C-SPAN November – December 2011

December 31, 2011 – 9:11 AM


Guest: DAVID YEPSON, editor and writer for Des Moines Register newspaper.

Topic: Role and history of Iowa caucuses.

Caller: Tim from Los Angeles, California (click here to listen).
This caller is James Morris, who has identified himself variously as James, Jim, Tim, Ron or Tyrone. The caller invariably promotes certain anti-American, anti-Israel Web sites and is himself presented falsely as a legitimate analyst by the Iranian government’s English-language propaganda outlet Press TV, providing his report in an audio clip (a photo of Morris is included). A CAMERA chronology spotlights Morris’ approximately 60 similarly scripted calls to C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” since December 2008. Very few, if any, of Morris’ diatribes have been challenged. His calls and C-SPAN’s tolerance of them on its daily three-hour public affairs program epitomize the way the network serves as a conveyor for anti-Israel and anti-Jewish invective and falsehoods. C-SPAN allows no other ethnic or religious group or nation to be repeatedly vilified.
Caller: “Go to the top of [Morris names his favorite Web site that rails against American foreign policy and the Jewish state] and see how the GOP establishment is wrong to disenfranchise Ron Paul supporters. I was a Republican for many years. I changed to become an independent, and I’m telling you, if the neocon GOP wants to put up some neocon mouthpiece like Newt Romney – Newt Gingrich, of course, or Mitt Romney – we will take our vote and vote for Ron Paul, as a write-in and it is guaranteed a 15 percent vote that way, and we will not buy the line from the Republicans saying that a vote for Ron Paul will put Obama in. I think there is an argument you could make that Obama is actually better than any neocon Republican that will get us into more wars for Israel including Iran.”

Orgel: “Alright, we’ll let that comment stand.”

NOTE: Characteristically, the Washington Journal host permits defamation of Israel and its American supporters to go unanswered, including yet another one by James Morris, who has been allowed to use C-SPAN as his soapbox over a period of at least four years. The host easily and pertinently could have responded by mentioning the danger to the United States and U.S. partners in the Middle East. Other states concerned about the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran include oil producers like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The host could have noted Iranian support for anti-American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and involvement in the 1996 bombing of U.S. military housing in Saudi Arabia, its backing of Bashar al-Assad’s brutal regime in Syria and of the Hezbollah terrorist movement in Lebanon (prior to al Qaeda’s Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group). Also current is Tehran’s attempt to expand its reach in Latin America through Venezuela and other countries. Instead, the host essentially acquiesced, with “we’ll let that comment stand.”

December 30, 2011 – 9:06 AM


Guest: R.T. RYBAK, Democratic National Committee Vice Chairman and current mayor of Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Topic: President Obama and Democrats’ campaign strategy.

Caller: (Indistinct name) from New Jersey (off-topic maligner of the Jewish state is permitted to rant un-rebuked in typical Washington Journal style).

Caller: “I want to ask your guest’s opinion about the third world. Nobody mentions Israel’s faults in any way (indistinct). It was documented by Christiane Amanpour and the President of Haiti that they were doing organ harvesting in Haiti during those days when nobody else could get in. They are the third greatest arms dealer in the world and they ship to China. Why is everyone afraid of Israel? And as for our trade agreements, it is colonialism against nationalism. All the advantages go to the foreign countries. We give them the money so they can say they are buying (indistinct).”

ORGEL: “Two different points there, economic and earlier she talked about policies towards Israel. Anything you want to react to there?”

Guest: “I’m sorry, I had just a little bit of trouble hearing that question.”

ORGEL: “It was not so much a question as talking about her view that nobody wants to talk about Israel. That was basically what she had to say.”

Guest: “Well, the President certainly is working hard to make sure that we are partners with Israel. I think that is pretty straightforward and clear. What is also important is that – and I don’t know all the questions the caller asked – but I am happy to have questions asked about our relationship with the rest of the world because part of what the President has to do is to find a way to go around the globe and bring peace…”

NOTE: The Washington Journal’s habitual tolerance of anti-Israel callers continues to draw phone comments that turn reality upside down with irrational “blame Israel” theories and unfounded and sometimes bizarre allegations. Instead of a warranted early cut-off of the off-topic caller, host Orgel characteristically indulges her. The caller’s Haiti “organ harvesting” canard defaming Israel, including the falsehood that it was “documented” by Christiane Amanpour of CNN and ABC television, is without substance. As to the caller’s false charge that “they [Israel] ship [arms] to China,” Israel does not sell weapons or ship arms to China. As to the caller’s false claim that “They [Israel] are the third greatest arms dealer in the world,” although Israel does sell military related material and equipment, such sales are far less than what would rank it third in the world.

The caller claims that “Nobody mentions Israel’s faults in any way” when in fact, the opposite is true. Few conflicts – including many much larger in scope and of greater international significance – have been as extensively if not obsessively reported as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Few if any other nations, including much larger, more populous, and threatening, like Iran, North Korea and Pakistan, have been covered as often as Israel – population 7.6 million, 8,000 square miles (the size of New Jersey) and the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East. The charge that “no one mention’s Israel’s faults in any way” is a classic psychological inversion likely resting on deeply-held prejudice. Instead of knocking down the caller’s delusions, C-SPAN’s host asks the guest if he wants to respond.

December 26, 2011 – 7:40 AM

Host: SUSAN SWAIN, C-SPAN President and Co-CEO.

Guest: RICHARD NORTON SMITH, author and presi dential historian.

