C-SPAN January – February 2010

February 28, 2010 – 7:06 AM


Topic: Iraq: Rebirth of a nation?

Caller: James from Los Angeles, California (frequent caller).

Caller: “Thanks for taking my call. Of course Iraq is another quagmire. The Sunnis are not accepting the political arrangements there. There’s going to be a civil war. It was a war for Israel. Go to neoconzionistthreat dot com for more and read the book ‘Transparent Cabal’ by Stephen Sagosky. The same neoconservatives who pushed us into Iraq to secure the (indistinct) for Israel – of course with their clean break agenda have now set their sight on Iran – and we’ll be there before long as well if they get their way. Stop the pro-Israel lobby now before it takes America down with us. Thank you.”

NOTE: The host listens silently as this frequent caller’s formulaic propaganda spiel promotes both an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic Web site and a conspiracy-spinning book that falsely blame Israel for the war in Iraq. In this caller’s illusory world, it’s not international threats from Islamist terrorism or the Islamist revolutionary regime in Iran and its nuclear weapons program that endangers the world , rather it’s Israel and its supporters. This is a view C-SPAN repeatedly airs, giving it tacit endorsement.

February 28, 2010 – 7:17 AM


Topic: Iraq: Rebirth of a nation?

Caller: Lee from Albany, New York.

Caller: “I appreciate it – taking my call. You do a great job. I’m independent for a reason – an ex-Republican since 2002 when we were fraudulently put into the Iraq war over whatever – oh – to make it a democracy and it was really to be in the Middle East to support Israel, and that’s why we’re still there.”

SCULLY: “Uh-huh.”

NOTE: Host’s utterance appears to be either assent – to the caller’s view regarding Israel – or at least encouragement to the caller to continue to express pessimism about the Iraqi Shiite/Sunni reconciliation. The host switches the topic to discussion of the controversy surrounding Governor David Paterson of New York. Once again, host Steven Scully tacitly accepts a caller’s unfounded allegation portraying Israel as determining U.S. military policy.
February 28, 2010 – 7:39 AM


Topic: Iraq: Rebirth of a nation?

Caller: Jacque from Alexandria, Virginia.

Caller praises the U.S. removal of Saddam Hussein from power as helpful for peace and stability in the area – but criticizes the weak U.S. reaction to Iran’s meddling in Iraq as causing divisions among Iraqis. The caller asks that the other Arab countries surrounding Iraq provide help there:

Caller: “And for those countries to cooperate with the United States, the United States must show little more objective policies in the Middle East when it comes to the relationship with Israel. It must help Israel by convincing Israel that its role in the Middle East must be a peaceful one since Israel is the superpower in the area. And for the Arab countries to trust America and help America more create a better rebirth of Iraq, America must pursue a more objective policy in bringing peace and helping Israel to help itself by pursuing the legitimate and international laws.”

Host: “Jacque, before I let you go, based on your accent, where are you from?

Caller: “I am from Syria.”

Host: “Thank you for the call.”

NOTE: Caller’s implication that Israel is neither peaceful nor abides by international laws – omitting any mention of Arab countries aggression and violations of laws – is contradicted by regional realities. The neighboring Arab countries have precipitated several wars aimed at destroying Israel, the only Western style democracy in the area. They often tolerate attacks against Israel, and have gone to war against each other or fought bloody civil wars. Syrian President Bashar Assad recently rebuffed U.S. initiatives on regional peace-making. True to form, the host makes no mention of this.
February 28, 2010 – 9:02 AM


Guest: James Dobbins, Rand Corporation – international security director.

Topic: Afghanistan update.

Caller: Alexander from Alexandria, Virginia (frequent caller attempting to disguise his voice for his second call of the broadcast – or possibly a sound-alike).

Caller: “Yeah, thanks for takin’ my call, sir. Ah really appreciate that. That person was utterly disrespectful for you. You have conservatives on frequently. I’ve seen that often, sir. Please, you have had a lot of neocons on there and whatnot. The bottom line, we went into Afghanistan because of our support for Israel. You know, we have no business being there wasting billions of dollars as we go broke. What’s going to be next – another war for Israel in Iran like the caller said in your first segment? We gotta get out now. How long is this gonna go on for – until America goes broke and into the dust bin of history?”

Host: “We’ll get a response.”

Guest: “Well, there were allegations that U.S. intervention in Iraq had something to do with support for Israel, but this is the first time I’ve heard anybody suggest that the American intervention in Afghanistan had anything to do with U.S. policy toward Israel. It clearly was a response to the attacks of 9/11. I don’t think there is too much of a connection although one could argue that the attacks of 9/11 were a response by Arab extremists to American support for Israel. One could make that argument. But I think, suggesting that U.S. policy toward Israel is an important factor in our policy toward Afghanistan is an exaggeration.”

NOTE: Not only does the host fail to disconnect the caller for violating C-SPAN’s ostensible one-call-per-month rule, he fails to interrupt or challenge the caller’s familiar formulaic bashing of Israel. Adding substantive information to the guest’s comment: Osama bin Laden’s attention to Israel was largely a post 9/11 addition to his hostility to the Western presence in Saudi Arabia and to the Saudi royal family. He also sought a restored international caliphate.

February 22, 2010 – 8:56 AM


Guest: WENDY SHERMAN, Vice Chair, Albright Stonebridge Group which is headed by Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in the Clinton administration.

Topic: “Obama’s foreign policy.”

Caller: Sean (or Shawn) from Washington, D.C.

Caller: “I am a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I see firsthand how the foreign policy decisions – how they affect America with the rest of the world. The question I ask, though, is when are we going to take a look at ourselves and see the double standard that we have when it comes to Israel and the Arab Islamic world? We have a lot of United Nations resolutions that go against Israel and we kind of dismiss them, but when it comes to ones going against Arab nations, we go ahead and we want to tout these resolutions as being something that we need to enforce – and also as well, just the latitude that we give Israel is unparalleled, the slant and the bias that we have toward Israel – and it resonates across the entire Arab Islamic world and that’s highly (indistinct) …” (Finally cut-off).

Host: “Thank you. Do we have a double standard when it comes to Israel and the Arab countries?”

Guest: “Well, first of all, I want to thank the caller for his service to our country, and Theresa’s family, as well, from the earlier caller. It is a hard road for what returning vets have to deal with when they come home. As for a double standard, Israel is our only democratic ally in the Middle East. We have a longstanding relationship that is very important to our national security with Israel. At the same time, President Obama and Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton and Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates, really have made a tremendous effort to reach out to the Islamic world. Because of our occupation of Iraq and the sense that somehow our fight against terrorism is an anti-Islamic effort, as opposed to an anti-terrorist effort, we have had to make a very important out reach to the Islamic world to say that we know that terrorism is not a part of your culture, not a part of your creation. We know that it is important for “Palestine” to get its own home and its own state and if we are going to be engaged in seeing if we can in fact reach that two-stage solution. The caller has a point, in that we’ve really been seen in the Muslim world as not attending to the issues of concern to them in a way that we should. We can do that, while at the same time not stepping back an inch from our historic and very important strategic relationship with Israel.”

