israel …" Typically, her falsehoods then, like now, were not refuted by C-SPAN. Israel used white phosphorus (which is not a chemical weapon or any other kind of weapon) in Gaza much like U.S. and Coalition forces did in Afghanistan for smoke camouflage and marking. United States never targeted children or any people with napalm.

The caller, like a number of other anti-Israel Washington Journal callers, repeatedly flacks for the Iranian dictatorship that consists largely of fanatical religious leaders, putting these callers out of step with 99 percent of Americans who believe Iran is a serious threat to America. Host Scully could have referred to sources such as a recent Washington Post column  (Journal hosts, including Scully, frequently read on air from the Post) that recognizes that Iran is “a quasi-totalitarian state that since 1979 has been led by brutal, volatile men with no respect for the rule of law” who cannot be trusted to honor any agreement. However, Scully and his fellow Journal hosts, chronically guilty of journalistic malpractice, are too intent on indulging and encouraging callers – like “Kathleen from Dayton, Ohio" – to inject reality or truthfulness – if in fact, capable of doing so. Mention is not made of Iran's drive for regional hegemony or its sponsorship of international terrorism, on its own or through Lebanon's Hezbollah. Iranian obstruction of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors gets glossed over.
 
Typically, caller's gross distortion, "Israel ... is sitting on a massive stockpile of nuclear and biological and chemical weapons ...," is unchallenged by host Scully. Israel, like many other Middle Eastern countries is a non-signatory to NPT the purpose of which is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weaponry capability. Therefore Israel is not legally required to adhere to NPT requirements. Whenever Israel is assailed on this basis, viewers are rarely if ever reminded that there is little reason to fear Israel's presumed nuclear capability since Israel does not threaten other countries with destruction and is perceived as highly unlikely to share any nuclear weaponry knowledge with any other country. This is not the case with Iran, an NPT signatory, which not only continuously threatens other nations (especially Israel) – it is considered likely to proliferate its nuclear weaponry knowledge to terrorist entities. Furthermore, it is clear that Israel's presumed nuclear capability is a factor only in terms of its perceived deterrence against concerted attacks by Iran and/or various Arab nations.

November 17, 2013 – 8:58 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: PATRICK CLAWSON, Washington Institute for Near East Policy research director.

Topic: What's next for Iran's nuclear negotiations?

Caller: Paul from Swindon, England (click here to view).

Caller: "My question – I will try to be as brief as possible. If Iran was to turn around and say – look, we are prepared to open our naval sites, air force, army sites, Republican Guard, all nuclear installations etcetera to full inspections so that we know exactly what they are actually doing. In return they would say that you guys have basically got to release all sanctions against us. But what would happen if they turn around and said – however here is the stumbling point – and that is we do not feel comfortable with Israel's position against us?

I know that Iran has not been a friend of Israel at all, but the Israelis continue to talk about Iranians ignoring resolutions, things like United Nations resolutions. I have spoken to some people that I know who are exiles from Iran and they say – ‘Well, look, the basic stumbling point with Iran is that Israel needs to be reined in a bit' because they're very fearful due to the fact that Israel has nuclear capabilities and it has a really nasty habit of ignoring U.N. resolutions."

Guest: "The Israeli position for twenty years has been that they look forward to the day when the Middle East will be a zone of peace and mutual trust and then it will be possible to ban all weapons of mass destruction across the region. I feel confident that the day in which Saudi Arabia and Iran have ambassadors in Jerusalem, and they call up the Israeli government to say, ‘let's have talks about banning weapons of mass destruction,' it would be quite possible to reach an agreement soon. But of course the problem is that Iran refuses to recognize Israel's existence and instead spends billions of dollars a year arming and paying for people who attack Israeli civilians. If Iran were to stop that, it would be a lot easier for the Israelis to think that Iran actually has peaceful intentions towards Israel."

NOTE: Concerning the caller's misleading allegation about Israel's "really nasty habit of ignoring U.N. resolutions" – first, United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict fall under Chapter Six, and are non-binding. They cannot be implemented unilaterally by Israel since they require a negotiated settlement between Israel and one or more of its Arab neighbors. Secondly, the countless anti-Israel resolutions approved by the U.N. General Assembly or specialized agencies, particularly the obsessively anti-Israel U.N. Human Rights Council – result mainly from the influence of the 22-member Arab League and 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference within the United Nations. General Assembly resolutions, unlike Security Council resolutions under Chapter 7, are non-binding. This sort of specific context rarely if ever is present by C-SPAN moderators when the topic is Israel.