Topic: 2011 deaths most significant legacy.

Caller: George from Wilmington, Delaware. Off-topic caller is allowed to rant at length.

Caller: [Caller launched into a two-minute tirade alleging the forthcoming detention, involving torture, by the Obama-run government of many law-abiding American citizens – and warned that this can only be prevented by the election in 2012 of Ron Paul as President of the United States. The caller proceeded to irrationally attribute the ills he perceives to the nation of Israel]. “Israel has created a security state. They wanted a new Pearl Harbor. They delivered it on 9/11.”

NOTE: <Pending>
December 25, 2011 – 8:49 AM


Guest: DANIEL SERWER, Johns Hopkins University professor, Middle East Institute scholar.

Topic: Future of Iraq following U.S. exit.

Caller: Michael from Crystal City, California. The first of three disingenuous, unchallenged anti-Israel and/or anti-Jewish callers on this day.

Caller: “I was personally requested by the State Department to design a peace bridge building project in Iraq in 2000. I worked with the Iraqi U.N. Ambassador and Saddam’s government was inviting American oil companies into Iraq to do business. He was promising full compliance with all U.N. mandates and [former UN chief weapons inspector] Hans Blix was in there. He called Mr. Bush a slang term for an unwanted child when he invaded Iraq when he did. It is perfectly obvious that the whole Iraq war was thanks to the neocons agenda of (indistinct) for Israel. Richard Perle wrote “A Clean Break” with an agenda that called for the displacement of Saddam Hussein. I do not believe that the Iraqi people are going to stand for this Zionist-imposed government on their country.”

Guest: “The whole question of how and why we went to war is very (indistinct). I think we went to war by mistake. I think that mistake was a very serious one. But I do not think it means the current Iraqi government entirely lacks legitimacy. In fact, It’s been legitimized a number of times by relatively free and fair elections. We just have to live with the consequences of what we have done and acknowledge what we have done. Mistakes are made, and I think President Bush made a big one.”
NOTE: Guest Serwer, a scholar with Middle East Institute (a quasi-academic, pro-Arab group heavily drawn from State Department retirees and former oil-company executives) unsurprisingly fails to challenge the obvious anti-Israel falsehoods of the caller. The historical record shows that the United States (including a large majority of both major political parties in the Congress), European nations and other nations were convinced by intelligence services that Saddam possessed WMDs and also feared an alliance by Hussein with al-Qaeda giving them a new home after being driven from Afghanistan. Also, recall Saddam’s obsession with constructing WMDs in “project Babylon“– “superguns” with a devastating firing range of thousands of miles. Saddam actually was in the process of building the initial super gun, approximately a mile long, when interrupted by the invasion in 2003.

As to the irrational, ludicrous assertion by the caller that “I do not believe that the Iraqi people are going to stand for this Zionist-imposed government on their country,” consider that the government in Iraq is now largely controlled by Iraqi Shiites who are partial to Iran which is an existential enemy of Israel.

December 25, 2011 – 9:06 AM


Guest: DANIEL SERWER, Johns Hopkins University professor, Middle East Institute scholar.

Topic: Future of Iraq following U.S. exit.

Caller: Ed from Memphis, Michigan. The second of three disingenuous, unchallenged anti-Israel and/or anti-Jewish callers on this day.

Caller: “My point is that the gentleman said that we made a mistake going in there [Iraq]. That is the wrong word. It was foolish for us to go in there. It improved Iran’s position there and the other thing is that we left the job in Afghanistan unfinished when Bush went over to Iraq. Bush’s father, in his last interview with Larry King, said that the reason we went in was to get Saddam Hussein. But the whole thing underlying it all is Bush’ s connection to oil. And he knows why we went in there. It was the neocon and the right-wing, Jewish influence.”

Guest: “I think the caller is right. It has strengthened Iran’s hand in the Middle East, in general, and in Iraq, in particular. They have a complicated relationship. They are, on the one hand, very close in some respects. There are Shia shrines on both sides of the border . They are very far apart in a different sense, because Iraq is an Arab country. Iran is not an Arab country. It is majority Persian. There is a complicated relationship there. Our invasion tilted the balance in favor of the Iranians, who gained a great deal inside Iraq by supporting various Shia political parties. [Prime Minister] Maliki, in my view, is not the Iranian’ s favorite guy, because he is not reliable from their perspective, but he is supported by parties that do favor Iran. They have been strengthened as a result of this. I will take “foolish” as a description of what we did. I hasten to add that I do not think oil had much to do with it. It seems to me that oil had very little to do with it.”

NOTE: Journal host and guest Serwer characteristically ignore the anti-Jewish falsehood (“… right-wing, Jewish influence).”

December 25, 2011 – 9:39 AM


Guest: JEFFREY CROUCH, author of “The Presidential Pardon Power.”

Topic: History of Presidential pardons.

Caller: Paul from Middletown, Connecticut. The third of three disingenuous, unchallenged anti-Israel and/or anti-Jewish callers on this day.

Caller: “Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, which was terribly puzzling, and then he pardoned a gaggle of crooked rabbis. I was wondering if he did that to buy Jewish influence for Hillary in her Senate race.”