NOTE: Both host and guest fail to point out that countless anti-Israel resolutions have been generated by the Arab League and Organization of the Islamic Conference and that those are usually non-binding General Assembly measures, while the U.S. had acted against Iraq, for example, under more authoritative Chapter 7 Security Council measures.
February 22, 2010 – 9:06 AM


Guest: WENDY SHERMAN, Vice Chair, Albright Stonebridge Group which is headed by Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in the Clinton administration.

Caller: Mark from Carlsbad, California.

Caller: “Yes. It should be a matter of concern to all Americans that Israel proclaims itself to be a Jewish state, which is race-specific and thus, by definition, it’s a racist country. And so, I was concerned about whether or not we ought to just eliminate our relationship with Israel altogether and …” (cut-off).

NOTE: The guest appropriately points out that Israel, although defining itself as a Jewish state, assures free religious practice of non-Jews. The guest also notes that “Israel was founded out of a historical reality that was quite horrific at the end of World War II, having had the Holocaust and [the Jewish people] looking for a homeland for all those who had suffered so greatly.” However, both guest and host missed the opportunity to inform viewers that most Arab States cite Islam as the basis for their laws or that for example, America’s long-time close ally, Saudi Arabia, virtually prohibits the open practice of any religion except Islam. Many modern nation-states still claim a religious-national basis; the Queen of England, for example, also is head of the Anglican Church. The caller’s criticism of Israel as a Jewish state should have been challenged for its inherent double standard.
February 22, 2010 – 9:13 AM


Guest: WENDY SHERMAN, Vice Chair, Albright Stonebridge Group which is headed by Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in the Clinton administration.

Topic: “Obama’s foreign policy.”

Caller: John from Witting, New Jersey.

Caller: “Yes. I’ll make this quick. My first comment – I have just two quick comments. One on Secretary Clinton and the other one on Iran. At the beginning of your segment, you gave the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, about an A-, you said. I just have to differ on that topic because she – we’ve done nothing – she has done nothing to quell the ongoing violence and the turmoil in Palestine and Israel. Okay?”

Host: “And what’s your second point, caller?”

Caller: “Well, basically, also to finish the first point, she mentioned foreign policy, she says, is like 90 percent common sense. Well, isn’t it common sense that if we take care of this problem with Israel and “Palestine” that it will cut our terrorism problem around the world basically in half if not better? My second comment is Iran. Why does everybody involved in foreign policy in this country always misinterpret or mis-state Iran’s intentions? They have stated time and again that their nuclear ambitions are for domestic energy policy only.”

NOTE: The guest refutes the caller’s argument for trusting Iranian claims about the peaceful nature of its nuclear ambitions. But neither guest nor host refute the caller’s claim that “if we take care of this problem with Israel and Palestine that it will cut our terrorism problem around the world basically in half if not better.” Many factors motivate anti-American Islamic terrorism. Over the past 30 years these have included the U.S. presence in Lebanon, support for the Shah of Iran, the presence of American and other Crusader (European, Christian) troops in the Persian Gulf and region (especially in Saudi Arabia), U.S. support for authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and the “threat” of modern, secular democratic Western societies to more traditional, religiously fundamentalist, clan-based and patriarchal Arab-Islamic societies. The Arab-Israeli conflict has been just one, often secondary cause. Once more a C-SPAN Washington Journal host has been unable or unwilling to provide essential information when Middle East issues are misrepresented and Israel is unfairly attacked.

February 17, 2010 – 8:46 AM

Guest: MICHAEL ISIKOFF (Newsweek investigative correspondent).

Topic: “Capture of the Taliban commander.”

Caller: Ron from Miami, Florida.

Caller: “Yes. Thank you for taking my call. Yes, I have a whole problem with asserting that whether we get our (indistinct) on bin Laden or the Taliban or whatever; it’s not the issue. The issue is what causes terrorism. As long as CNN and all the media is controlled by the propaganda, we are not going to get to the source, which is the way Israel is treating the Palestinians. There will always be terrorism as long as we allow the destruction of Palestine.”

BRAWNER: ”Michael, let’s talk the connection there. It’s a  – it’s a – it’s a point that’s brought up continuously.”

ISIKOFF: “By some people.”

BRAWNER: “By some people.”

ISIKOFF: “Right. Look, I m ean, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is a factor. It’s hardly the only one. If you go back and look at Usama bin Laden’ s agenda when he first declared war against the United States, it was not the number one or two item that he cited as the reason. He occasionally – and al Qaeda leaders – occasionally invoke it because they know it plays well in certain parts of the Arab world. But the idea that al Qaeda and terrorism is solely about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is nonsense.”
NOTE: The guest, Michael Isikoff, appropriately points out the manipulation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. The guest accurately notes that before the Sept. 11, 2001 World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, bin Laden primarily invoked other pretexts for al-Qaeda attacks. These included the presence of “infidel Crusaders” (meaning U.S. and other Western soldiers in Saudi Arabia), the alleged lack of piety and corruption of Saudi rulers, and the need to establish a new Middle Eastern caliphate. The guest says that people who echo bin Laden’s playing of the Palestinian card are speaking “nonsense.” C-SPAN’s Ms. Brawner, by contrast, does not deal with the invalid substance of the caller’s assertion, only noting without analysis that it’s “brought up continuously.” Her inadequate response, like those of other Washington Journal hosts in response to such allegations by callers, treats the anti-Israel propaganda as legitimate.  
February 12, 2010 – 8:14 AM
Guest: ROBIN WRIGHT, United States Institute of Peace – foreign policy analyst.
Caller: Darrell from St. Louis, Missouri.
Caller: “As an American citizen I have no problem with the Iranians wanting to become a nuclear power. I’ve listened to Robin Wright talking and she hasn’t said anything about the numerous lies Israel has told about all the nuclear weapons that they’ve stockpiled. Why is it that our policy is so hypocritical when it comes to Israel. If Iran was bombing Palestine, we’d be bombing Iran right now but Israel can bomb everybody in that area and not a peep out of our media. They are dropping white phosphorous on the Palestinians; they’ve lied about their nuclear weapons; they don’t do anything the Americans tell them to do. Obama told Netanyahu to stop the settlements and Netanyahu basically told him he wasn’t doing anything. As an American citizen, I am sick and tired of supporting Israel. I’m sick and tired of sending my money to them until they do what they’re supposed to be doing. You ought to do a program on Israel and all the lies they’ve told over the years about their nuclear weapons and what they are doing to the Palestinians. I don’t see the Iranians bombing anybody.”
NOTE: Neither host nor guest interrupts, rebuts, or even comments on the caller’s anti-Israel rant. Either host or guest could have pointed out obvious advantages to the United States of its relationship with Israel (see NOTE for call entry of Feb. 11 – 9:41 AM). As to the “white phosphorus” allegation, an Israeli military special command investigation did support disciplinary action against two officers for improper artillery fire – but not pertaining to white phosphorus use. The IDF used white phosphorus in Gaza much like U.S. and Coalition forces have in Afghanistan for smoke camouflage and marking. See CAMERA’s Feb 1, 2010 report, Cloud of Questions Over Ha’aretz’s White Phosphorous Story. The guest limits her comments to the existence of Israel’s reported nuclear program, the existential fear Israel has from Iranian nuclear weapons, the alleged likely adverse repercussions for the United States of a pre-emptive attack by Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities, and a sort of apologetic for the Iranians –  “The Iranians have not invaded anyone for 200 years; they have been a regular victim of invasion.” The guest and host fail to note Iranian support for anti-U.S. terrorism from the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks and embassy in Lebanon in 1983, Khobar Towers military housing in Saudi Arabia in 1996, and anti-U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither mentions the difference in ideological driven aggression between past Iranian regimes and the current. Neither points out that Israel is not “bombing Palestine” but has conducted counter-terrorism against Hamas or that the Netanyahu government maintains a virtual freeze on settlement building.
February 12, 2010 – 8:24 AM


Guest: ROBIN WRIGHT, United States Institute of Peace – foreign policy analyst.

