Wednesday, December 13, 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 March-April 2010 part 2


April 13, 2010 – 7:58 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER

Guest: PAUL KIEL, ProPublica reporter.

Topic: Status of government bailout repayments.

Caller: Patrick from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Caller: “You know when I hear the news internationally and nationally, it literally makes me want to laugh. There are thousands of Bernie Madoffs in New York and Washington who are looting the national treasury into absolute ruin. The coming collapse of the United States dollar is now written into stone and the Jews in this country have literally destroyed …“

NOTE: The caller's anti-Jewish conspiracy-spinning rant is allowed to air until terminated by cut-off. Neither host nor guest comment.

April 13, 2010 – 8:16 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER

Guest: PAUL KIEL, ProPublica reporter.

Topic: Status of government bailout repayments.

Caller: Tony from Modesto, California.

Caller: “I have a comment and a question. Good morning. Thank you for C-SPAN. Here's a problem that I've had lately with C-SPAN: There is a consistency of these folks calling in and making racial comments about white folks, like that gentleman – I don't know if I should call him a gentleman – from a while ago (referring to an 8:05 AM caller, Maria from Richmond, Virginia) – about saying ‘lilly white.'”

Host (interrupting): “Let me just address the policy. If you want to go to our phone policy and how we go about them, you can go to c-span.org at the bottom of the Web site page.”

Caller: “I know that there are some things you cannot control”.

Host: “We do not screen. We don't have a (indistinct). We do that on purpose. You are welcome to give a viewpoint on public policy. Once you start with inappropriate comments and such, we will hang up and move on. Question about the bailout?” [This was followed up with comments regarding the bailout situation.]

NOTE: Host Brawner's statement, “We do not screen,” is inaccurate since a screener is used for Washington Journal calls. Therefore, perhaps the host really means that the screening function is performed at a minimum level.

April 12, 2010 – 7:54 AM

Host: BILL SCANLAN

Guest: JOSH ROGIN, Foreign Policy staff writer.

Topic: Nuclear Security Summit.

Caller: Bill from St. Charles, Missouri.

Caller: “Thank you. I hear all this about North Korea nuclear weapons and Iran nuclear weapons. When are you going to do a show on Israel's illegal nuclear weapons? Are the people in our media scared to say anything about Israel? You sit on TV and talk about Iran that doesn't even have a nuclear weapon and you hide like cowards about Israel's nuclear arsenal.”

Guest: “I think it's a fair question actually and I'm not scared to talk about Israel's nuclear program. Israel has 80 to a 100 estimated nuclear weapons. They have a policy of “ncnd” – that means no confirmation, no denial. Like India and Pakistan, they're one of the three nuclear countries that's not part of the proliferation treaty. This is a concern to the region but Israel's policy is not likely to be changed soon. We're not making any effort to change Israel's policy. As it relates to this summit, Israel actually declined to send it's prime minister and the reason that they gave is because they believe that Egypt and Turkey would raise the issue at the summit and divert the focus from the real cause of the summit to Israel's program and they didn't want to become the center of attention and distract from president's agenda. It's pretty unclear.”

Host: “They're not avoiding the summit. They're sending the deputy prime minister?”

Guest: “Right. He's more in charge too. This will be something that will come up in May in New York at the nonproliferation treaty review conference.”

NOTE: Neither host nor guest challenge either the caller's falsehood alleging Israel's has “illegal nuclear weapons” or the obviously false charge that the media “hide like cowards about Israel's nuclear arsenal,” although the guest comments at length about Israel's policy on the non-proliferation treaty.

April 12, 2010 – 7:56 AM

Host: BILL SCANLAN

Guest: JOSH ROGIN, Foreign Policy staff writer.

Topic: Nuclear Security Summit.

Caller: Douglas from Anderson, Indiana.

Caller: “Hey, good morning. I was wanting to say two major points about this nuclear summit and this nuclear issue. First of all, for someone like yourself, I wonder how much credibility it has from powers around the world - both nuclear powers and non-nuclear powers – when Benjamin Netanyahu thumbs his nose at the summit, again thumbing his nose at the Obama administration like when the settlements when Biden landed over there – and the last part about all this that I'd like to say: after the aggression of the Bush regime in invading countries, you know, like in a situation when they invaded Iraq. Don't you think countries want a mutual level of destruction in case we get another cowboy policy like the Bush regime who will go in and try to preemptively strike people after a media campaign of lies to perpetrate against that country. The very, very last thing I'd like to say is that I'm a history buff. I've never seen Iran attack anybody. Their rhetoric is enough to almost make Israel put us on the brink of war with Iran but Israel doesn't have to come to the table for proliferation or anything of that nature, I think it's a joke and until we reel real in Israel we shouldn't have summits like this because the last time we had some kind of racial dealings conference, the United States didn't go, because they said people will pick on Israel, we had 9/11.”

NOTE: The caller's long anti-U.S, anti-Israel tirade is ignored. The guest's comments on the Obama administration's anti-nuclear proliferation conference are largely mundane. But both guest host miss a key point: the caller alludes to the U.N. Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa in late August, 2001. Much of the rhetoric by an assortment of third world, left-wing and Islamist-leaning non-governmental organizations and states, including anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist declarations, echoed that of al Qaeda, which many would recognize less than two weeks later with the destruction of the World Trade Center and attack on the Pentagon. The United States finally opposed the Durban conference because Washington saw that extermists, anti-Israel and anti-American, had hijacked it.

April 12, 2010 – 8:17 AM

Host: BILL SCANLAN

Guest: JOSH ROGIN, Foreign Policy staff writer.

Topic: Nuclear Security Summit.

Caller: Emmie from Brooklyn, New York (heavy accent).

Caller: “Welcome. First, I agree with two callers. One, Iran never attacked anybody – nobody ever. Israel attack everyone in Middle East. First of all, go to URL called – if Israel didn't exist – on top of America-hijacked dot com.

SCANLAN: “Thanks for your comment.”

NOTE: Neither host nor guest comment on this brief propagandistic rant promoting an anti-Israel Web site.

April 12, 2010 – 8:22 AM

Host: BILL SCANLAN

Guest: JOSH ROGIN, Foreign Policy staff writer.

Topic: Nuclear Security Summit.

Caller: Lenny from Manning, South Carolina.