Guest: “I think that is an interesting point. Why did Clinton pardon who he did? I think his decision to offer conditional clemency to the members of the FALN which is a Puerto Rican nationalist terrorist organization was (indistinct). Perplexingly, Clinton offered clemency to several members of that group despite the fact that during the investigation, law-enforcement had unanimously opposed clemency. In most cases the President will follow the advice of law-enforcement. It was pretty perplexing until you look at the political implications. It was at a time when Hillary Clinton would be running for senate from New York, Al Gore was going to try to succeed to the Presidency and he wanted to secure votes in New York If you look at the demographics, 75 percent of Puerto Rican voters in New York are Democrats. So, I think that as the caller has hinted, there are several political considerations that may have played into s ome of President Clinton’s clemency decisions.”

NOTE: Characteristically, the Journal fails to rebuke the caller’s anti-Jewish rant. Instead, the guest cites a possible candidate for vote buying in New York, the Puerto Rican vote in the pardoning of several FALN members. As to pardoning of individuals, controversy often attends a lame duck President’s pardoning of convicts – but this anti-Semitic caller is focused only on Jews (“Marc Rich … and … a gaggle of rabbis).”

December 23, 2011 – 8:49 AM

Host: SUSAN SWAIN, C-SPAN President and Co-CEO.

Guest: ROSE GOTTEMOELLER, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance. The guest helped negotiate the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

Topic: One-year anniversary of the Senate’s passing of the New START Treaty.

Caller: Dan from Georgetown, Massachusetts. The first of four largely unchallenged, disingenuous anti-Israel and/or anti-Semitic callers to Washington Journal in this segment.

Caller: “I have a question. We are all brought up in the United States with the understanding that our country is for freedom and fairness around the world, and we try to spread this through democracy and so on. I’ m wondering when it comes to compliance and verification for the house of Rothschild – Israel, how do we come up even with here when we basically say that we are not going to acknowledge Israel has any nukes at all. But we put these tremendous standards on countries in that area. We say, you know what, you guys cannot even research nukes. I’m just wondering how we come clean with this unbelievable countering of ideas?”

Host: “Thank you.”

Guest: “We do take compliance with treaties very seriously. We have had a consistent policy across all of our treaties and agreements that we really are looking for universal membership. For example, universal membership in the non- proliferation treaty [NPT] regime. We feel like we’ re pressing that agenda and trying to insure that all countries around the world are stepping up to the standard of cooperating so that nuclear weapons and nuclear materials do not proliferate and so we have agreements in place, so-called ‘safeguards agreements’ so we can ensure that countries know what is going on and everybody has an understanding that they are following a responsible policy. That is a great problem with North Korea and Iran now. They are not living up to their obligations with regard to the safeguards agreements and not really cooperating with the non- proliferation treaty regime. Those are the major problems in the world. Those are the countries that we are really focused on. I think we have to require that they are the ones that are not playing ball with the international legal system.”
NOTE: Guest failed to note that Israel, like many other Middle Eastern countries, is a non-signatory to NPT the purpose of which is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weaponry capability. Therefore Israel is not legally required to adhere to NPT requirements. But both guest and host Brawner were remiss in not reminding viewers that there is little reason to fear Israel’s presumed nuclear capability since Israel does not threaten other countries with destruction and is perceived as highly unlikely to share any nuclear weaponry knowledge with any other country. This is not the case with Iran, an NPT signatory, which not only continuously threatens other nations (especially Israel) – it is considered likely to proliferate its nuclear weaponry knowledge to terrorist entities. Furthermore, it is clear that Israel’s presumed nuclear capability is a factor only in terms of its perceived deterrence against concerted attacks by Iran and/or various Arab nations.

The caller, in his zeal to disparage Israel, overlooks the universally recognized danger in the region posed by Iran’s nuclear program controlled by an Islamic fundamentalist regime – and the danger posed by the volatile Islamic nation of Pakistan which is also a known nuclear weaponry power in the region.

The caller’s “House of Rothschild” remark (ignored by both host and guest) clearly places him in the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory camp that believes the canard that Jews, as international financiers, control or aim at controlling the world. This baseless theory is not nearly as popular as it once was.

December 23, 2011 – 9:07 AM

Host: SUSAN SWAIN, C-SPAN President and Co-CEO.

Guest: ROSE GOTTEMOELLER, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance. The guest helped negotiate the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

Topic: One-year anniversary of the Senate’s passing of the New START Treaty.

Caller: Michael from Mendocino, California. The second of four largely unchallenged, disingenuous anti-Israel and/or anti-Semitic callers to Washington Journal in this segment.

Caller: “My question is, considering the Judaic agenda to control the world with an iron rod, and various Israeli politicians bragging that Israel controls the United States government, is that a really good idea? Considering that in Zohar [an obscure, largely unknown Kabbalistic commentary on the Hebrew Bible] it talks about – there is a searchable Zohar online, and it talks about the destruction of the 70 idolatrous nations. It seems that America is serving as an extension of this Judaic agenda.”

Host: “Alright. I’ll stop you there. Did you believe the United States is serving Israel’s agenda as opposed to its own?”

Guest: “I think, as I stressed a moment ago, no country comes to the negotiating table or comes to any policy arena without its national security being served. So, the United States first and foremost is concerned about its own national security. But we are also concerned about the security of our partners and allies around the world and, of course, Israel is one of our close partners. So, we’ll continue to be concerned about their security. But I think I think the United States takes account of its own particular interests in developing its own national security policies.”