Concerning caller's reference to fear of Israel's nuclear capabilities, this claim is often cited by Israel's enemies in order to mislead and distract from the relevant issues. Israel has never threatened to annihilate other states as, for example, Iran has threatened to destroy Israel. Israel's purported nuclear weapons role, for deterrence in the volatile Middle East, is analogous to the role of America's nuclear weapons role in keeping the Cold War with the Soviet Union from turning hot. Israel, a close ally, consults with the United States on defense matters, including concerning threats from Iran, Hezbullah or Hamas. Israel has not participated in the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to other countries as have Pakistan, China, North Korea and, reportedly, Iran.

November 17, 2013 – 9:03 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: PATRICK CLAWSON, Washington Institute for Near East Policy research director.

Topic: What's next for Iran's nuclear negotiations?

Caller: Catherine from California (click here to view).

Caller: "I think it's time we cut the cord with Israel. I'm very tired of our government giving into anything that [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu wants. I think it is absolutely disgusting. Israel is only concerned about Israel. They don't give a damn about anybody else. Thank you for taking my call."

Host: "Cathy, are you still with us?

Caller: "I would say ..."

Host: "Cathy, are you still with us? When you say ‘cut the cord with Israel,' what do you mean? Give an example."

Caller: [Inaudible].

Host: "We lost the call."

Guest: "Interestingly enough, the criticisms of this deal are coming from the French and Saudis at least as strongly as they are coming from Israel. We know from Wikileaks that the king of Saudi Arabia had said, ‘cut the head of the snake,' and was urging the United States to consider military strikes on Iran. The disquiet about Iran's nuclear activities are shared by many countries that are closer to Iran than is the United States, such as Saudi Arabia, such as Israel and such as France."

Host: "How important is Israel's role with the U.S. in the Middle East in terms of being our number one partner and ally?"

Guest: "On the Iran issue, the Israelis point out that they are the country that Iran regularly refers to as the ‘cancer in the region that should be cut out.' So, they have a reason to feel that they are targeted by Iran's nuclear program. Not surprisingly, Israel being a small country and facing this potentially nuclear enemy, Israel is very worried about Iran. It is an existential threat for Israel and a big problem for the United States but not an existential problem for the United States."

Host: "But If Iran, under any circumstances, attacks Israel, isn't it safe to say that the U.S. would come in with full force to go after the Iranian government?"

Guest: "Many wars start because of miscalculation – things which are unthinkable – then a crisis happens and suddenly what was previously unimaginable becomes what happens. So, for instance, in August 1914, when Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated, the great powers agreed that it should not lead to a great European war. Yet, within a month, that is what it led to. So, many wars happen because of miscalculation in the middle of a crisis."

Host: "So, on that issue, though, I mean, in terms of if a strike took place by the Iranian government."

Guest: "Well, suppose there was some kind of a crisis about Hezbollah and Israel were to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran would say if you continue to do that, that would be crossing a red line, then we could have an escalation into a crisis that could see missile strikes between the two sides, and then further escalation into what previously had been unimaginable, comes to pass."

Host: "What is the root cause of this Iranian hatred towards the Israeli people and their country?"

Guest: "Part of this is Iran's conviction that they should be the big power in the region and that it should be the one who everyone listens to. And so, we see the Saudis being so nervous about the Iranians. It is not because the Saudis love Israel – goodness, gracious no. It's just because the Saudis are nervous that the Iranians want to be the big guy on the block and throw their weight around. The countries that Iran threatens includes many of its neighbors. Bahrain, for instance, is convinced that there have been plots by the Iranians to overthrow the Bahrainian government."

Host: "I want to go back to Prime Minister Netanyahu who has called this a very bad deal. Would anything change – I mean can you envision that he would support any kind of an agreement between the U.S. and Iran after being so vocal in public on his frustration and anger towards this negotiation?"