Caller: “Thank you Mr. Rogin for articulating the point of this issue. It's a very important issue and I would like to applaud the president on his vision of a nuclear-free world. I myself am also a veteran and as to the previous veteran who said ‘if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. It is broke. My second point is: Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. There seems to be a bit of an anti-Israeli sentiment running through your show and I'd like to remind the people that if it wasn't for the Israelis bombing Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in the early ‘80's, this world would be a lot different (caller goes on to discuss health care legislation).”

NOTE: Both host Scanlan and guest Rogin ignore caller's appropriate remark pointing out that that there seems to be an “anti-Israeli sentiment on your show.” In response to caller's praise of Israeli actions, the guest acknowledged Israel's positive contribution in setting back Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions.

April 11, 2010 – 8:47 AM

Host: LIBBY CASEY

Guest: ANITA NILSSON, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), director of nuclear safety and security.

Topic: IAEA role in nuclear issues.

Caller: Sherry from California (anti-Israel frequent caller Sherry/Susan/Joanne/Margaret/Carol/Janet/Sally/Peggy/etc.).

Caller: “Good morning. You didn't answer that guy's question about why isn't (Israeli Prime Minister) Netanyahu going to be at that summit. And this is what I want to know. And I know – I can tell you why. He'll get nailed on their nukes in Israel. I want you to write this down. I'll make this short and sweet – tinyurl: If Israel didn't exist on top of America- highjacked dot com.”

Guest: “This is a question which goes beyond any comment that I can make as a representative from the IAEA here in regard to this summit.”

NOTE: The familiar anti-Israel formulaic rant of the frequent caller is unchallenged and was again aired in violation of C-SPAN's ostensible 30-days-between-calls rule despite screening. This problem could have been alleviated by a fair-minded host using a standard 10-second delay mechanism in a timely fashion. Recent calls: April 5 (as Susan from Santa Clarita, California), April 5 (as Aida from Sparks, Nevada), March 23 (as Ida from Compton, California), March 17 (as Susan from Riverside, California), March 12 (as Margaret from Huntington, California).

April 11,  2010 -- 8:51 AM

Host: LIBBY CASEY

Guest: ANITA NILSSON, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), director of nuclear safety and security.

Topic: IAEA role in nuclear issues.

Caller: Doug from Boston (frequent caller has British accent).

Caller: “I'd like to ask you about Israel too. Israel has the reputation for illegal nuclear transfer material. I can remember about ten years ago when they illicitly obtained nuclear triggers and nothing was said about that especially by the United States. Personally, I think that Iran should get nuclear weapons and maybe the Middle East will be a safer place. Thanks a lot.”

NOTE: Neither host nor guest replied to the caller's charges accusing Israel of illegally obtaining nuclear materials, specifically, “nuclear triggers.” This is yet another example of a C-SPAN host accepting, without scrutiny, a serious accusation against Israel. The caller's charge is apparently related to the incident described in a New York Times report (via Reuters news agency) from November 27, 2001 that reported on a federal indictment, in California, of an American engineer, Richard K. Smyth, for “exporting (to Israel) small glass bulbs called krytrons. Invented in 1934 for use in high-speed photography, krytrons have many applications including laser photocopying machines, strobe lights and nuclear weapons. Because they can be used to trigger nuclear bombs, federal law forbids their sale overseas without a permit.” The article said, “Israel, which has maintained that the krytrons were not intended for use in nuclear weapons, returned ‘a substantial number' of them after Mr. Smyth's indictment, Mr. Mrozek said (spokesman for the United States attorney's office)”. Thus, the caller's charge, like many, if not most, serious charges made by C-SPAN's Israel-bashers, is not as clear-cut as the anti-Israel rhetoric would have people believe. Parenthetically, neither host nor guest replied to the patently unserious sentiment regarding Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

April 11, 2010 – 8:53 AM

Host: LIBBY CASEY

Guest: ANITA NILSSON, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), director of nuclear safety and security.

Topic: IAEA role in nuclear issues.

Caller: Mark from Carlsbad, California.

Caller: “Yes. Hello. I'm concerned about why it is that the IAEA does not seem to be looking at Israel's nuclear weapons. It seems to me that those are the weapons that are most likely to get used. Israel is a country that has committed terrorist acts against its neighbors. It has no friends in that region. Eventually, the American public are going to realize that they don't even agree with Israel on most issues. You have people in America right now who are against homosexuality or against abortion who support Israel when in fact Israel supports those things – and so in that region. Where as the people that we're fighting are against those things and in fact agree with most Americans about those issues. So eventually this is going to end and end badly and Israel's nuclear weapons are going to get used or may get used and we need to get in there and destroy those nuclear weapons before Israel gets a chance to destroy this world with them.”

Host: “Sorry to cut you off. We got the gist of your conversation and need to get a response.”

NOTE: Neither host nor guest reply to the caller's pro-Islamist (“the people we're fighting … agree with Americans …),” anti-Israel lengthy propaganda diatribe. Falsehoods – "Israel has committed terrorist acts against its neighbors" and "the American public doesn't agree with Israel on must issues" – when Israel is the one Western-style democracy in the Middle East in which Americans could live much as they do at home – pass without contradiction. The host's cut-off is belated.

April 11, 2010 – 9:06 AM

Host: LIBBY CASEY

Guest: ANITA NILSSON, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), director of nuclear safety and security.

Topic: IAEA role in nuclear issues.

Caller: Mike from Illinois.

Caller: “Yes. I actually think the best arms control in the Middle East is Israel and I support them wholeheartedly. With the callers calling in with the Israel-bashing, I can see why they need nuclear weapons especially since Ahmadinejad threatened to wipe them off the face of the earth. I also think that one of the reasons that the prime minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] isn't coming is because Obama mistreated him as Obama often mistreats our allies. He seems to coddle up to dictators like Ahmadinejad and Chavez but meanwhile he dishes the Dalai Lama, Israel, Britain and a whole host of our allies.”

Guest: “I have no comment.”

NOTE: Neither host nor guest comment on the caller's pertinent points.

April 7, 2010 – 8:20 AM

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA.

Guest: KINGSTON REIF, Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation.

Topic: Nuclear posture review.

Caller: Cindy from Port Arthur, Texas.

Caller: "Yes, I don't think any country and Russia should submit to anything the U.S. wants them to do – or be told what to do with their nukes. They need to protect themselves. I hope that Iran builds their nukes to protect themselves against the U.S. and Israel, who is pushing us into an ongoing war in the Middle East over a lie."