NOTE: Not atypically, host Swain reinforces the caller’s anti-Semitic message by seriously asking if “the United States is serving Israel’s agenda as opposed to its own?” The Zohar, a Kabbalistic commentary on the Hebrew Bible, is not part of the Hebrew Bible or any generally accepted Jewish teachings such as the Talmud. It is either unknown or not taken seriously by the vast majority of Jews and therefore of little importance. But typically for Washington Journal, viewers are left on their own with no explanation to understand the caller’s malicious rant.

December 23, 2011 – 9:11 AM

Host: SUSAN SWAIN, C-SPAN President and Co-CEO.

Guest: ROSE GOTTEMOELLER, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance. The guest helped negotiate the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

Topic: One-year anniversary of the Senate’s passing of the New START Treaty.

Caller: Richard from New York. The third of four largely unchallenged, disingenuous anti-Israel and/or anti-Semitic callers to Washington Journal in this segme nt.

Caller: “The caller asked before about do we get to inspect the Israeli nuclear sites. Nobody ever talks about that because he asked you the question as Ron Paul said, Iran is not a suicidal nation. They never attack anybody. But we have overthrow them and put in the Shah of Iran. The foreign policy of Ron Paul would be a lot better than these new world order shills trying to instigate start World War III.”

Guest: “We have been very concerned about Iran’ s agenda, and the IAEA report, the International Atomic Energy Agency report, last month talks about grave concerns in the international community that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons capability. That is something we want to continue to keep a very close eye on. I actually agree with Dennis Ross that the game is not out. We have an opportunity to work with Iran. The pressure of sanctions, I think, is beginning to bite. If you look back at history, the reason I feel this way is because the very strong sanctions regime in South Africa many years ago did in the end produce a change in South Africa. And after that change occurred in the government, we understood that did have a nuclear weapons program, which we were then able to dismantle in cooperation with the South African government. So, we have some empirical evidence that these kinds of approaches do work.”

NOTE: The President of Iran and his patron the “Supreme Leader” are religious fanatics who seem to believe that they have an important role in hastening the coming of the “12th Imam,” the Shiite Muslim version of the messiah, and with him, their version of Armageddon. Therefore it is the height of suicidal naïveté to rest assured that Iran acts like any rational nation. Yet again, Washington Journal viewers are left in the dark.

December 23, 2011 – 9:16 AM

Host: SUSAN SWAIN, C-SPAN President and Co-CEO.

Guest: ROSE GOTTEMOELLER, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance. The guest helped negotiate the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

Topic: One-year anniversary of the Senate’s passing of the New START Treaty.

Caller: Gilbert from Tulsa, Oklahoma. The fourth of four largely unchallenged, disingenuous anti-Israel and/or anti-Semitic callers to Washington Journal in this segment.

Caller: “Let me say this before – I have three things I would like to suggest. Israel has 300, and they are keeping Iran from protecting themselves. America has never attacked a country who could defend themselves. Look at Panama, Granada, Nicaragua. It goes on and on and on. I hope that Iran can get at least the same amount of nuclear weapons that Israel has. Israel is guiding the process, and I think it’s horrible.”

Guest: “I will make a quick comment about that. The reason we are so concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons is that we feel it would be de-stabilizing for the whole region. for Saudi Arabia, for our friends and partners throughout the Middle East and even farther afield. Iraq, India, and Pakistan. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, we are very concerned about a major de-stabilization that could affect a number of our partners and would be worse for the world overall. It is better to avoid proliferation of nuclear weapons no matter what and to try to look at other ways to deal with these serious security problems that you pointed to.”

NOTE: The Journal has the welcome mat out for a number of callers who actually favor America’s enemy Iran, an international outlaw nation led by religious fanatics who can not be assumed to be rational, and these callers oppose America’s ally Israel. The caller asserts that America never attacks a country that can defend itself. For starters, apparently the delusional caller knows not about Nazi Germany and imperial Japan in WWII.

December 22, 2011 – 9:16 AM


Guest: BARRY LYNN, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Mr. Lynn is also an attorney and ordained minister in the United Church of Christ.

Topic: Faith, politics and public policy.

Caller: Sally from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Washington Journal characteristically fails to challenge Sally’s sort of genteel anti-Semitism and antipathy toward the nation of Israel.

Caller: “Good morning Mr. Lynn. I had the pleasure of attending a dinner with you to celebrate an Americans United major bench mark some years ago. Now (indistinct) I’m going to ask about very complex problems regarding Jewish people. Mr. [Richard] Land [southern Baptist leader, guest for Journal’s Dec. 21 discussion of ‘Role of religion in campaign 2012′] talked about Jewish representatives in Congress, he said — he referred to them as a religion. Now, Jewish people have a dual identity. Many Jews call themselves secular Jews because Israel calls itself a Jewish state. Therefore, it is a nationalism and that is one of the complexities in thinking about Jews and being called anti-Semitic if you criticize political activity. And there’s also a religious component giving sentimental cover toward a robust critical analysis of what is taking place politically.”

Host: “Sally, thanks for the call and your comments. We will get a response.”

Guest: “Sally, certainly there are secular Jews and there are people who have a nominal interest in Christianity. They don’t go to church except possibly Christmas and Easter. They like the rituals of the church but they have bought out of the theological ideas. I think we can have a robust debate without trying to take positions on the truth, the falsity, the veracity of anybody’s religion. One of the things I find so odd — I remember once asking Rev. Jerry Falwell — the late Jerry Falwell — in one of my hundreds of appearances with him over the decade – and he had mentioned that he was not just promoting a Christian agenda, he said, at a press conference that day, he had had a rabbi there. I asked Dr. Falwell, “will that rabbi be going to heaven?” and he literally would not address the question. He would not answer that question. So, I find it interesting that so many people in the Christian right who say much about how they approve and appreciate and want to support Israel. If you ask them, ‘Now wait a minute, will Jews go to heaven?’ They would say, ‘Of course not, unless they accept Jesus as their savior.” So, I find a tremendous amount of hypocrisy in the views expressed by many of these conservative Christian candidates.”