Caller: Mike from Sterling Heights, Michigan

Caller: “I am a Vietnam veteran and I’m not opposed to war but I do feel that the United States is going to enter into World War III once Iran’s nuclear installations are attacked by either Israel or the United States, probably by Israel and that the politicians and the media in this country for the most part are prostitutes for the state of Israel. And Obama has done everything he could to destroy this country in every way, shape and form. And especially militarily we have really weakened our military. And we are just ripe for attack. And since the Soviet Union – although I should say that that’s not politically correct – but I still consider it the enemy of the United States – and red China – they have treaties with Iran. And that they are in a great position now to attack the United States. Because what they’ll do is – they will probably accuse the United States of commandeering all these Middle East oil reserves which in reality is what they want – and they’ll use that as a pretext to attack the United States. And we will have this one world government established after the dust settles because the United States is the one that’s primarily going to be hit the hardest.”

Host: “Robin Wright, what did you think of this theory?”

NOTE: The host fails to interrupt, rebut, or even comment on the caller’s apocalyptic monologue about a one-world government imposed on the United States after its defeat by the “Soviet Union” and “Red China.” The caller’s absurd charge that politicians and news media “are prostitutes for the state of Israel” ignores both the numerous examples of media bias against Israel in CAMERA’s Web site and publications and that American politicians like the American public, according to numerous polls, support Israel as a democratic ally. The guest also fails to rebut the caller’s wild allegations and speculations except to say, “I disagree with it on many levels.” The guest predicts that the U.S. and other countries will soon agree on moves to pressure Iran through sanctions and other means short of military attack.

February 11, 2010 – 9:41 AM


Caller: Jan from North Carolina.

Caller: “I would like to say that I think the United States should stop giving Israel $10 billion a year. This charity begins at home. This (Israel) is one of the richest countries in the world. They do not – we do not need to borrow money to send $10 billion a year to Israel. They have 200 nuclear weapons. They can take care of themselves.”

NOTE: The host sits silently instead of pointing out that Israel is one of many nations receiving U.S. military aid, receiving $3 billion per year not the $10 billion per year alleged by the caller, with most of the money going back into the American economy as payment for defense materials. Likewise, the host fails to inform viewers of the reciprocal nature of the aid, much coming back 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.

February 2, 2010 – 8:52 AM


Guest: DANIELLE PLETKA, American Enterprise Institute.

Caller: Tom from Annapolis, Maryland.

Caller: “I just want to know – why you do you think Iran should let themselves be a sitting duck for the terrorists in Israel like Netanyahu? The Israelis have attacked all their neighbors just about, without any real provocation. They’ve attacked Syria. They’ve killed Palestinian children and they’ve attacked Lebanon without any real provocation. Iran is not a threat to the United States of America. They took our hostages back in the ‘70s but every single hostage was returned unharmed. Israel, on the other hand, attacked and killed 34 of our sailors on the U.S.S. Liberty.”

NOTE: The guest appropriately refuted the caller’s baseless accusation against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and accurately characterized Iran as a sponsor of international terrorism throughout the world. The guest properly condemned ill-informed theories blaming Israel for Middle East problems.” The host sits silent rather than rebut the remaining false accusations. Israel’s battles with Syria have been in response to Syrian aggression as in 1967 and 1973 attacks, or in the case of the 2007 attack on Syria’s secret nuclear installation, in order to prevent a subsequent attack or nuclear blackmail. The battles involving Hizbullah in Lebanon and Palestinian terrorists followed repeated provocations. Iran has attacked U.S. forces through Hizbullah repeatedly since the 1978-1980 embassy seizure. An official U.S. government investigation exonerated Israel of culpability in the attack on the U.S.S Liberty during the 1967 Six-Day War, ruling that it was the result of errors of mis-communication on both sides.
February 2, 2010 – 8:53 AM


Guest: DANIELLE PLETKA, American Enterprise Institute.

Caller: Willy from Baltimore, Maryland.

Caller: “Yes, I’m hoping that I’ll be able to get my call through because I’m going to speak about Israel – and – you know – that’s a no-no. But anyway, you know, we’ve done so much for this country (Israel) and they just slapped us in the face. You know, we’ve given them weapons that they said they gave technology to China. They spied on us. They’ve taken our money and just dis-respected us. They really have co-opted our foreign policy.“

HARLESTON: “Willy, I want to make sure – are you talking about Iran now?”

Caller: “No, I’m talking about Israel.”

HARLESTON: “Okay, we’re talking about the U.S. policy with Iran.”

Caller: “Yes, But this is why we are in the predicament that we are in as far as Iran is concerned. We are in this predicament with Iran because of Israel.”

HARLESTON: “Willy, we’re going to have to leave it there.”

NOTE: The caller’s claim that callers are not allowed to criticize Israel in C-SPAN’s Washington Journal program is nonsensical since the program essentially functions as an anti-Israel “open microphone.” CAMERA has documented the high volume of uninterrupted anti-Israel calls on the show. Iran’s seizure of the U.S. embassy, its links to the bombings of the Marine barracks and embassy in Lebanon, support for and supply of anti-American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, have little to do with U.S-Israel ties. The host failed to mention any of this. The guest voiced her apprehension about U.S. policy toward Iran – preferring a more assertive one.

January 27, 2010 – 8:11 AM


Guest: Rep. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-Maryland).

Caller: Peggy from Marina del Rey, California (frequent caller)

Caller: “Yes, hi. The thing with Obama – what he’s going to cause is for us to have another attack. He took Bush’s foreign policy and gave it steroids. He’s doing everything AIPAC says. Both parties of Congress is strangle-holded by Congress – I mean by AIPAC. I saw the 9/11 Commission panel yesterday and it really disgusted me – nobody talked about page 147 of the 9/11 Commission report where it brought up the motivation, why we were attacked. We were attacked because of our support of Israel and the oppression of the Palestinians.”

BRAWNER: “Peggy, why do you believe that – and your comments about AIPAC?”

Caller: “I have heard that from former Congressmen – not only Jim Trafficant but Paul Findley wrote a book about it, They Dare to Speak Out, – and it’s a fact. They lobbied. I saw the …”

BRAWNER: “Where are your facts?”

Caller: “The facts? On C-SPAN actually, on (indistinct) and Book TV and I have Paul Findley’s book too.”