NOTE: Host Echevarria and guest Reif both fail to reply to the caller's assumption that Iran is in fact building nuclear weapons, in contradiction of international agreements and its own disclaimers. Likewise, they do not respond to the caller's false charge that "Israel is pushing us into an ongoing war in the Middle East." Unsaid by host and guest is that plenty of evidence exists that Israeli and American concerns about Iranian nuclear weapons efforts are not based on "a lie." This includes the country's nearly two-decade long concealment of its nuclear program, several rounds of international sanctions against Iran for continuing and only partially revealing its nuclear effort, Iran's recent reported successes in uranium enrichment from civilian toward potential weapons use, the recent International Atomic Energy Agency report concluding Iran's efforts seem – contrary to Iranian claims – directed toward weaponization, and Iranian leaders' long history of supporting or calling for Israel's destruction.

Mr. Reif does "take the caller's point, (that) there are some legitimate concerns that Iran has about their own national security that will have to be addressed in some way to prevent them from going down the path of acquisition of nuclear weapons." But he fails to elaborate on what he means by Iran's "legitimate concerns" about national security. The host should have questioned this. Nor is there any comment by guest or host concerning the caller's apparent lack of concern, as an American, regarding the danger to this country posed by nuclear armaments possessed by rogue nations such as Iran.
 
April 6, 2010 – 7:06 AM

Host: ROBB HARLESTON

Topic: President Obama: Right approach to nuclear arms?

Caller: Carrie from Westchester, New York.

Caller: “Yes, Robb, you are one of my favorites. I agree with the President and his approach to eliminating nuclear arms and I also think they put you on today to ask another one of the President's questions. Every other day it's the President's questions. Okay, and I think that we should begin to look at other issues that are going on in the world, such as Israel dominating what's going on with the Palestinians. Thank you.”

NOTE: Host Harleston fails to keep caller on the subject, President Obama's nuclear arms policy, or challenge caller's allegation that “... Israel [is] dominating what's going on with the Palestinians” when Israel continues to face Palestinian terrorism and refusal to conduct direct negotiations.

April 6, 2010 – 7:14 AM

Host: ROBB HARLESTON

Topic: President Obama: Right approach to nuclear arms?

Caller: Robert from O'Connell, Wisconsin.

Caller: “Yes, this is Robert. I think our whole problem with this here nuclear deal is when we give money to Israel and let them build underground mass destruction weapons. Now I'm not for Iran. I'm no Muslim; I was in the Marines – where I wasn't like Cheney. But anyway, I would say that if Israel keeps agitating, you know, a war brings prosperity to ...”

HARLESTON (interrupting): “Robert, so far there's been nothing that we've reported that connects the President's policy to the United States' relationship with Israel. How do you draw that line?”

Caller: “Well, because constantly Israel is putting in (indistinct) in this country – is we're going through what Germany went through prior to the Second World War in everything in this country ...”

HARLESTON (interrupting): “Thanks for the call, Rob.”

NOTE: Host Harleston appropriately challenged the anti-Israel caller's false message and non-sequitur. Mr. Harleston properly interrupts when caller apparently begins classic anti-Semitic charge that Jews destabilized Germany in the years before 1939, helping cause World War II.

April 6, 2010 – 7:36 AM

Host: ROBB HARLESTON

Topic: President Obama: Right approach to nuclear arms?

Caller: Angela from Dubuque, Iowa.

Caller: “Good morning. Thank you for C-SPAN. I want to agree with the last caller. I'm a Democrat and I think that it's very partisan. The Republicans keep saying no or keep disagreeing with the President and these are some of the ideas that they've had themselves. I think that the Republicans – they like to fight, they enjoy punishing people and killing people and I don't agree with that. I think that what the President is doing is very good for our standing in the world to show that we want peace and love. I don't understand why the Republicans just want to kill everybody. The caller that called in and said that we should just wipe Iran off the face of the Earth – or however he put it – is wrong. I think we should be pushing for peace in this world. I think that Israel should stop building and I think that we should be friends with Israel, but I also think that we should help Pakistan too.”

NOTE: The host fails to comment on the caller's odd, disjointed monologue including the assertion, “I think that Israel should stop building and I think that we should be friends with Israel, but I also think that we should help Pakistan too.” The host is peculiarly passive when caller strangely connects Pakistan with Israel. Mr. Harleston logically should have asked the caller if any other country “should stop building” in its own country or on disputed territory to which it has strong legal, religious and security claims. Incredibly, the host ignores caller's assertions that “they [Republicans] like to fight, they enjoy punishing people and killing people.”

April 6, 2010 – 8:54 AM

Host: ROBB HARLESTON

Guest: MARK POTOK, Southern Poverty Law Center.

Topic: Militias and extremist groups in U.S.

Caller: Tim from Clarksburg, West Virginia (recognizable frequent anti-Israel caller trying to disguise his voice).

Caller: “Yeah, thanks for takin' my call. Mr. Potok, I'd like to find out why you are going up against Kevin McDonald of Cal State-Long Beach because he has written articles about how these Jewish neocons got us into the war for Israel -- that's the neo-conservative Jewish (indistinct). It seems like you're just a Zionist front trying to squelch any kind of truth-giving like Mr. McDonald gives. Have you read that article?”

NOTE: The host fails to cut-off or provide any comment on the familiar anti-Jewish rant of this recognizable violator of C-SPAN's ostensible 30-days-between-calls rule (who called most recently on April 3, 4 and 5). Mr. Potok refutes the caller's claim that Kevin McDonald's latest article is a description of Jewish neo-conservatives. Mr, Potok said, “I have read all of Mr. McDonald's works” and discusses at length how Kevin McDonald's ideas about Jews as a group are biased and outlandish including advocating “such things as placing special taxes on Jews in order to bring them down to the level of the rest of us.”

April 5, 2010 – 7:54 AM

Host: BILL SCANLAN

Guest: CLARK KENT ERVIN, former inspector general of Homeland Security Department.

Topic: Future of transportation.

Caller: Susan from Santa Clarita, California (anti-Israel frequent caller Sherry/Susan/Margaret/Carol/Janet/Sally/Peggy/Etc.)