NOTE: <Pending>

December 21, 2011 – 9:08 AM


Guest: RICHARD LAND, President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

Guest: JIM WALLIS, Sojourners president and CEO.

Topic: Role of religion in campaign 2012.

SCULLY (reading a viewer’s tweet): “What is the moral difference between a religious state – e.g. Israel, Iran, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan – and a secular one?”

NOTE: The tweeter egregiously conflates Israel with Iran and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Unfortunately, neither the guests nor host Scully addressed this gross inaccuracy, missing a good opportunity to enlighten many, if not most, Washington Journal viewers.

As the only majority-Jewish state in the world, Israel is actually a secular democracy with no official religion although the state is directly involved in various aspects of Judaism. Israel – unlike the other two (Islamic) states mentioned by the tweeter, and as well, many, if not most, of the world’s dozens of other Islamic states – enables complete freedom of religion for all of its citizens. Thus, for example, Christianity, Islam and the B’hai religion thrive in Israel. The B’hai religion, an offshoot of Islam, but severely persecuted in most Islamic countries, particularly Iran, has its world headquarters in Israel. Jewish Virtual Library describes the religious aspect of the state of Israel:

Judaism has not been proclaimed the official religion of Israel. Rather, the law and practice in Israel regarding religious freedom may best be understood as a sort of hybrid between non-intervention in religious affairs, on the one hand, and the inter-involvement of religion and government in several forms on the other, most notably by legislation establishing the jurisdiction of religious courts of the different faiths in specified matters of “personal status” by government funding of authorities which provide religious services to several of the religious communities; and by a series of legal institutions and practices which apply Jewish religious norms to the Jewish population.

December 16, 2011 – 7:25 AM

Host: SUSAN SWAIN, C-SPAN President and Co-CEO.

Topic: Spending deal reached [in Congress], tax cut debate ongoing.

Caller: Terry from Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Caller: “I would like to question the myth that Congress can not come together. For me, it depends on what they’re coming together for. Now, if they are taking away Americans’ rights, they can come together. A good example is the National Defense [Authorization] Act which they passed in secrecy 93-7. Okay? Congress comes together in helping Israel. They give Israel just about anything they want to. Okay? It is usually unanimous. They come together (indistinct). They also come together when it comes time to start wars and sending our children to fight their wars. You know, this whole thing. But when it comes to unemployment, jobs, this and that – they hedge. This is a bunch of, you know, confusion. This is deliberate, you know. They represent the corporations. They don’t represent the American people. They take our tax money and they spit in our faces.”

SWAIN: “Alright. Terry from Virginia Beach.”
NOTE: Host Susan Swain is also C-SPAN’s president and co-chief executive officer. Her response to the caller’s conspiracy theory polemics and anti-Israel slander is one of unengaged tolerance. “Terry from Virginia Beach” alleges that the National Defense Authorization Act was approved “in secrecy” and “takes away” Americans’ rights. But Swain neither questions nor challenges his serious charges.

The caller states that Congress “usually unanimously” gives Israel “just about anything.” He asserts that Congress also acts bipartisanly to “start wars and send our children to fight their wars.” He claims Congress represents corporations, not people, that members – elected by popular vote – don’t try to lessen unemployment and implies that joblessness is somehow in the interest of corporations in business to make sales. In the face of this vehement if superficial anti-capitalist, anti-Israeli populist fringe attack on Congress, the Washington Journal host and C-SPAN executive says virtually nothing, and nothing at all of substance.

December 12, 2011 – 7:28 AM


Topic: U.S.-Iraq relationship: What should it be?

Caller: Darrell from St. Louis, Missouri (anti-Israel, anti-U.S. repeat caller identifying himself variously as “Bill” or “Bob” or “Darrell.” His most recent previous call was Nov. 7, 2011 (7:06 AM) as “Bill” from St. Louis falsely condemning Israel as he always does).

Caller: “One of the many lies we were told in the beginning was that the Iraq war would cost no more than $40 to $50 billion. That is what we were told by Paul Wolfowitz [former United States Ambassador to Indonesia, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, former President of the World Bank, former dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, currently a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute]. So far it has cost over $800 billion, and it’s still counting. We went over there because they had weapons of mass destruction, which was a lie. The only nation in the Middle East that has weapons of mass destruction is Israel. Illegal weapons of mass destruction. I can’ t understand the American people. We all knew this was a lie and they call in here and act like everything is fine now. We destroyed that country and murdered over a million people. So, I don’ t know how they can sit up here and act like it was nothing and why George Bush is not in jail. I can’t understand it today. You have a great day.”

NOTE: <Pending>

December 12, 2011 – 7:36 AM


Topic: U.S.-Iraq relationship: What should it be?

Host: Jesse from Muskegon, Michigan.