Guest: "He wants to know how this story ends. He's not happy with the Obama administration promise that this first deal is only a partial deal – it's just going to last for a few months and then there will be a more comprehensive full deal. Netanyahu wants to know, how does this story end?"

NOTE: Host's question as to the nature of Iran's (leadership) hatred of Israel could have been answered in terms of the Islamic Republic of Iran's fanatical religious beliefs, which incorporate a hatred for all "infidels" especially the Jews in Israel.

The Iranian government, a theologically-based dictatorship under "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. It has been responsible for the killing of thousands of American troops, from the Beirut Marine Corps barracks in 1983 through provision of improvised explosive devices (IED's) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its Hezbollah surrogate in Lebanon, implicated in the bombings of the Israeli embassy and Jewish community headquarters in Argentina, has dispatched thousands of gunmen to Syria to prop up besieged dictator Basha al-Assad. In 2009, it brutally suppressed demonstrations by countless Iranians against a rigged presidential election. One of the two major strains (the other being Sunni) of Islamic radicalism is Iran's Shi'ite version requiring actions to hasten, including by acts of destruction and chaos, the coming of the mahdi, Shiite Islam's messiah (the 12th Imam).

The host's assumption that the United States would stage an all-out attack against Iran after the latter struck Israel seems superficial. First, Iranian leaders, noting Israel's small size, have referred to it as a "one bomb" country. What Washington did or did not do after a major Iranian assault against Israel might not be of primary significance to Israelis. Second, although the United States and Israel are allies, no mutual defense pact binds them. Third, Iran could strike at Israel indirectly through its Hezbollah proxy in Lebanon, which it has armed with tens of thousands of short- and medium-range rockets and missiles. The United States did not involve itself militarily against Iran as a result of the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war in Lebanon. Such two-dimensional views of Israel and the Middle East as those implied by the hosts question are, unfortunately, common on Washington Journal and among its moderators.

November 17, 2013 – 9:11 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: PATRICK CLAWSON, Washington Institute for Near East Policy research director.

Topic: What's next for Iran's nuclear negotiations?

Caller: Omar from Terre Haute, Indiana (click here to view).

Caller: "See if you can give me, Steve, about thirty seconds. Mr. Clawson is trying to imply that Iran has been the one causing a problem in these negotiations, as well as they want to be a ‘big boy on the block,' as he says, and an aggressive country. Number one, France' s prime minister, its foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, and the French negotiator that's involved in these negotiations, who is reported to have relatives living in Israel – by the way – these people are all pro-Israel Zionists. Number two, Israel has 200 to 400 nuclear weapons, reportedly, hasn't signed the NPT, doesn't allow any inspections of its nuclear facilities. Why should it have any role whatsoever in these talks?"

Guest: "Well, in fact, of the six countries that are talking with Iran, five have nuclear weapons, including the United States. Before we complain about somebody else being a hypocrite about having nuclear weapons and won't give them up, we ought to consider our own situation. We have thousands of nuclear weapons and we are not prepared to give them up. If we want to move the world towards less reliance on nuclear weapons, I don't think that is helped when Iran is in violation of its agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and ignores Security Council resolutions telling Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activities until Iran has restored international confidence in its purely peaceful intentions."

NOTE: Typically for C-SPAN's Washington Journal, a host fails to respond to antisemitism, direct or, in this case, implied, as the caller inputs personal and religious motives to initial French criticism of the preliminary deal with Iran.

The caller's animus towards Israel is such that he ignores the possibility that the French independently came to the same position on Iran negotiations as Israel. There was concern that a draft of a first-step deal was too favorable to Iran. The French foreign minister said Israel's concerns over Iran should be considered in the nuclear talks. Furthermore, the French indicated concern that they (and other U.S. allies) were not consulted in advance of the American administration's pronouncements regarding Iran. Yet C-SPAN's host fails to note any of this.

November 12, 2013 – 8:10 AM

Host: JUANA SUMMERS (jsummers@politico.com), journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org.
Guest host Ms. Summers is from Politico, a Washington D.C. newspaper and Web site reporting on government and politics.

Guest: GUY TAYLOR, Washington Times' State Department and international correspondent.

Topic: U.S. and international use of drones.

Caller: Chuck in Haymarket, Virginia (click here to view).