Caller: “Yes, hello, thank you. Well, we're creating all this terrorism and we wouldn't need homeland security if Israel didn't exist ...“

SCANLAN: “Susan, I'm going to stop you there. We have a 30-day rule on C-SPAN that you call once every 30 days. You violate that regularly. I would really appreciate you honor the rules and let other folks call in this morning. We will see you in 30 days.”

NOTE: Host Scanlan appropriately cut-off the familiar 30-day violator who had most recently called on March 10, 12, 17 and 23. But timely use of a standard 10-second delay mechanism could have eliminated the airing of the caller's usual Israel-bashing and false statements. The host failed to point out the caller's false conclusion, “we wouldn't need homeland security if Israel didn't exist,” is contradicted by the facts that show that Israeli actions were either a small or non-existent component in the motivation for Islamist 9/11 and many previous and subsequent attacks on American citizens and property.

April 5, 2010 – 7:55 AM

Host: BILL SCANLAN

Guest: CLARK KENT ERVIN, former inspector general of Homeland Security department.

Topic: Future of transportation.

Caller: Jeff from Washington, D.C..

Caller: “Good morning. A couple of comments and maybe a question. I commend you on the program for our Transportation Security Agency administration. There is definitely a need for improvement in the way in which that agency operates. In the years since it has been in existence – I have been kind of watching the performance of this agency and it is really, really in need of some improvement. One of the things, talking about the profiling and so forth, I think that's a necessary feature of this agency, to be honest with you. And along the lines of what the lady said before, I am not going to say that Israel shouldn't exist but any time we have this situation where we continue to send signals out to the other folks around the world that we are going to support Israel no matter what – and I am not anti-Semitic, and I respect their right to exist and everything, but they also have to respect other people's rights too.”

SCANLAN: “Alright, Jeff, We'll get a response. Thanks for your call.”

NOTE: Guest Ervin's only comment is a disagreement with the caller's view supporting the need for profiling. Neither host nor guest note that the caller has singled out Israel from among U.S. allies for condemnation. Such double-standard treatment is common to prejudiced arguments. Israel is a Western style democracy that aims to uphold civil rights of its citizens and respect the status of non-combatants among hostile countries or movements.

April 5, 2010 – 8:00 AM

Host: BILL SCANLAN

Guest: CLARK KENT ERVIN, former inspector general of Homeland Security Department.

Topic: Future of transportation.

Caller: Bill from Paris, Missouri.

Caller: “Good morning. I'd like to know how many Israelis are on your no-fly list and terrorist list because of Dubai – when they sent their assassins in there to kill the Palestinian. It seems like to me that Israel is the number one terrorist nation on the planet.”

SCANLAN: “On the no-fly list, are there more than just suspected Arab terrorists? Are there terrorists from different countries – are there folks from Israel on that list?”

ERVIN: “Well, there certainly could be. There's no question about that. Of course that list is highly classified. But, in theory, the list includes people in the United States, people from all over the world who there is reason to believe post a threat to aviation. Whether they are terrorists or not, the key point of the no-fly list is whether they post a direct threat to aviation or are perceived as posing such a threat.”

NOTE: Both host and guest ignore the preposterous anti-Israel remark that “Israel is the number one terrorist nation on the planet.” A reference to U.S. government designations of terrorism sponsoring states and terrorist movements and individuals would have been in order, and would have shown quite the opposite of the caller's un-refuted charge.

April 5, 2010 – 8:15 AM

Host: BILL SCANLAN

Guest: CLARK KENT ERVIN, former inspector general of Homeland Security Department.

Topic: Future of transportation.

Caller: James from Fort Worth, Texas (anti-Israel frequent caller James/Jamie/Jim/Tim/Tyrone/Etc. trying to disguise his voice).

Caller: “I'd like to say – that the prior caller about Israel – why do you keep on cuttin' off people when they talk about why we got attacked on 9/11 – which is support for Israel. You can easily see that. Even the Christmas day bomber – the bin Laden tape we never talk about. It's because of our support for what Israel does to Palestine. Why do you keep cutting people off. That's ridiculous. Go to neoconzionistthreat dot com for more.”

NOTE: Neither host nor guest comment on the familiar formulaic, anti-Israel rant of the frequent caller again violating C-SPAN's 30-days-between-calls rule (he called on April 3 and 4).

April 5, 2010 – 8:16 AM

Host: BILL SCANLAN

Guest: CLARK KENT ERVIN, former inspector general of Homeland Security department.

Topic: Future of transportation.

Caller: Robert from New London, Connecticut.

Caller: “Hi gentlemen. I remember quite clear on 9/11, I was watching, I came back from Canada. and Fox News had a break in and had spotted a van claimed to be with Israelis in it. I did my home work and I went in and saw a video where on Israeli TV, they had these kids who filmed it. They asked them why they were there. They said it was to film this thing. So, how did they know about that? I was curious. I hope something is done with the New Jersey fraud case as well (indistinct). It's crazy and sad.”

NOTE: Both host and guest fail to expose this canard alleging Israeli involvement with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, intellectually on par with allegations that Vice President Lyndon Johnson was connected to the assassination of President John Kennedy. This is one more in the long list of examples of C-SPAN airing, and not contesting, almost anything callers say about Israel or its supporters, no matter how bigoted, no matter how rooted in the extremist fringe.

April 5, 2010 – 8:45 AM

Host: BILL SCANLAN

GUEST: Rep. DONNA EDWARDS (D.-Maryland).

Topic: House democrats midterm election strategy.

Caller: Aida from Sparks, Nevada (anti-Israel frequent caller Sherry/Susan/Joanne/Margaret/Carol/Janet/Sally/Peggy/Etc. trying to disguise her voice).

Caller: “Thanks. It's Aida [pronounced like the name of the Verdi grand opera]. First of all, they should have open debates where they have independent candidates also as well, debate. Also – I'll tell you – you've been bought off. The biggest donors to the Democratic Party is the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee – AIPAC. They're the biggest donors to your Party and boy, they keep you in check. You are the biggest traitors of America.”

Host: “Aida, we're going to leave it there. Is AIPAC a big contributor to your ...?”

EDWARDS (interrupting): “Well, it's not to mine. Part that is because of positions I've taken regarding a difference in U.S. approach and strategy in the Middle East that the President is actually engaged in - the Secretary of State is engaged in...” (Rep. Edwards goes on to speak at length about the abuses allowed under the law in political fund-raising.)