Caller: “It was based on a lie. They had no business there in the first place. I can’ t believe we have people here on Washington Journal talking about Iraq, but not taking care of our own people here. In every country, I’m getting sick and tired of us sticking our nose in their business. You know what? America and Israel is the most threat to peace in the world. Iran has no soldiers in other countries. Iran does not have Military in other countries. We need to get out of the imperialism we have and take care of our own business. As far as I’ m concerned, he [President Obama] is doing the same thing George Bush doing. All you so-called Obama lovers, this man is not doing anything to bring peace to the world …”

NOTE: <Pending>

December 12, 2011 – 7:43 AM


Topic: U.S.-Iraq relationship: What should it be?

Caller: Jim from Los Angeles, California. This is the obsessive, habitual anti-Israel repeat caller James Morris who has identified himself variously as James, Jim, Tim, Ron or Tyrone. The caller invariably promotes certain anti-American, anti-Israel Web sites and is himself presented falsely as a legitimate analyst by the Iranian propaganda outlet Press TV, providing his report in an audio clip. A chronology is provided of Morris’ approximately 60 similarly scripted calls to Washington Journal since December 2008.
Caller: “Yes. Thanks for taking my call. We went into Iraq for the neocon “clean break” war for Israel agenda. It has nothing to do with oil from. We’re not getting any oil out of Iraq, basically. We do not talk about this in the news, but Dr. Stephen Sagosky discussed it in his Transparent Cabal book, and you can go to … [Web site] for more about that. I just did an interview with him on (indistinct) radio show and we won’t see any interview like that in American media but you can go to…”

CASEY (interrupting): “So, what did you learn from that?”

Caller: “Well, the bottom line is these same neo-conservatives and the rest of the pro-Israel lobby is now pushing President Obama in an election year to go to war with Iran. How many more Americans will have to die for Israel in the Middle East? We already had 5000 Americans die in Iraq. Iraq will fall apart. Our troops are not coming home. They actually will be re-situated into Kuwait to keep an eye on Iran for Israel. This is unacceptable. We are already broke. General Petraeus said these neo-conservatives falling over themselves about how much we have to support Israel. Yet, General Petraeus told me in e-mail exchanges – that American media never even touched upon – that U.S. Support for Israel and the Middle East is a threat to U.S. Troops in theater. It is incredible. The e-mail exchange that I had with General Petraeus last year conveyed how much influence the neo-conservative Max Boot had on him, and now Max Boot is actually pushing for a military escalation in Pakistan as well.”

NOTE: <Pending>
December 4, 2011 – 9:37 AM


Guest: BARBARA SLAVIN, Senior Fellow at Atlantic Council, South Asia Center.

Topic: Senate passes new sanctions against Iran.

Caller: Dave from Elmira, New York.

Caller: “My question is – I agree with preventing nuclear expansion, but when you have a country like Pakistan and you have a country like India and then you have a country like Israel – close to Iran – and you allow them to have nuclear weapons, how can you turn around and tell Iran that they can’t [have nuclear weapons]? So, I think it is kind of a double standard. I don’t understand, why wouldn’t we take the opposite approach and have the other countries – because it’s a power struggle between Iran and Israel and certain countries and why not try to reduce the threat level to the other countries – removing the nuclear weapons from the other countries? At least do that that at the same time as preventing Iran from them. Also just another question about the Arab spring. Do you see this renewed sanctions effort against Iran, do you think it is because we are kind of nervous about the Arab spring? You know, a lot of our allies and the dictators that we supported have been overthrown. Now, perhaps, Iran through Hezbollah and their organizational abilities are behind us getting involved in those other governments.”

Guest: “Yes, really excellent questions. Thank you very much for those questions. With the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the bargain was that the five countries at the time that had nuclear weapons would reduce and eventually get rid of their arsenals. In return, the rest of the world would not go nuclear. That was supposed to be the deal. In fact, we have seen that other countries have developed nuclear weapons. You mentioned India, Pakistan, Israel have all developed nuclear weapons outside the confines of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Those three are not members so they’re not legally obliged not to develop nuclear weapons. But obviously Iran is aware of the fact that they have them. It would be great if there could be more discussions about a nuclear-free Middle East. There was a very interesting [opinion] poll that was recently done suggesting that 65 percent of Israelis would be willing to get rid of their own nuclear weapons if they could be sure that Iran would not have nuclear weapons. So, we have to come at this problem from number of different angles. You have to convince the Iranians that it’s not in there interest to develop nuclear weapons, that are going to lose more than they will gain, and we have to convince the rest of the world that nuclear weapons cannot be used against anybody in this day and age. They are simply weapons of deterrence, weapons of terror…”
NOTE: <Pending>
December 4, 2011 – 9:41 AM


Guest: BARBARA SLAVIN, Senior Fellow at Atlantic Council, South Asia Center.

Topic: Senate passes new sanctions against Iran.

Caller: Ann from Trotwood, Ohio (obsessively anti-Israel frequent caller allowed to repeatedly violate C-SPAN’s ostensible “one-call-per-30-days” rule. This caller has used these names: Kathleen, Patricia, Jackie, Kay, Kate, Ann. Her numerous dubious assertions are rarely challenged on Washington Journal).