BRAWNER: “Alright. We’ll leave it there. Chris Van Hollen – her comments about President Obama?”

NOTE: The host asks the caller for her sources but doesn’t otherwise scrutinize the caller’s formulaic anti-Israel rant. The host only asks the guest to comment on the caller’s remarks;

Rep. Van Hollen provides a lengthy response, at the end of which he points out that the Palestinian/Israel conflict, while it motivates extremists, nevertheless is only one item on the long list of grievances held by bin Laden and al Qaeda. Neither host nor guest pointed to the dubious reliability of the caller’s sources. Former Rep. Trafficant completed a seven year prison term for racketeering in 2009 and has claimed “Zionist extremists” control much of the news media, business and Congress. Former Rep. Findley served in the U.S. House from 1961 to 1982. He was one of the chamber’s only members who consistently voted against Israel on every matter.

The caller 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 2nd 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 Isra el, 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, but the Saudis turned him down and invited in the Americans.

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

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.

January 27, 2010 – 9:20 AM


Guest: RYAN CROCKER, former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Caller: Tyrone from Los Angeles, California. (frequent caller)

Caller: “Hi. Thanks for taking my call. I lost a nephew in Iraq and I’m real angry about it. Have you heard of the Transparent Cabal book? That’s all about the message that we went into Iraq for Israel and how these Jewish neo-cons wanted to go into Iran next (indistinct). You can go to America-hijacked dot com and neoconzionistthreat dot com. Please read it, sir.”

NOTE: The host allows the short but inflammatory conspiracy-spinning rant of the frequent caller. The caller apparently attempts to disguise his voice. The guest commiserates with the caller’s (alleged) loss but then rejects the caller’s anti-Semitic conspiracy claim.

• January 26, 2010 – 7:05 AM


Caller: Mike from York, Pennsylvania.

Host: “A three-year freeze in a portion of the budget that does not affect defense or homeland’s security — what do you think about what you’ve heard so-far?”

Caller: “I think we should end our foreign aid to Israel. 30 percent of our foreign aid goes to Israel mostly in the form of military hardware. I think that is why America is coming under attack from Osama bin laden. You saw his statement over the weekend saying again that he is attacking America because it is America that created Israel.”

ORGEL: “Caller, would you cut anything else besides that?”

Caller: “No, that’s the biggest problem we have right now.”

NOTE: The host appears unaware of basic relevant facts: foreign aid to Israel is not “30 percent” of the U.S. total, as the caller alleges, but 8.5 percent in fiscal 2010. The host fails to question the caller’s claim that U.S. support of Israel is the reason for al Qaeda’s attacks on America. The viewers should have been reminded of bin Laden’s pre-Sept. 11, 2001 statements condemning America for polluting the Islamic heartland of Saudi Arabia by stationing American troops there. As many analysts have noted, bin Laden has only recently been stressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in part to deflect criticism of al Qaeda attacks that kill other Muslims, help recruit new followers and boost public pressure on Arab regimes linked to Washington, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

• January 20, 2010 – 9:37 AM


Guest: PIERRE VIMONT, French ambassador to the United States.

Topic: “France’s Response to Haitian Earthquake.”

Caller: Tim from Los Angeles, California (frequent caller apparently attempting to use a fake accent).

Caller: “Thanks for taking my call. I’d just like to find out with Haiti and all that, why aren’t we sending aid to Gaza after what Israel did to bomb the heck out of Gaza last year. I mean that’s the root of our terrorism problem. And not only that, I don’t like France’s position on wanting to put sanctions against Iran for Israel either. I mean, your president is basically of Jewish heritage – I hate to say that – but he’s very biased for Israel.”

NOTE: The host allows, without comment, the caller’s typical – for C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” program – anti-Israel, anti-Jewish propaganda even though it’s clearly off-topic. Likewise, host and guest ignore the caller’s biased assertion that French president Nicholas Sarkozy, who had a grandfather who converted from Judaism to Catholicism is “basically of Jewish heritage” and therefore is “very biased toward Israel.” The guest asserts that France takes a balanced position on the Middle East (including policy on Iran) in concert with the United States. This frequent caller’s recent violations of C-SPAN’s 30-day rule: January 20 (9:37 AM) as “Tim from Los Angeles, California,” January 6 (9:13 AM) as “Tyrone from Los Angeles, California,” and January. 4 (8:18 AM) as “Tim from Norfolk, Virginia.”

• January 15, 2010 – 9:56 AM


Guest: MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times reporter on national security.

Topic: ” U.S. intelligence and Al Qaeda”

Caller: Gillian from Tampa , Florida

Caller: ” Yes, hi, good morning. I have a two-part question. I heard something about Iran , and they were going to have something of a (indistinct) like a (indistinct) that Germany under Hitler had and I hadn’t heard much about it and the earthquake in Haiti and the Nigerian bomber. I would like to know more about that. Secondly, the drone attacks that are taking place – how does that coincide with the ones that were done by Israel in Palestine and how did they go – how does that affect our reputation? Because, I was under the assumption that when you kill innocent lives in another country, that is also an act of war (indistinct).”

MAZZETTI: “I’ m sorry, I did not understand the first part of her question about Iran . On the second part about the drones, there is a similar technology that Israel uses in Gaza to go after Hamas in the sense of using remote control. There has been a proliferation of drone technology and this is actually one of the really interesting stories going ahead – how many countries will try to get drones and what is the future of remote control war. You’re seeing it in other places and what’s going to happen when one of the United States ‘ enemies gets the drone and how will that be used. And that’s actually a very interesting question.”

NOTE: Neither guest nor host challenged the unfounded suggestion that Israel is guilty of war crimes in “Palestine” for using drones to thwart repeated terrorist attacks against Israel’s civilian population. The caller implies that when Israelis citizens are victimized by rocket attacks from Hamas – that does not constitute a war crime because it’s permissible to kill or injure Jews. But the reverse situation in which Israel defends its citizens by attacking Hamas rocket facilities or its terrorist leaders – this constitutes a war crime.

• January 13, 2010 – 8:14 AM


Topic: “U.S. Terrorism Policies”

Guest: Congressman PETE HOEKSTRA (R-Michigan).

Caller: Ed from Wilmington, Delaware.

Caller: “I was uh. It seems like we’re talking about swatting flies. Now we have a lot of enemies. You know like. What is the real root cause of the war against islam? You know this crusade that Bush announced. You know. You have to go back to like that New American Century document that was produced for Israel by all these American thinkers they asked for a new Pearl Harbor and then next thing we’re having a 9/11. Just after Cheney assumed control of you know the air spaces. Crossing the Rubicon is a good book. It says here we have Israel, a country of 600 nukes, hundreds of ICBM’s, a satellite system they blackmailed from us – you can read about – Seymour Hersh writes about it. We have to assume Israel’ s enemies – even though they do terroristic actions against their neighbors and basically are having a Holocaust against the Palestinian people. Why are the people reacting to that our enemies? You know.”

Orgel: “Congressman.”