NOTE: Host Scanlan belatedly cuts-off the familiar Israel-bashing frequent caller only after she accuses Democrats of being “the biggest traitors of America.” The caller violates the 30-days-between-calls rule, having called earlier on this same day as “Susan from Santa Clarita, California” and on March 10, 12, 17, 23. Rep. Edwards, lending some legitimacy to the caller's Israel-bashing, is careful to exclude herself from the caller's list of villains. Neither host nor guest responds to the caller's anti-Israel defamation. Neither

points out that AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is a registered pro-Israel U.S. lobby. It is not a political action committee and gives no money to any candidate.

April 4, 2010 – 8:09 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER

Guest: JONATHAN STRONG, reporter for Daily Caller.

Topic: Congress and politics.

Caller: Jim from Alexandria, Virginia (recognizable frequent anti-Israel caller again violating C-SPAN's ostensible 30-days-between-calls rule. Here he is attempting to disguise his voice).

Caller: "Yeah, I'd like to say about – you know – we're talkin' about how we're going to all these wars for Israel, spending all this money and how AIPAC impacts Congress.You've got America-hijacked dot com and we're not doing anything about ..."

BRAWNER: "Hey Jim, we're talking about Congress and politics this morning."

NOTE: Moderator properly cuts off caller who was cut-off the day before (April 3) calling as James from Los Angeles. However, the cut-off should have come immediately after the phrase "all these wars for Israel," a tell-tale signal of caller's attempt to hijack the discussion. That would have prevented his conspiratorial polemics and promotion of one of his favorite anti-Israel, anti-Jewish Web sites.

April 3, 2010 – 8:14 AM

Host: ROBB HARLESTON

Guest: CHRISTIAN WELLER, Center for American Progress, senior fellow.

Guest: ANDREW BIGGS, Center for American Progress, resident scholar.

Topic: U.S. federal debt.

Caller: James from Los Angeles, California ( recognizable frequent anti-Israel caller).

Caller: "Thank you for taking my call. I'd like to – first of all, I haven't called for 30 days so I'd like to have my full allotment of time here please, if I could – I'd like to say that our spending goes back to what a prior caller – I think from Ohio – had said about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and – I think you have to look at the whole war on terror. If you look at what the pretext was for going into Afghanistan and also Iraq, it was the tragic attack on 9/11. Actually, I had a conversation with General Jones, the current national security advisor, about this. You have to look at what had caused that attack on 9/11 and the resulting ..."

Host: "James, we understand that you are violating one of our rules so we are going to cut you off and move on to Clinton, Pennsylvania."

NOTE: This egregious frequent caller was cut off before he could turn the discussion explicitly to his Israel-bashing, which is the purpose for every one of his calls. Perhaps, at long last, detailed criticism, like that posted at CAMERA's C-SPAN-Watch, has begun to persuade the network to uphold its self-professed 30-days-between calls rule and to cease providing anti-Israel and anti-Jewish extremists unfettered access to Washington Journal air time. Continued monitoring will be necessary to determine if the apparent change is lasting.

March 23, 2010 – 9:56 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY (Prior host: LIBBY CASEY 7-8:30 AM).

Guest: WILLIAM KRISTOL, Weekly Standard founder and editor.

Topic: News review with William Kristol.

Caller: Ida from Compton, California (frequent caller).

Caller: "Good morning. There's an article, it's called Return of the neocons at America-hijacked dot com. I'll tell you about our financial crisis. First of all, I want to get into our crisis of fighting wars and funding Israel. Funding Israel and fighting wars for them. And now you want to start a draft? Everybody knows AIPAC controls our Congress. You can look on page 147 on 9/11 commission report that talks about why we were attacked on 9/11; it's because of our support for Israel and their oppression of the Palestinians."

SCULLY: "Thank you, Ida."

KRISTOL: "We were not attacked on 9/11 because of our support of Israel. The Congress is not controlled by AIPAC. We have never fought any wars for Israel. Israel has never asked any American to fight for Israel. We give $3 billion in foreign aid a year, if I'm not mistaken, to Israel. We could debate that. Maybe we shouldn't give that $3 billion. I think it's probably a good investment. We give $2 billion to Egypt in an important and dangerous part of the world. But It's a tiny part of our overall budget and not even a big part of our foreign aid budget."

NOTE: Here is yet another uninterrupted, formulaic anti-Israel rant. This frequent caller again is allowed to violate C-SPAN's ostensible "one call per 30 days" rule. On this occasion she claims to be Ida from Compton, California; on March 17, 2010 (9:36 AM) she was Susan from Riverside, California; on March 12, 2010 (8:57 AM) she was Margaret from Huntington Beach, California; on March 10, 2010 (8:52 AM) she was Carol from Winnetka, California. Host Steve Scully, yet again, allows the caller to promote an anti-Semitic, anti-Israel Web site. The guest's categorical refutations of the caller's charges are correct. The caller, as she has previously, cites "page 147 of the 9-11 Commission Report" in blaming Israel as the sole or primary motivation for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on America. The page 147 (chapter 5) reference to Israel describes a self-serving, post-capture explanation by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the self-proclaimed mastermind of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: "By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." This sentence is one of the two references to Israel in Chapter 5 [pages 145 to 173 of the report]. The second reference (page 154) states that KSM had intended to land a hijacked plane at a U.S. airport, kill all the male passengers, and publicly excoriate "U.S. support for Israel, the Philippines, and repressive governments in the Arab world."

There is no mention of Palestinian Arabs on page 147 or anywhere else in Chapter 5. Elsewhere in the report, there are only three references to Palestinian Arabs, none of which are in connection with alleged Israeli "oppression" or any such synonym.

A more comprehensive explanation of the motivation for the 9-11 attack is found in a 2006 CAMERA report:

While the 9/11 Commission report did mention Israel as a factor in the attacks, there is much evidence to argue against the assertion, and it certainly did not point to Israel as the major factor in provoking the attacks. Indeed, according to documents cited by experts on Al Qaeda, such as Rohan Gunaratna, the group attacked the United States on 9/11 (and before) not primarily because of its support for Israel, but because of its support for Saudi Arabia and other "moderate" Arab countries. As Gunaratna explains in his book Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror, after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, bin Laden was horrified that the Saudis were considering a U.S. offer to send troops to protect the Kingdom. Bin Laden urged against what he saw as sacrilege, and offered to protect the Kingdom with his Afghan mujahidin ["holy warriors"], but the Saudis turned him down and invited in the Americans.