Caller: “First, I want to thank C-SPAN and Washington Journal for helping inform the American public about this issue and so many other issues. Barbara [Slavin], you seem so reasonable on the issue of Iran. I go to this Web site of a former Bush administration official and former Middle East CIA official (indistinct) race for Iran, and I encourage others to go there as well. Recently, (indistinct) wrote an article about in the most recent IAEA report about Iran, that the new head of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], [Yukiya] Amano I believe his name is, let a lot of information in that report – that was unsubstantiated, that [Dr. Mohamed] ElBaradei [previous head of IAEA] had not allowed in the report (indistinct) information about Iran looking at nuclear weapons programs . It is not against – you know, they’ve already signed the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) – but that they allowed Amano to let a lot of information that was not substantiated.. So, and Robert Kelley, also, a former weapons inspector, at the Web site (indistinct) – again, I encourage people – his name is Robert Kelley – if you could talk about that. Also if we could talk about – okay, we have heard Ahmadinejad threaten Israel, but he never did say “Wipe Israel of the map.” Professor Juan Cole in “Informed Comment” has debunked that claim that he [Ahmadinejad] has said something about – he speaks Persian – that Ahmadinejad said, “Zionism will vanish from the pages of history.” So, okay, Ahmadinejad is saying inflammatory things about Israel but Israel persistently – as well as the Israeli lobby in our Congress – persistently say inflammatory things about Iran and unsubstantiated claims. So, could you talk about all of this fiery language that goes back and forth?”

SLAVIN: “Well, let me start with the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency that came out last month. I would disagree with you a little bit. I think there was quit solid information suggesting that Iran indeed did carry out research into how to build a nuclear weapon, how to make it into a warhead that could fit on a missile. They have not actually built or tested a weapon as far as we know. But they did do research at least through 2003, when a formal structured program appears to have been dismantled because the Iranian nuclear weapon program had been discovered by the West.. Since then, there have been reports that they’ve continued some of this research. Those reports are less well sourced than the earlier reports of weapons research that the Iranians had conducted. So, I think we have reason to be concerned. I am not one of these that dismisses everything and says, it is propaganda and we do not need to worry about it. We do need to worry about it. In terms of the rhetoric, though, this is a pattern that we seem to get into with every country we decide is our enemy. We demonize them, we make them as black and evil as possible in order to justify the feelings of animosity toward that country. You are right when you say some of the things that are said about Iran in this country are simply exaggeration. What Ahmadinejad said was that “Israel would be wiped from the pages of history.” He was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian revolution, who believed the state of Israel would not survive because of internal contradictions and because of opposition from its neighbors. That is a little bit different than saying, “We, Iran, will destroy Israel.

Also, in this country, sometimes you have people saying that the Iranians are led by a bunch of crazy religious fanatics who do not care about sacrificing the lives of their countrymen in order to reach some particular goal of opposing the United States or Israel or Islamizing the world. In fact, I have found Iranian leaders not to be suicidal at all but to be coldly rational. I would say that they’ re willing to fight to the last Arab but not to the last Iranian. They give money to people [suicide bombers] who are willing to sacrifice their lives, but you do not see Iranians sacrificing their lives unless the country is invaded, as it was during the 1980′ s. There is a lot of loose talk that goes on, and it feeds a certain stereotype, a preconceived notion about the country that does not fit with reality.”

ORGEL: “A little bit of a history lesson here.”

NOTE: <Pending>

November 25, 2011 – 9:06 AM


Guest: STEVEN EMERSON, Executive Director of Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Topic: Threat of homegrown terrorism.

Caller: Chris from Boston, Massachusetts (British accent). Deceptive anti-Israel, anti-United States repeat caller to Washington Journal usually identified as “Doug from Boston.”

Caller: “I would like to remind the viewers that this self- proclaimed expert on terrorism told us that the Oklahoma City bombing was the work of radical Islamists. The only thing we need to know about Steve Emerson is that he is a promoter of Israeli interests and I think that this alone should disqualify him from being on your program.”

EMERSON: “Actually, I have three heads, six legs, and control the world. That was the allegation made by a recent Democratic Party think tank alleging that I and nine other individuals created the entire climate of fear in the last decade against Muslims simply because we hated them. Let me tell you this, the only reason there is disproportionate suspicion against Muslims, innocent Muslims … is because nearly 65 percent to 70 percent of all international casualties are carried out by radical Islamic terrorists. As far as trying to discredit me, you can try to discredit me as much as you want, my track record is pretty good.
As far as Oklahoma is concerned, just for the record, all I was repeating was what law-enforcement said and was repeating at the same moment within minutes after the bombing because we had experienced a similar bombing just two years before in New York City. When it was found out that it was a white, militant member of a radical group, actually he was a lone wolf himself, I immediately said the Feds had gotten the right guy, Timothy McVeigh. This is something radical Islamic groups have been using against me now for 25 years. I daresay my record, if you look at my documentary in 1994 [Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America film which first aired on PBS], you will see that every single one of the terrorists I identified in 1994 were ultimately convicted, deported, prosecuted, or in other ways punished by the U.S. Government as Islamic terrorists. Even though at the time I made the film, there were many who said there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism.”
NOTE: This isn’t the first time that this deceptive caller, “Chris from Boston,” called Washington Journal impugning guest Mr. Emerson. Dec. 27, 2010 (7:50 AM) with the topic, “Threat of homegrown terrorism,” this same anti-Israel, anti-U.S. caller, as “Doug from Boston,” disparaged Mr. Emerson: “I’d like to remind you that this was the guy who had proof about the Oklahoma bombing being done by Islamic radicals… this guy is nothing more than a shill for Israeli informational …” The clip of this December 2010 call can be viewed here.

Among prior Journal calls from “Doug from Boston,” on Jan. 1, 2010 (9:13 AM) he lashed out against Israel for future “war crimes” against Iran and falsely accused “United States Special Forces” of killing eight school children in Khan Yunis (Gaza Strip).