HOEKSTRA: “I think you are exactly right, we need to look at the root cause is of this radical jihadist movement against the united states. You have outlined a couple. Sure, our support of Israel is a cause that motivates these individuals. They are not big fans of democracy. They don’t believe in equality – women’ s rights, freedom of religion. At their core, they despise our way of life and the values we espouse. There is a difference. There is a fundamental difference between You are right, we need to understand those root causes and understand that it may not be easy to address these problems, and why it is so difficult to see why we should negotiate with these folks. I ‘m not sure there’s a negotiated path with the jihadist movement and the values that we have in this country.”

NOTE: Neither guest nor host challenge the caller’s obviously unfounded accusations. There is no holocaust against the Palestinian people. Israel did not “blackmail” a “satellite system” from any country. Although the guest asserts other reasons than U.S. support for Israel behind jihadi anti-Americanism, the host simply kicked the ball to the Congressman.

• January 6, 2010 – 9:13 AM


Guest: KENNETH TIMMERMAN of Foundation for Democracy in Iran (executive director).

Caller: Tyrone from Los Angeles (frequent caller apparently attempting to disguise his voice).

Caller: “Yes. I’d just like to say, Mr. Timmerman, why don’t you talk about your association with the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Now, the JINSA crowd is in charge of the Pentagon.” [Cut-off]

TIMMERMAN: (Laughter in reaction to the caller’s false voice and question) “Yes, I’m on the advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.”

BRAWNER (interrupting): “What is it?”

TIMMERMAN: “It’s a think tank based here in Washington which promotes U.S./Israel defense cooperation and security cooperation. One of the things that they do is – they take retired generals and admirals to Israel so they can see the country and see exactly what the security situation is. They’ve also recently started to take police officers to learn a bit about how Israel deals with the terrorism threat on the ground. I think it’s a great organization and I am very proud to be associated with it with other radicals such as [former CIA Director] Jim Woolsey and the late [U.S. ambassador to the United Nations] Jean Kirkpatrick and those other wacko Zionist right-wing extremists. So, I am honored to be associated with JINSA.”

NOTE: Host (and screener) presumably failed to recognize the frequent caller who was violating C-SPAN’s 30-day rule. Calls: “Tim from Norfolk, Virginia” (Jan. 4, 8:18 AM), “Tim from Austin, Texas” (Dec. 13, 8:30 AM), as well as this call from “Tyrone from Los Angeles.” The guest recognizes the rant and responds with ironic humor: “… I am very proud to be associated with … wacko Zionist right wing extremists.”

• January 5, 2010 – 9:25 AM


Guest: RICHARD FONTAINE, senior fellow at Center for a New American Society.

Topic: “Terrorist threat in Yemen”

Caller: Miriam from Los Angeles, California. (Frequent caller).

Caller: “Thank you. First of all, we’re supporting Mossad terrorism. You know, if Israel didn’t exist, this war is all about Israel. Israel is – all we’re doing is fighting wars in the Middle East for Israel. If they didn’t exist we would have not gotten attacked on 9/11, we wouldn’t have had Homeland Security, we wouldn’t have had our First Amendment rights taken away. We’re getting (indistinct) every day by them…”

HARLESTON (interrupting): “Miriam, I don’t recall anybody on the plane that went into the Towers being from Israel.”

Caller: “They’re not from Israel but that’s why we’re getting attacked – because of our support.”

FONTAINE: “Well, if you look at – why the articulated reasons – are for – for example, Al Qaeda in Yemen carrying out attacks in Yemen or this attack in the United States, I don’t think you’ll see much about Israel anywhere as a reason. They’ve stated their reasons for being what they perceive as humiliation of Islam or for U.S. actions around the world or for the Yemeni government – they’ve carried out attacks on the Yemini go vernment – so, it’s very difficult for me to see what the connection is between Al Qaeda in Yemen and Israel.”

NOTE: The guest responded substantively to the frequent caller and violator of C-SPAN’s 30-day rule, having most recently called on Jan. 1, 2, and 4.

• January 5, 2010 – 9:26 AM


Guest: RICHARD FONTAINE, senior fellow at Center for a New American Society.

Topic: “Terrorist threat in Yemen”

Caller: Don from Taylor, Michigan.

Caller: “Yes, I want to thank C-SPAN. Mr. Fontaine, the bottom line, I told my dad – you watch – something’s going to happen in Yemen because I heard the government was revving up the talks about Yemen. Lo and behold, what happened Christmas day, that guy was allowed to be on that plane. If it wasn’t for American passengers stopping him, he would have gone through with his plan. Another thing is all I see every time this goes on is we get more rules again for American people and the bottom line is: Do you believe in the U.S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights? Because all I see is the more stripping of our rights. Bottom line is – this terrorist threat – what the woman said about Israel is true. How about AIPAC? They’re very powerful in this country.”

Host: “Thanks for your call, Don.”

Guest: “Well, I guess one of the points that I might extract from that call is this sort of increasing – the ripple effect that these terrorist attacks have on the ability of Americans, particularly when it comes to air travel. Those who travel frequently, know how rigorous the security checks have been. And so in that sense, it’s important to look at these attempted attacks – not only targeted or having an effect directly on those that it might harm, but also – the sort of ripple effect it has throughout the rest of our society.”

NOTE: The host again avoids responding to a caller’s conspiracy accusation – this time attributing the recent failed Christmas day bombing attack on an American airliner to U.S.-Israel relations. The guest, who dismissed the charge when made by the previous caller, does not reply to it this time.

• January 4, 2010 – 7:38 AM


Topic: “Role of the Federal Reserve Bank: Ben Bernanke’s comments”

Caller: Bob from St. Louis, Missouri.

Caller: “Yeah, we don’t need regulations. We need jail terms. We need these people out. We need to get rid of the Federal Reserve. I just do not understand why most of the money that Bernie Madoff stole went to Israel. Why don’t we round these people up, close the Fed down. We asked for an audit of the Fed and they laughed it off. We need to get rid of the Federal Reserve. It’s is nothing but a Ponzi scheme. They’ve ripped us off. Our wealth is gone. I think we need to round them all up and send them back to Israel. I think they’re all Jewish, aren’t they?”

NOTE: “Round them all up.” “They’re all Jewish, aren’t they?” “The money Bernie Madoff stole went to Israel.” “We need these people out.” “The Federal Reserve is a Ponzi scheme.” “Our wealth is gone.” In this caller’s uninterrupted screed is the essence of the “Jews-and-money” and “Jewish disloyalty” slanders of classic anti-Semitism. The response of the C-SPAN host is complete silence.
• January 4, 2010 – 7:58 AM


Guest: MICHAEL SCHEUER, former CIA Bin Laden unit chief, 1996-99.

Topic: “Terrorism and Homeland Security”

Caller: Vivian from Memphis, Tennessee.

The caller asked about how a person can be stopped who wants to blow himself up and others. Scheuer’s response included advising that one way to stop [the bomber] is to recognize that “their motivation is things like support for Israel and the Saudi police state.”

NOTE: (Refer to NOTE for 8:02 AM call of January 4, 2010).
• January 4, 2010 – 8:02 AM


Guest: MICHAEL SCHEUER, former CIA Bin Laden unit chief, 1996-99.

Topic: “Terrorism and Homeland Security”

Caller: John from Franklin, New York.