[C-SPAN once more indulges a caller, "Chuck," who parrots anti-America propaganda. Washington Journal's host presides over another in the hundreds of anti-American, anti-Israel calls aired by the show without challenging the superficial, erroneous premises.]

Caller: "There is an expression that goes, ‘He who can frame the debate can control the flow of the discourse.' I have to say that I am very skeptical of this gentleman's [the guest] motives. He works for a relatively right wing newspaper and he covers the State Department. That raises the flag with me right off the bat.
 
But it sounds like to me that what he is implying is what I would call that ‘I am the only one you can trust with the switch.' We have developed this technology [drone warfare] and have used it and the jihadists that he mentioned that want to do harm to our country, one could argue, is because of the innocent men, women, and children have been killed by U.S. drone strikes. For example, just last week or the week before, there was a Pakistani family that came to the United States. One child saw his grandmother's head blown to bits right in her backyard and only three U.S. congressmen showed up for ... I think it is poetic justice in the sense that ... and it reminds me of the old scenario where we are saying we have our nuclear superiority but we are not going to allow you as a developing nation to secure those very same types of weapons. It's similar to the situation with Israel, who [sic.] are ready to take on Iran and go to war with Iran over their wanting to get nuclear weapons even though they deny that. But yet the Israelis have had nuclear weapons since the 1970s. So, it's that double standard hypocrisy at play here."
 
Guest: "Well, first of all, I respectfully challenge the viewer to comb as deeply as he would like to my own writing and reporting and identify some politicized content. I try very hard, regardless of where I work, not to politicize what I write and to adhere to the objective standards of journalism and to do so seriously.
 
The second thing here is that the caller argued – yes we are in this position where we are trying to claim American superiority with a war of technology that leaves people dead. The collateral damage of this has triggered all kinds of negativity towards the United States particularly in Pakistan, the nation that has hosted the leadership [Osama bin Laden] of Al-Qaeda over the last 20 years. I just thank the caller for pointing that out. This is a very real problem that the United States government carries forth as if we can continue killing people all over the world without some kind of a personal backlash towards the United States."
 
NOTE: In addition to an ad hominem attack on the guest, caller's two-minute uninterrupted monologue parrots anti-America, anti-Israel propaganda. The guest, despite having recognized the caller as prejudiced, endorses ("This is a very real problem that the United States government carries forth as if we can continue killing people all over the world without some kind of a personal backlash towards the United States") caller's jihadist justification for attacking American and other targets. Neither guest nor host mentions that the collateral damage resulting from drones used in the U.S. war against terrorism (which reportedly has significantly impeded jihadist plans to attack American and other targets) is lower than in other forms of warfare. For example, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, terms noncombatant deaths from U.S. drone stikes "significantly lower" than critics charge ("U.S. drone strikes down since curbs were imposed," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 18, 2013 print edition. That jihadist mass murders of Americans, from the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983 through al-Qaeda's Sept. 11, 2001 attacks had nothing to do with U.S. drone strikes but reportedly excited and incited actual and potential jihadist actions also goes unmentioned. That there is another side to the story and that callers' anti-U.S., anti-Israeli allegations often are unfounded typically goes unsaid on C-SPAN's Washington Journal.

As to Israel's purported nuclear weapons capacity, Washington Journal hosts rarely if ever take viewers beyond fringe callers' double standard allegation. In effect, they mask the actual issues, especially the fear by many countries of the prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran's fanatical Islamist leadership. Although viewers would not learn it watching C-SPAN's "premiere public affairs program," Israel has not participated in the proliferation of nuclear technology to other countries in the way Pakistan, China, North Korea and Iran reportedly have. Neither has it threatened to annihilate other states, as Iran has threatened to destroy Israel. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is one of three countries, India and Pakistan being the other two, that doesn't have a treaty obligation. Israel does not declare its presumed nuclear arsenal, and the United States does not pressure Israel to sign the non-proliferation treaty. Rather than feel threatened by Israel, Sunni Muslim Middle Eastern states have actually urged America to strike Shi'ite Iran. Neither the C-SPAN host nor the Journal guest mention any of these basic facts.

Indicating the superficiality of Washington Journal treatment of this important issue, the host failed to mention the obvious: The similarity of the role of American nuclear weapons in keeping the Cold War with the Soviet Union from turning hot – with the role of Israel's purported nuclear capability in a region containing belligerent, sometimes fanatical Islamic countries.