The 9/11 Commission Report itself provided an explanation on page 362 of the motivation for the 9/11 attacks:

The stream (Wahhabism) is motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from religion, thus distorting both. It is further fed by grievances stressed by bin Laden and widely felt throughout the Muslim world against U.S. military presence in the Middle East, policies perceived as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and support of Israel. Bin Laden and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them, America is the font of all evil, the ‘head of the snake,' and it must be converted or destroyed.

Of course, Islamic fundamentalists hate American support of Israel; Israel and the United States represent the kind of societies they reject – including open, secular civil societies successful in science, technology, medicine, and non-petroleum-based economies, societies in which religion and state are separated and in which women and minorities are equal. They attack both the United States and Israel because of what they do – invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, hunt al-Qaeda, and fight Palestinian terrorism – and because of who they are – not them, not zealots for sharia-based medieval theocracies. American support of Israel stems from American belief in its own founding ideals. Blaming American support for Israel for 9/11 is somewhat like blaming U.S. aid to England for the Pearl Harbor attack.
 
March 20, 2010 – 7:11 AM

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA.

Topic: House vote on health care.

Caller: Gary from Sterling, Virginia.

Caller: "Good morning. I'd like to say that – two things, actually, about this health care reform. The first one concerns abortion – and that is – that Netanyahu, bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, George Bush and the Pope are all against birth control. And the second thing I'd like to say – all these other countries subsidize their workers with health care and our workers aren't subsidized with health care and I believe that's one of the reasons that we are falling behind in our exports."

ECHEVARRIA: "Okay."

Note: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not on record as ever having taken a position on the abortion issue. This appears to be an obvious attempt to put the Israeli leader first on the caller's "villains list." The non sequitur linking the topic at hand, health care, with opposition to abortion and/or birth control and alleging equivalence between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, both Islamic extremists, and democratic leaders Netanyahu and Bush, and the Pope, an advocate of religious tolerance, is obvious. The host's one-word reply, "okay," is strikingly inadequate.
 
March 20, 2010 – 7:15 AM

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA.

Topic: House vote on health care.

Caller: Betty from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

Caller: "Good morning. This is going to be a historic weekend for all Americans. I am so proud of our Democrats. I think we have to recognize that our nation can not move forward until we cover the health care needs of our people. If we can give $3 billion every year to Israel, whom I respect deeply, and the reason I mention them is because they will receive the bulk of the foreign aid – then we can also give those monies and dollars to the American people." [The caller then goes on at length to excoriate the Republican Party and pro-life Democrats].

NOTE: The host, Mr. Echevarria, does not respond to the caller's comments. This suggests that he is either incapable of or unwilling to shed light on the caller's gross mis-statement regarding the cost of health care and the position of Israel regarding U.S. foreign aid. C-SPAN viewers – accustomed to Israel-bashing in many Washington Journal calls and from some guests – should be informed that U.S. aid to Israel is a tiny part of the total federal budget and not even a major part of the foreign aid budget. Annual aid to Israel (approximately $3 billion) is minuscule as compared to projected costs under the health care reform legislation being discussed, which are estimated eventually to exceed more than $1 trillion. The caller's mention of Israel is hardly disingenuous, her claim of "deep respect" not withstanding. Most U.S. aid to Israel (all of it for defense items, not domestic Israeli spending) is spent in this country. Why not mention the $2 billion plus in annual U.S. aid to Egypt – let alone the tens of billions paid yearly to Middle East oil producers? The latter does impose a significant burden on the American economy. But the host failed to raise any of these pertinent points.
 
March 18, 2010 – 7:33 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY

Topic: Open phones on Health Care bill.

Caller: Bonnie from Riverside, California.

Caller: "Hi. Good morning. Senator Joe Lieberman was all for "public option" for Israel but he couldn‘t have it here in this country for an advanced country. The majority of the people wanted public option; we expected the government to do this for us. And, instead, other countries who are enjoying public health and they are working it out fine, we have like a circus here. And I'm so glad I'm a Christian because I think things are going to get worse for us. Citibank (indistinct) they are the rich now, we are poor now after they took our money and lost it. Thank you."

Host: "Thank you."

NOTE: Host Steve Scully tacitly accepts the caller's remark regarding Senator Lieberman, which was not only extraneous to the discussion about U.S. health care legislation but also anti-Jewish and anti-Israel, not to mention preposterous.

March 17, 2010 – 9:36 AM

Host: LIBBY CASEY.

Guest: JESS BRAVIN, Wall Street Journal writer.

Topic: Military tribunals vs. civilian trials.

Caller: Susan from Riverside, California (frequent caller).

Caller: “Hello. First of all, nobody talks about the motivation. You have to start from that – representativepress dot org – if you go to that – talks about the motivation behind 9/11. We were attacked for our support for Israel, and – Osama bin Laden said it, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said it, Prince (indistinct) said it – and others have said it. It's not only support for Israel, but what the money is going to: cluster bombs and the whole bit – for settlements which (Prime Minister) Netanyahu is going against the law by doing that. He's extending more no matter what we tell him. You know, Ariel Sharon said something interesting, he said, ‘one percent of America is Jewish but they own America.'”

BRAVIN: “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and some of his co-defendants have made similar sorts of claims. They want to change the subject to what they think are America's provocations that led them or they believe forced them to commit acts of terror and mass murder in the United States and against Americans. This is a typical thing that political or religious fanatics do in trials like this. They try to change the subject to what the government or authorities did that provoked them to take some kind of extreme action. But when it comes down to law, motive doesn't matter. The fact that someone may be, you know, feels aggrieved politically is not at all a justification for committing a crime. And I don't think that you're going to find a lot of interest among any – from the most stern to the greatest bleeding heart judge in the American judiciary, civilian or military – who will care one whit about the political complaints of defendants who committed terror acts have as a justification for murder.”