Caller: “Good morning. I, for one, am sick and tired of all these Jews coming on C-SPAN and other stations and pushing us to go to war against our Muslim friends. They’re willing to spend the last drop of American blood and treasure to get their way in the world. They have way too much power in this country. People like Wolfowitz and Feith and the other neo-cons – that Jewed us into Iraq – and now we’re going to spend the next 60 years rehabilitating our soldiers. I’m sick and tired of it.”

Host: “Any comment?”

Scheuer: “Yeah. I think that of course American foreign policy is eventually up to the American people. One of the big things we have not been able to discuss for the past 30 years is our policy towards the Israelis. Whether we want to be involved in fighting Israel’s wars in the future is something that Americans should be able to talk about. They may vote yes. They may want to see their kids killed in Iraq or Yemen or somewhere else to defend Israel. But the question is: we need to talk about it. Ultimately, Israel is a country that is of no particular worth to the United States.”

Host: “You mean strategically?”

Scheuer: “Strategically. They have no resources we need. Their manpower is minimal. Their association with us is a negative for the United States. Now that’s a fact. What you want to do about that fact is entirely different. But for anyone to stand up in the United States and say that our support for Israel doesn’t hurt us in the Muslim world, or our support for Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship doesn’t hurt us, is to just defy reality.”

NOTE: As Jeffrey Goldberg put it in his blog: “‘Any comment?’ This is what a C-Span host says in reaction to a grotesquely anti-Semitic question? Any comment. Words fail. Scheuer is a Jew-hating crank. I don’t expect anything from him except invective. But C-Span? ….”

Scheuer headed the CIA’s Osama bin Laden hunting unit from 1996 to 1999. In 2004 he left the agency after writing the book Imperial Hubris, first published anonymously. As historian and syndicated columnist Victor Davis Hanson wrote, “once Scheuer was publicly identified, the world could examine what he had to say on various topics. People weren’t impressed – especially by Scheuer’s assertions in interviews that Osama bin Laden shouldn’t be identified as a terrorist, and the Holocaust Museum in Washington was a means to make Americans feel guilty about the Holocaust.”

In 2007, The New York Sun reported that the tax-supported Center for Naval Analysis was distancing itself from Scheuer’s remarks, at a CNA-sponsored roundtable on April 9, that “by defining bin Laden and his ilk as would-be Islamist Hitlers, the U.S. citizen Israel-firsters who dominate the American governing elite ensure that those who question the nature and benefit of current U.S.-Israel ties are slandered as pro-Nazi, anti-Semites.” In fact, it was Scheuer who was slandering American supporters of strong U.S.-Israel ties as more loy al to a foreign country than to the United States. It was Scheuer who dismissed the well-documented history of reciprocal benefits to U.S.-Israel relations. Scheuer simultaneously attempted by implication to recycle the dual-loyalty canard typically lodged against Jews by antisemites while protecting himself against charges of anti-Jewish bigotry.

Reviewing Scheuer’s later work, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq, Joshua Sinai, program manager for counter-terrorism studies at the Analysis Corp., said the author’s foreign policy view, “especially [toward] Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia tilts toward the jingoistic, propagandistic and one-sided.” Scheuer, who repeated that “I care not a whit whether or not Israel survives [or any other country except the United States]” recommended that after 9/11 American should have “fire-bombed Kabul and Kandahar, demolished whatever ruins were left, and sowed salt over the length and width of both sites.”

As Hanson noted, “Scheuer sounds goofier each time he gives an interview ….” Except on C-SPAN, where he’s treated with kid gloves by “Washington Journal” (his most recent appearance was his fifth) and where hosts, by frequent, impassive tolerance of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel bigotry encourage more of the same.

• January 4, 2010 – 8:18 AM


Guest: MICHAEL SCHEUER, former CIA Bin Laden unit chief, 1996-99.

Topic: “Terrorism and Homeland Security”

Caller: Tim from Norfolk, Virginia (frequent caller using a fake accent) .

Caller: “Yeah. Mr. Scheuer, I met you in Los Angeles and you were so brave being on the Bill Maher show talking about how we’re fighting these wars for Israel and losing lives for Israel and I told you about my – the neoconzionistthreat dot com site, America-hijacked as well. You’re absolutely spot on. When are we going to shred the Israeli yoke and get on with defending America like George Washington wanted to us to do it (indistinct) and standforjustice dot com. Thank you sir.”

SCHEUER: “I think Israel is certainly part of the problem, but not the entire problem. To me, one of the great problems in America today is that people are almost embarrassed to stand up and say, well, yes, civilians are going to be killed in this war, but we have to do these things to protect Americans. The president of the United States is really not the president of the world when it comes to national defense. He absolutely must put the protection of Americans first. You go back to this airline safety concern, and it is a genuine threat to the United States. It’s a system that must work to the best of its ability. The idea that we are putting all of our eggs in the basket of airliners when someone can drive across the border from Mexico in a pickup truck and never be seen, or can take a boat across the Niagara River from Canada into Buffalo without ever being checked, we are really paying a close attention to only a small part of North American security.”

NOTE: (Refer to NOTE for 8:02 AM call of January 4, 2010).
• January 4, 2010 – 8:23 AM


Guest: MICHAEL SCHEUER, former CIA Bin Laden unit chief, 1996-99.

Topic: “Terrorism and Homeland Security”

Caller: Nicki from La Plata,Maryland.

Caller: “Yes. Good morning and I thank you for what you said about Israel. And that would be the question. My question: Why is it that the United States does not want to talk about Israel? While the people and the politicians do not want to talk about Israel in the forefront. And my comments are this: When the country was very young – you mentioned also abut the oil. Our country almost was built on oil and gold. The Appalachians and other areas of our country – what ever happened to that oil and why is that it cannot be resurrected now?”

SCHEUER: “Well, I think that what we’ve just chosen on oil is to go the easiest route for the past 50 years. The easiest route is to buy it as cheap as we can from the Arabs and worry about other things here at home. I think we need to be a little bit careful on Israel. Israel, in my mind at least, has every right to do what it needs to do to defend itself and to preserve itself.”

SCANLAN: “Including their purported nuclear program?”

SCHEUR: “Unfortunately, including that. Ultimately, though, we don’t have any interest in the Israel or the Palestinians. That is a religious war in which we have no stake. Why do we not talk about that? Because AIPAC and other influential American Jewish groups are extraordinarily involved in the funding of American political campaigns and have the ability to reach out and make sure that people lose their jobs or otherwise hurt if they dare to criticize Israel. I lost a job last year simply because I just said that I suspected that Mr. Obama would maintain the traditional U.S. policy toward Israel. And that cost me a job that was both a position and a salary.”

SCANLAN: “Where was that?”

SCHEUER: “At the Jamestown foundation. I was a writer there, published an article every two weeks. I said, just kind of flippantly, at one of their conferences that I thought Obama, doing what I called ‘the Tel Aviv two-step’ during the presidential election campaign, to get closer to the Israeli lobby, meant that he wouldn’t change policy toward Israel. That was enough to have the donors to that foundation indicate that I should be terminated.”

SCANLAN: “Have you been able to find work in the foundation/think tank world since then?”