November 3, 2013 – 9:38 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: MONA YACOUBIAN, Stimson Center Middle East senior advisor.

Topic: Syria update.

Caller: Tom from Cleveland, Ohio (click here to view).

[Washington Journal is routinely, as in this case, a sounding board for lunatic fringe, conspiracy mongering, anti-Israel callers. No other country is routinely vilified on Journal. Unusually for Journal, the guest challenges this caller's false accusation.]

Caller: "I have a comment. I feel as though that for the last 60 years that we've had a failed Middle East policy. Our policy has been more towards Israel's interests than the interests of the United States. I think it's to Israel's interests that there be complete destabilization of every enemy that could be an enemy towards Israel. It started with Lebanon, it went to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, almost Pakistan. While we' re doing all this, the Chinese are looking at us and just smiling while they build up their navy with aircraft carriers. Where our real potential enemies are we are running around with a lot of second-rate countries and trading those dollars. Our place in the world, our standing in the world, our reputation is completely, completely destroyed."

Host: "How would you comment on the caller's point?"

Guest: "I would have to disagree. I really don't think – certainly in what were looking at now in the Middle East – I don't think Israel figures into any of this. We are really looking at the fallout from the Arab uprising that began almost ten years ago. Each uprising was completely home grown. What was remarkable was that neither Israel nor the U.S. figured into those protests. Now we' re seeing the fallout of those once peaceful protests in many destabilizing ways, including in Syria, which is having spillover into Lebanon and Iraq. I disagree with the contention that this is about Israel."

November 3, 2013 – 9:50 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: MONA YACOUBIAN, Stimson Center Middle East senior advisor.

Topic: Syria update.

Caller: Anthony from Hialeah, Florida (click here to view).

[Washington Journal is again a sounding board for an obsessively anti-Israel caller. Host Scully characteristically allows a lengthy (two-minute) repetitive rant vilifying Israel.]

Caller: "First of all, as soon as we get all the weapons of mass destruction, which they truly do have, we will send in military and they will do what they have to do. One thing that upsets me is these Republicans cannot give President Obama credit for anything. President Obama has Syria giving up their chemical weapons. Now you guys were backing Bush with these fake weapons of mass destruction We sent thousands of our children in without the proper [indistinct].Yet you guys have no problem backing George Bush. Unbelievable.
 
One more thing that I'd like to say is that you say it's not about Israel. Now, please, hold me to this, C-SPAN – what you guys like to do is let people say the craziest things, and then you thank them for their call. Ridiculous. You need to have either a thumbs-up or thumbs down on the people that make comments. Now this comment right here, sequestration that we have – we take money away from Americans. We take money away from other foreign countries except Israel. Find out who wrote the bill to where when it comes to sequestration, we as Americans will have our money taken away, but Israel will still get funded like they were before sequestration. This is not the United states of Israel. I mean, wake up. Why is Israel still getting funded and we are taking money away from the American people, but we still fund Israel? But then these Republicans jump on the line and talk about, ‘We need to stop giving people money.' When it comes to Israel, you guys are hypocrites..."

Host (finally interrupting): "Anthony, you've made your point. We will get a response."

Guest: "I think what I'd like to respond to is his initial point which is an interesting one which has to do with some people being actually somewhat disapproving of the chemical weapons agreement. They are disapproving because the notion is Assad has agreed to disarm his country of chemical weapons, but the fact of the matter is that most of the killing the regime is undertaking is done with conventional weapons. And so first, the chemical weapons agreement really does not get to the issue of civilian safety and the mass amount of killing that's going on in Syria. The second critique has to do with the fact there are those who say, this has simply given Assad a lifeline. It averted a missile strike, it allowed him to be in power at least through mid 2014, when the chemical weapons destruction is supposed to be included. So, there definitely are critiques of the cw agreement. My own sense is that the pros of the agreement outweigh those cons. But there are people who don' t think that was the way to go."

Host: "How important is the role that Israel plays in the region to the U.S.?"

Guest: "Israel is one of our most staunch allies in the region. It's a long-standing relationship that's not going to change. My sense is that I actually think a lot of this raising of Israel is a distraction to what the real issue is on the ground. Again, this is really not about Israel."