NOTE: The host, Ms. Casey, allows the frequent caller and polemicist to violate C-SPAN's 30-day rule, this individual having called on March 12 as Margaret from Huntington Beach, California and on March 10 as Carol from Winnetka, California. The caller uses a classic propaganda device, falsely quoting a representative of the target of defamation, in this case former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The caller states as fact that al-Qaeda leaders and others have attempted to justify the Sept. 11, 2001 and other terrorist attacks against Americans as the consequence of U.S. support of Israel. She then adds references to cluster bombs and settlements – claiming falsely that the latter are "against the law" when the League of Nations/U.N. Mandate for Palestine's encouragement of "close Jewish settlement on the land" is still in effect – as additional indictments against Israel. Her contentions warrant factual rebuttal but went unanswered by both host and guest. In fact, as writers as varied as Hillel Friedkin, Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have noted immediately after 9/11 and in the years since, Islamic extremists seek to impose political rule under puritanical versions of sharia law and repeal Western democratic practices including women's and minority rights, religious pluralism, multi-party politics and secular intellectual free inquiry. Bin Laden's emphasis on Israeli-Palestinian issues was largely an ex-post facto justification and secondary to his calls for restoration of an international Islamic caliphate, ouster of "Crusader" (U.S. and other Western) forces from "holy Islamic soil", and overthrow of, in his description, insufficiently pious regimes including that of Egypt as well as Saudi Arabia.

The frequent caller's promotion of a Web site based on anti-Jewish, anti-Israel polemics is allowed to pass. Although the guest's response regarding the irrelevance of motive as justification for mass murder is pertinent as far as it goes, it does not go far enough. It leaves the unwarranted implication that the terrorist's "politically aggrieved feelings" were legitimate even if their actions were not. Please refer to the NOTE section of the C-SPAN Watch call entry for January 27, 2010 (8:11 AM) for a comprehensive, documented – including relevant quotes from the U.S. government's Sept. 11, 2001 commission report – discussion of the motivation for the 9/11 attack.

March 16, 2010 – 7:06 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER

Topic: Are you active in the health care debate?

Caller: John from Crystal, Pennsylvania.

Caller: "Hello. How are you doing? First-time caller. I' m not that active in the health-care debate, but I have been watching it closely. What I think it's really coming down to is a power struggle between Obama and the Israeli lobbyists."

Host: "Alright. We'll move onto Mesquite, Texas."

NOTE: Moderator appropriately cuts off anti-Israel caller's attempt to hijack discussion topic.

March 12, 2010 – 8:57 AM

Host: PETER SLEN

Guest: STEVE EMERSON, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Topic: Home grown terrorism.

Caller: Margaret from Huntington Beach, California (frequent caller).

Caller: "Yes. What about the Zionist groups that say ‘death to Arabs.' You know, you shouldn't even be on C-SPAN. They shouldn't even have you. You are very anti-Semitic. I'm of Middle Eastern descent. I am Semitic. You are not Semitic, okay? And I'll tell you about the trial. Khalid Sheik Muhammad – they don't want to try him in New York because he'll tell the truth. The motivation behind 9/11 was for our support of Israel and the oppression of the Palestinians. And if you knew – and you know what our money is doing over there."

EMERSON (chuckling): "Some of the conspiratorials are coming out. Khalid Sheik Muhammad was part of 9/11. He was the mastermind. They carried it out because they wanted to destroy or at least hurt the United States. And again, my agenda here is to root out the radicalism that affects the United States, either by terrorism or through legal insurgency. Look, I could have had an operation that looked at all types of terrorism, ETA., animal rights terrorists, eco-terrorists, Japanese red army. I don't have the funds to do that, and there are other groups that do, you know, Southern Policy Law Center looks at the Ku Klux Klan. So we decided to create a group that looks at radical jihadists. We've done a fairly good job. If one goes to our website, which I have to mention it, it's www dot investigativeproject dot org."

SLEN: "We've been putting it up on the screen."

SLEN: "Steve Emerson is the executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Mr. Emerson, we have three or four very sincere callers who you labeled or could be labeled conspiratorial. What do you say to them? They were very sincere in their beliefs."

EMERSON: "Let me give you an example of the problem. After 9/11, I spoke at a law school, and at the law school, I was being heckled. I didn't know what to do because as a speaker, if you're heckled, you can't speak. So I took my speech, I ripped it up in half very flagrantly. I got everybody's attention, and I said: how many here believe that Osama bin Laden carried out 9/11? And half of the thousand people raised their hand. And then I said: how many believe that Israel and the CIA carried out 9/11? And the other 500 raised their hands. The question is: what do you do with that? Because I'm never going to get behind their reality that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the CIA. And so I'm stuck with that. Okay? I have to work around that. I can try to convince them that it's not a conspiracy. Nothing I do can change their mind."

NOTE: The accusation of anti-Semitism against the guest is bizarre coming from the frequent caller known for anti-Semitic rants. "Margaret" (from Huntington Beach, California), again allowed by C-SPAN to violate its 30-day rule, called two days before on March 10 (8:52 AM) as "Carol" (from Winnetka, California). As to the caller's allegation that al-Qaeda perpetrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks due to anti-Israeli motivation, the evidence shows that bin Laden's motivation stemmed primarily from hostility to the Western presence in Saudi Arabia and to the Saudi royal family. Please refer to the NOTE section of the C-SPAN Watch call entry for January 27, 2010 (8:11 AM) for a comprehensive discussion of the reasons for the 9/11 attack.

March 10, 2010 – 8:52 AM

Host: PAUL ORGEL

Guest: MELANIE SLOAN, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics.

Topic: Congressional ethics and earmarks.

Caller: Carol from Winnetka, California (frequent caller).

Caller: “Thank you. Good morning. One of the callers that called in and mentioned the press, what I'd like to give out is tinyurl.com/youdidnthearit. And speaking about ethics, what kind of ethics is it to spend billions and billions of dollars every year which is supporting the criminal acts and war crimes of Israel and what they're doing to the Palestinians? I want to mention too, to C-SPAN and all the callers – there's a group out there – if you go to CAMERA.com, and there's two Zionists on there and they are monitoring our calls to make sure that they are not anti-Semitic.”

ORGEL: ”Melanie Sloan, is there anything there you want to talk about?“

SLOAN: ”Well, that seemed that seemed like a pretty anti-Semitic remark from the caller and all I can do is condemn that kind of speech. So I have nothing else to say.”

NOTE: Guest Melanie Sloan responded appropriately; however, host Paul Orgel allowed the frequent caller to reiterate her familiar anti-Israel spiel, this time including a reference to CAMERA, supplying an incorrect Web site name. CAMERA's Web site is, of course, CAMERA.org. The tinyurl Web site referenced by the caller links to a Youtube entry supplied by the anti-Semitic “neoconzionistthreat” Web site group. Ironically, this Youtube entry, is the caller herself (or a nearly identical sound-alike) aired by C-SPAN as Janet from Birmingham, Alabama on January 1, 2010 at 9:51 AM. Furthermore, the host this time, Paul Orgel, was also the host for the January 1 call.
 