SCHEUER: “No, but I haven’t actively looked. I have enough other jobs. You always talk about the Israeli lobby and its power, and to see it up close and personal and aimed at me, was very educational, in fact it was worth the experience of losing a job. “

NOTE: (Refer to NOTE for 8:02 AM call of January 4, 2010).
• January 4, 2010 – 8:30 AM


Guest: MICHAEL SCHEUER, former CIA Bin Laden unit chief, 1996-99.

Topic: “Terrorism and Homeland Security”

Caller: Jack from San Antonio, Texas.

In reply to the caller’s question asking if he (Scheuer) disagrees with (President) Truman’s decision to “support Israel from the very beginning to allow it to exist…” Scheuer replied: “Would I have opposed Truman’s decision to recognize Israel? – I certainly would have because it was obvious where it was going to lead. That said, what I would say is that no country has a right to exist. The United States doesn’t have a right to exist, Britain doesn’t have a right to exist, Bolivia doesn’t have a right to exist. Countries exist if they can get along with their neighbors, if they have a thriving economy and a social system that is equitable. If countries deserve to exist, we would be resurrecting the Soviet Union, the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and every other country that has gone down the tubes. Every country has a right to defend itself, including Israel, but no country has the right to exist.”

NOTE: (Refer to NOTE for 8:02 AM call of January 4, 2010).

• January 4, 2010 – 9:30 AM


Guest: Major JOHN NEWMAN (Ret.), author.

Topic: “Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?”

Caller: Louise from Los Angeles, California (frequent caller).

Caller: “Yes. I’d like to say – Philip Giraldi wrote a big article mentioning the Afghanistan war – because — first of all, I want to go back to the 9/11 attack and that’s why we’re there. Let us – 9/11 happened because of our support for Israel and conveyed on page 147 on the 9/11 commission report, if you read that, it shows what motivated the 9/11 hijackers. And there’s a video about it, too. You can see it on neoconzionistthreat dot com…”

SCANLAN (interrupting): “Okay, Louise, Louise, forward this to – your question on Afghanistan – for John Newman, go ahead.” (Caller terminates the call).

NEWMAN: “To the previous caller, the significance of 9/11 is actually important, in this sense: Unlike Vietnam, we are fighting a war now against someone who attacked us. That is the difference between Vietnam and what is going on. It is true that the Al Qaeda folks are no longer there, or very few of them, but they are across the border in Pakistan. and if you look very closely at Obama’s campaign speeches and if you look very closely at the address to West Point a few weeks ago, he has made it clear from the beginning that this is not just about Afghanistan. This is also about Pakistan. He could not have said it any better than during the campaign. He said, look, if Musharraf does not do anything and we have actual intelligence, we will do it.”

NOTE: The frequent caller, having most recently violated C-SPAN’s putative 30-day policy with calls on January 1, 2, and 4. Neither host nor guest, Mr. Newman, responded to the caller’s formulaic condemnation of Israel and promotion of a anti-Jewish, anti-Israel Web site. As to the caller’s reference to “page 147 on the 9/11 commission report,” please refer to the NOTE section on the subject in the entry for the call of January 27, 2010 – 8:11 AM.

• January 3, 2010 – 7:43 AM


Guest: FLYNT LEVERETT, professor of international affairs at Penn State University and Fellow at the New America Foundation.

Caller: Lydia from Forestville, Maryland.

Caller: “I’ve been looking at the demonstrations in Iran and they look similar to those they had in France last year – of the young people. They look like demonstrations we’ve had in this country. You know, young people are demonstrating and burning cars but what I don’t understand is this constant drum beat. This bellicose language against Iran from this country and I think it’s instigated by the supporters of Israel. There’s a program on Public Television. He did a program, with Steve, did 45 hours of filming. Beautiful program. He aided private citizens homes and interviewed all kinds of people. American people should get this program and look at it.”

NOTE: Both host and guest allow the caller’s superficial comparison of demonstrations in Iran against a brutal dictatorship and violator of civil rights – with free protests in the West. Host and guest fail to challenge the false and inflammatory claim that Israel’s American supporters inspire anti-Iranian language. The guest decries what he calls the “dehumanization of Iran that goes on in the United States” while ignoring the Iranian leadership’s Islamist extremist views and its role as the main sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. Nor is there mention made of the potential danger posed by a nuclear armed Iran controlled by that extremist leadership.

• January 3, 2010 – 7:50 AM


Guest: FLYNT LEVERETT, professor of international affairs at Penn State University and Fellow at the New America Foundation.

Caller: Mike from Jacksonville, Florida.

Caller: “I’d like to say what a refreshing change it is to see this gentleman on instead of the neocon, neolib normal talking heads we get to see on these points. The pro-Israel crowd with their blathering for war. Iran poses absolutely no threat to this country and I don’t see why all this demonization is going on like it is. It’s oh so typical of the run up to the war in Iraq and come to find out, they had nothing that they claimed that they had. All this stuff will change only once our foreign policy is not run from Tel Aviv.”

NOTE: Again, both host and guest allow a caller’s anti-Jewish, inflammatory, false accusations (that supporters of Israel are the main reason for the opposition to Iran in this country and that Israel “runs” U.S. foreign policy) to stand without rebuttal. The guest commends the caller for making “a number of interesting points” claiming a parallel regarding U.S. and Western efforts that preceded the invasion of Iraq (that toppled Saddam Hussein), while ignoring that Iran – whose record includes the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy hostages, support for Hezbollah kidnapings, murder of U.S. personnel in Lebanon, bombing of the U.S. Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1986, aid to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad – has undermined U.S.-led Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy in the past two decades.

• January 2, 2010 – 7:48 AM


Guest: CHRISTOPHER BOUCEK, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Topic: “Rise of Al-Qaeda in Yemen”

Caller: Richard from Inverness, Florida.

Caller: “Good morning. (unintelligible) I’m not intelligent enough to belong to anything – think tank or Endowment — but I think if there was not one drop of oil in the Mid East, and if the United States didn’t arm and aid Israel in their war, we probably would not have suffered 9/11. We are becoming too big of an empire in my estimation. You go back in history, and the Carthaginians and the great Roman Empire. They got so big that they couldn’t defend or finance it and they fell. I think we poke our nose in to every place we can.”

Host: “The role and actions of the U.S., what’s your take? “

BOUCEK: “I think the United States has a huge role in all of this. And, I think, unfortunately American foreign policy does feed into a lot of disagreements in these regions (indistinct). That’s been discussed by a lot of people. Regardless of what has been going on, what we see now is that Yemen is a country in crisis. And while it’s not a failed state, it’s a state that can fall apart pretty quickly. Things can go wrong pretty quickly. And because there are enduring American national security and foreign policy issues at stake, we need to be active. The international community needs to be active in trying to offset how bad these things can be because we know what is going down the road.”

NOTE: Neither host nor guest comment on the erroneous allegation that U.S. support of Israel was a main factor in Al Qaeda’s Sept. 11, 2001 attack on America. Undisclosed by C-SPAN over the air or on its Web site, is the information that Mr. Boucek has been associated with three different entities, each of which views Israel adversarially. Boucek worked as an analyst in the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington, worked for the Arab-American Institute, and has been managing editor of the Middle East Times in Egypt.