NOTE: Guest appropriately refutes caller's false claim that Israel is involved in Syria's civil war. Caller spouts the nonsense typically heard from C-SPAN's sizable cadre of rarely challenged, obsessive anti-Israel callers. For instance, caller is angry about what he sees as "Israel still getting funded and we are taking money away from the American people."

C-SPAN, typically losing an opportunity to enlighten viewers, fails to mention the reality of the mutually beneficial relationship between America and Israel. Three points are relevant here. First, financial (military only) aid to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Second, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid ($3 billion per year) in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Third, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals.

November 3, 2013 – 9:54 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: MONA YACOUBIAN, Stimson Center Middle East senior advisor.

Topic: Syria update.

Host: Linda from Fort Bragg, California (click here to view).

[Surprisingly for Washington Journal, a caller expresses a positive view of Israel.]

Caller: "I have the view that it' s a no-win situation for the U.S. to get involved in this situation. It' s a very complex thing. Sending aid that is so-called humanitarian aid in my mind is reminiscent of the Korean situation. For years we saw the Korean people suffering. We send aid but where did it go – it went to the dictator to produce more weaponry. As Mona had mentioned, it ends up in the hands of the Syrian government. Ultimately we have no control over where that goes. The military aid, whether it's in Syria or that which we gave to Egypt, can eventually be used against us. The regime there cannot be trusted. They can tell us with a straight face they don't have any more chemical weapons and whatnot, but you cannot take that at face value. And for that matter, we cannot trust the citizenry at large because there is a lot of Muslim Brotherhood influence there that can come against us.
 
The difference being with Israel, they are not threatening us – they are not sending militants out against the U.S. They are our allies. In the neighboring Arab nations, they have not been active in sending aid."

[Neither host not guest makes mention of Israel here.]

• November 2, 2013 – 8:39 AM

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: MICHAEL ALLEN, managing director of Beacon Global Strategies.

Topic: U.S. intelligence gathering.

Caller: Harry from Satellite Beach, Florida (click here to view).

[Caller's comment about "Jewish firms" is a form of the classic antisemitic canard that Jews control everything. Typically for Washington Journal, the falsehood is neither challenged nor questioned by either host or guest.]

Caller: "My first question for you, Mike, is I read two articles that there are more employees in the NSA than the CIA and the FBI combined. That is incredible considering they have done absolutely nothing – the only thing they lay claim to is the ‘shoe bomber.' But what I am more interested in – the second question is – these subcontractors, now I am of the understanding that the subcontractors – had no-bid awards in the Bush administration – most of them are Jewish firms. I' m not picking on them but they are the smartest guys on the block and they are the guys running Wall Street. So, let me just paint a scenario for you. This idea that they would not go into people's personal data and that kind of stuff – I don't buy that for a minute. I think they can do whatever they want to do whenever they want. Take for instance, they can tap the e-mail of the president of Disney World. and let's just say he is contemplating buying Netflix – they can see that he's contemplating buying Netflix and they can buy the stock for cheaper than anybody else can. I would like you to answer my questions. Thank you."

Guest: "Sure. There are so many checks within the National Security Agency bureaucracy to make sure that does not happen. Congress has insisted that there be a compliance officer with many dozens of people there to make sure that those types of abuses do not occur. That's not to say that they never occur. With any large bureaucracy sometimes these things happen. But I think it is the exception, not the role. The reason there are somebody people at the National Security Agency is because they have two different missions. One is to support our troops in the field; been able to collect signals intelligence about tank movements or terrorist movement in Afghanistan is part of what NSA does. They are forward deployed with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have a lot of people because they have a lot of different missions. They have got to be able to tell the President and policymakers what the status is or what a particular person might be doing on the Iran nuclear program but they have also got to be able to help a soldier in a tactical situation in a war so that they can win the engagement. That is why we have so many people that are in the National Security Agency."

NOTE: Caller's claim "... most of them are Jewish firms. I'm not picking on them. They are the smartest guys on the block and they are the guys running Wall Street ..." is another form of a classic inflammatory canard. How does the caller come by this information? What is his source? In characteristic Washington Journal journalistic malpractice style, these pertinent questions are not asked.


Bookmark and Share