March 4, 2010 – 7:04 AM

Host: SUSAN SWAIN

Topic: President asks for final health care vote.

Caller: Sophia from Memphis, Tennessee.

Caller: “Yes, I agree with President Obama. We need to have this. We are bringing foreign aid for people who have health care for all of their citizens and we don't have it here. I was in the Sudan in 1982 and I became ill. I was visiting and I got health care there for free. I went to a local clinic and I went to a hospital. We can all see that President Obama is trying to do something for the people – not just for the big people but for all of us. When he helps all of us, he is going to help those who are in business and those who have money. We can pay for our health care just by cutting the aid that we send to Israel because they already have their health care in place and we should have ours here, too. I think his ratings are really up now. I think everybody can see he is trying to help us and I want him to go forward before they try to pick off everybody around him that's trying to help him. They're trying to do it more than one way. They're trying to defeat him.”

Host: “Caller, just one fact. You said we can pay for all the health care just by cutting aid to Israel?”

Caller: “Yeah ...”

Host: “Well, we send about $3 billion a year into Israel; the cost for the health care reform scored a bit higher than that.”

Caller: “Well, $3 billion has been reported. I have seen reports that are up as high as $12 billion per year.”

Host: “Alright, thank you for your call. You made your point about why you think health care reform is needed.“

NOTE: Typically for Washington Journal, a caller tries to hijack the subject at hand to attack Israel. Untypically, the host challenges the caller's nonsensical claim that “we can pay for our health care just by cutting the aid that we send to Israel.” But when the caller, caught in an illogical claim, fabricates a new figure for U.S. aid to Israel, the host let her off the hook, failing to point out for viewers that a) the “$12 billion” is false and b) even if it were correct, U.S. health care reform costs have been reported at hundreds of billions if not more than $1 trillion. Doing so would highlight the fact that the actual point of the call is to attack U.S. aid to Israel, rather than comment on the topic which is American health care reform. Additionally, the caller's claim that she received free, apparently positive medical treatment in a Sudanese clinic and hospital in 1982, passes unquestioned, but given the normal state of post-independence Sudan, is dubious. Moreover, the host could have pointed out that Israel is just one of many nations receiving U.S. military aid. In the case of Israel, most of the money goes back into the American economy as payment for defense materials. Viewers could have been informed of the reciprocal nature of the aid; much of it is returned to the United States in the form of technology for improved unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals.

March 1, 2010 – 7:15 AM

Host: BILL SCANLAN.

Topic: Nuclear weapons strategy

Caller: Sarah of Riverside, Ohio.

Caller: “Over the last five years I've spent a lot of time at the International Atomic Energy Agency' s Website, the IAEA Website. I encourage people to go to that Website and to read the Non- Proliferation treaty and to read some of the letters that other countries in the Middle East have sent to the head of the IAEA, ElBaradei, and other directors of the IAEA over the years in regards to, say, for instance, Israel' s nuclear-weapons and that threat to the Middle East and how they would all like to see that area a nuclear-free zone. And so in regard to us, yes, with Obama, that would set the example by reduction of our own (number of nuclear weapons) to the rest of the world of, hey, let's really examine this and let us reduce, and then for instance, Israel, I know the last president who challenged Israel in regard to opening up inspections was President Kennedy, and so at the IAEA Website you can also access the letters that President Kennedy wrote to Ben-Gurion and the following leader in Israel in regards to opening up inspections. I think that would help settle Iran down. I mean, they obviously feel threatened by what we have done in their neighborhood and the threats that Israel makes to them constantly. So, yes, we should definitely look at this and Obama would be setting the tone and the example by looking at our own nuclear arsenals.”

Host: “Sarah, can you share with us where we will find that? What is the Website of the IAEA?”

Caller: “You could just Google IAEA or you can Google International Atomic Energy Agency. And then also at the UN (Web) site, I've also read a lot of documents and letters in regard to the nuclear standing of different countries in the world. So, both of those sites are excellent. Also, I could mention Mordecai Vanunu. Mordecai Vanunu – it's V-A-N-U-N-U. He was an Israeli scientist who exposed Dimona (nuclear plant) and what was there. And he – I know Israel has released him from prison – but his Web site also you can read a great deal about the nuclear situation in the Middle East.”

Host: “Thanks for your call.”

NOTE: The host fails to challenge the caller on several well-reported points, including a) the IAEA under previous head Mohammed el-Baradei was widely criticized as weak regarding inspection and analysis of Iran's nuclear program, b) the caller implies that Iran and Arab countries have reason to fear Israel's reported nuclear weapons when Iran currently -- and Arab states in the past – have threatened Israel with annihilation but Israel has never similarly threatened them and c) by asking the caller to supply more sources of information, rather than questioning her sources or interpretation, furthers the caller's agenda. That agenda is to undermine Israel's standing with viewers. For instance, the “Israeli scientist” she cites was a technician who violated a secrecy pledge and served a long term in an Israeli prison. Now released, he continues a campaign of bizarre claims about Israel and its neighbors.
 
March 1, 2010 – 7:28 AM

Host: BILL SCANLAN

Topic: Nuclear weapons strategy

Caller: Lou from Highland Park, Illinois.

Caller: “Good morning. You know, I listen to C-SPAN every morning and I want to thank C-SPAN for its programming. You know, when it comes to issues, oftentimes people who are anti-Israel call up and make comments against Israel but you never hear them say anything about how the Arabs or Palestinians used to bomb buses in Israel or shoot rockets into the heart of Israel and I just think they should offer both sides of the story before they lambast Israel all the time. It seems like there's a whole group of them and they just can't wait to put Israel down every chance they get. I thank you.”

Host: “Lou, thanks for your call.”

NOTE: This is a very rare Washington Journal call that mentions Israel but does not condemn it. Rather, the caller stresses the point that Arab aggression against Israel is rarely mentioned by what he correctly identifies as a group of C-SPAN callers who “can't wait to put Israel down every chance they get.” In practice, it's “every chance” Washington Journal hosts allow them.

Bookmark and Share