• January 2, 2010 – 7:50 AM


Guest: CHRISTOPHER BOUCEK, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Topic: “Rise of Al-Qaeda in Yemen”

Caller: Carol from Scottsville, Arizona (frequent caller).

Caller: “Yes, hello. First of all, keep in mind what George Washington warned of – of getting entangled in foreign governments. Why don’t we talk about the motivation. You should have on Ben Stein and Ron Paul. I think you guys should do – and let them finish the debate that they started – when Ben Stein really owes Ron Paul an apology of calling him anti-Semitic. Well, he didn’t say anything anti-Semitic. But what he did say is – I guess because they’re guilty of it – because they’re occupying their country and they’re angry, and rightfully so. And also support for Israel, the oppression of the Palestinians and you have no idea of what’s going on there – you gotta go on PressTV to find out – and that’s what motivated the 9/11 attack on 9/11 which you can see – there’s proof in the 9/11 commission report on page 147. Obama should be in world court right now for war crimes just like George Bush.”

NOTE: Neither the host nor guest comment on the frequent caller’s anti-Jewish, anti-Israel rant. Included in her paranoid conspiracy view of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks is promotion of the anti-Western, PressTV Web site, which is a propaganda tool of the Iranian government. Boucek’s comments are limited to disagreeing with the caller’s “entangled” assertion – and reiterating what he sees as the dangers faced by Yemen and the resulting implications for the United States. The caller, again violating C-SPAN’s 30-day policy, called the day before when Mr. Orgel also tolerated her errant nonsense on January 1 at 9:51 AM, she was aired as “Janet from Birmingham, Alabama” but on January 2, as “Carol from Scottsville, Arizona.”

• January 1, 2010 – 8:50 AM


Guest: ANTHONY CLARK AREND, Georgetown University professor.

Topic: “President Obama’s Diplomatic Initiatives”

Caller: Yousef from Tucker, Georgia.

Caller: “Yes. Good morning; happy new year to you guys. I would just like to say that a lot of these policies are really not Obama’s policies. A lot of ‘em are but we have to deal with the real issue that most people don’t want to talk about. If we don’t realize that we are dealing just like in Biblical times. Jews, Gentiles. The Jews always looked at the Gentile as beneath them. So as long as we in this society and these – not all Jews now – just the ones who are corrupt who are following this “manual of discipline” – the ones who are corrupting the nation. As a matter of fact, they are the ones who created the first bomb. The knowledge that they have in the bomb – they got all kind of other information. They know how to seal the bomb (unintelligible) like in airports and all that. So, a lot of their corruption, immigration (unintelligible), banking system – all that is controlled by the Jews. So, until we as Gentiles – so-called Gentiles – realize that (unintelligible) – it’s not the Arabs.”

ORGEL: “Alright, anything you want to respond to there?”

Guest: “Well, I just have to fundamentally disagree with pretty much everything he said. The only thing we could perhaps salvage from that, in my view, is that extremism – extremism that hates, extremism that targets individuals because of their beliefs, is wrong wherever it comes from, whoever it is.”

NOTE: The host allows the caller’s inflammatory utterance to proceed uninterrupted. Mr. Orgel’s passivity in the face of classical anti-Semitic slanders – “Jewish contempt for gentiles,” “Jewish control of banks and weaponry,” “Jewish corruption,” – epitomizes C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” problem. The Guest responded appropriately, repudiating the rant by simply dismissing it in its entirety without commenting on any specific aspect. Caller’s rhetoric is indicative of a gullible, uninformed person indoctrinated with anti-Jewish teaching. As to the reference to “manual of discipline,” the only historical connection to Judaism is the “Manual of Discipline” scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Manual contains the customs of the Qumran sect, including annual renewing of the covenant between God and Israel and concluding with three hymns of praise to God. The Manual, which is thought to date from approximately 150 BCE., contains nothing relating to politics then or now.

• January 1, 2010 – 9:13 AM


Guest: ANTHONY CLARK AREND, Georgetown University professor.

Topic: “President Obama’s Diplomatic Initiatives”

Caller: Doug from Boston, Massachusetts (frequent caller, Doug, with British accent).

Caller: “Two quick questions. If Israel attacks Iran without a Chapter 7 Security Council resolution, will they not be guilty of a war crime? And the instance in Afghanistan where the CIA were blown up, a couple of days before that there was an incident in a place called Khan Yunis in which United States Special Forces went in and supposedly killed eight school children. There was nothing in the American media about this which (indistinct) BBC which is one very good reason why I think we should have Al Jazeera TV over here (indistinct) for obvious reasons.”

NOTE: Doug from Boston, a frequent caller and violator of the 30-day policy, having previously called on Dec. 20 (9:09 AM), has repeatedly tried to get a guest to agree that Israel (and only Israel) is guilty of war crimes. As to the “war crime” accusation, the guest responded that Israel couldn’t be charged for an attack on Iran that might take place because of the legal definition of “war crimes”. However, the guest said that Israel would be in violation of the U.N. charter if it preemptively attacked Iran without showing an imminent danger from Iran.

• January 1, 2010 – 9:51 AM


Topic: “Social Networking & Political participation”

Caller: Janet from Birmingham, Alabama (frequent caller).

Caller: “Hi. Happy new year to you. First of all, I want to back the caller from Colorado. No one mentioned the Goldstone report. I called in months ago and brought it up on C-SPAN because no one even brought it up on C-SPAN. As far as the Gaza protest, nobody – and you didn’t hear it on the news at all, the local news, CNN, Fox, MSNBC – none of them really talked about it. The best place to get your news is – I will name a couple of Web sites, if I may. One is PressTV dot com. You will hear all unbiased news – you will see things that are going on in the Middle East you’ll never dream that’s going on here because it’s covered up – for the ADL actually runs the media. Of course, AIPAC runs our whole foreign policy. So, that’s the deal. Also you can go to america-hijacked dot com and you can see stories like , for example, CFR’s Foreign Affairs magazine. Brezinski wrote of the motivation for attacks – 9/11 – well, because of our foreign policy because we back Israel – and support Israel – and all that – and their oppression of the Palestinians. Also, there’s another one you can go to – two more I’d like to mention if I may. One is – because of AIPAC influence – you can go to stopaipac dot com and you can go to neoconzionistthreat dot com for the other news. Thank you very much. Bye bye.”

NOTE : As on other occasions, host Paul Orgel allows the uninterrupted diatribe of a frequent caller violating C-SPAN’s 30-days-between-calls policy. Host allowed the promotion of anti-Jewish, anti-Israel Websites – even indulging the caller’s careful spelling of the Web site names and host failed to inform viewers that PressTV is a propaganda tool of the Iranian Islamic revolutionary government. Host failed to challenge the false claim that Zbignew Brezinski blamed U.S. support of Israel as the motivation for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on America committed by the Islamic terrorist organization, Al Qaeda. Perhaps most damning for C-SPAN, is Mr. Orgel’s tolerance of another “Washington Journal” caller’s full-blown anti-Jewish conspiracy mania, this time with Jews allegedly controlling the news media and U.S. foreign policy.

Comments are closed.