Earlier (8:53 AM) on this Nov. 25 broadcast, Mr. Emerson, responding to charges that the use of terminology such as “radical Islamic terrorism” or “Muslim terrorists” is unfair stereotyping of an entire group, or is even hateful, noted that, “This is no more stereotyping all Muslims than referring to ‘Christian terrorists’ or ‘Protestant terrorists’ or ‘Jewish terrorists.’ They all exist.” He went on to say, “It doesn’t mean there aren’t other forms of religious terrorism. There is a paucity of people who investigate radical Islam, that is why I specialize in it … the Department of Justice or FBI just released hate crime statistics. Sixty-five percent of all hate crimes are committed against Jews and thirteen percent against Muslims. But there are almost ten times more stories about hate crimes against Muslims because the groups that control or dominate the leadership of the Muslim community thrive on the notion of being victims.”

November 13, 2011 – 7:17 AM


Topic: President Obama: Root for China to grow.

Caller: Patrick from Newcastle, Delaware.

Caller: “I tuned in a little late. I wasn’t sure if you were talking about China or about Israel? Israel treats people horribly. They have this killing of little fetuses. The embryonic stem cell research – they do more of that than any country in the world. Our taxes are paying for this and nobody calls in and criticizes Israel for what they’ve do. The Pope has finally come out and condemned them for this. It’s about time.”

CASEY: “So, Patrick, how does this relate to the debate over China to you?”

Caller: “The callers who call in about [condemning] China are being hypocrites when we give our money to Israel and they don’t say a darn word about that. How about that?”

CASEY: “Let’s hear from presidential candidate Jon Huntsman …”

NOTE: This is yet another example of C-SPAN’s feckless performance in indulging Israel-hating callers. First, the screener accepts a caller who is not only off-topic but also a violator of the network’s ostensible “one-call-per-30-days” rule, having called Nov. 6 (at 7:37 AM) to defame Israel. Second, Washington Journal host Casey tolerates the caller whose aim is obviously to condemn Israel regardless of the topic. The host should have terminated the call at the third, obviously subject-shifting (not to mention blatantly hostile) sentence. Instead, host Casey lets the rant proceed, then invites more by saying, “So, Patrick, how does this relate to the debate over China to you?” Rather than terminate the call or challenge the caller, the host extends C-SPAN’s hospitality to another Israel-basher.

Washington Journal in particular and C-SPAN in general present themselves as public affairs programming. But as is chronically the case when it comes to antisemites and Israel-haters, the program and the network fail. Why not point out that Israeli activities dealing with stem cell research, whatever the merits of such activities, are similar to those in most other Western nations (including the United States) and “our taxes” do not pay for Israel’s research. In singling out Israel for condemnation, the caller is simply malicious, and host Casey an enabler.

An engaged host would have at least responded to the allegation, “The Pope has finally come out and condemned them for this,” regarding Israel and stem-cell research, by asking for the caller’s information source. An online information search indicates that Pope Benedict XVI has said nothing specifically about Israel and stem-cell research. In regard to Israel he has, however, condemned antisemitism and the Nazi genocide of European Jewry. Perhaps that should be a subject for a Washington Journal call-in session.

Another C-SPAN Washington Journal during which the host is too disengaged to actually moderate the program when it comes to anti-Israel callers.

November 7, 2011 – 7:06 AM


Topic: Report says Iran closer to nuclear weapons.

Caller: Bill from St. Louis, Missouri. “Bill” – aka “Darrell” aka “Bob” – is an anti-Israel, anti-U.S. frequent caller.
Caller: “I say that the Americans and the Israelis have been threatening the Iranians for 30 years. How could you talk about what the Iranians don’t have and not mention the Israelis and the thermonuclear weapons that they have and they haven’t signed any agreement. They have not acknowledged anything but the whole planet knows that they are sitting on a stockpile of atomic and thermonuclear weapons and you people in the media don’t say a word. This is just hypocrisy.”
NOTE: The caller’s accusations, tacitly accepted by host Orgel, are preposterous. Israel, like many other Middle Eastern countries is a non-signatory to NPT, the purpose of which is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weaponry capability. Therefore Israel is not legally obligated to adhere to NPT requirements. Further, its neighbors have little to fear from Israel’s presumed nuclear capability since Israel does not threaten other countries with destruction the way Iran threatens Israel. Further, the Jewish state is perceived as highly unlikely to share nuclear weapons knowledge with any other country. This is not the case with Iran, an NPT signatory, which not only continuously threatens other nations in addition to Israel and is considered likely to proliferate its nuclear weaponry knowledge, including to terrorist entities. Israel’s presumed nuclear capability generally is a factor only in terms of its perceived deterrent effect against concerted attacks by Iran and/or various Arab nations.

Nevertheless, this caller invariably charges that all Middle East conflicts involving Israel (and most not involving Israel) are caused by Israel and the United States. Such blanket accusations of fault are typical of antisemitic attitudes and behavior. But this apparently is not sufficient for C-SPAN not to air his calls even when they violate the network’s ostensible “one-call-per-30-days” rule. This caller’s familiar voice and familiar anti-Israel, propagandistic message should be recognizable by Washington Journal hosts and screeners. But his polemics continue to be aired and go unchallenged or, at most, weakly questioned. In this instance, the Journal again permitted “Bill” to violate the “one-call-per-30-days” rule.

Previous 2011 calls:
*Oct. 12, 2011 – 7:19 AM, Bill from St. Louis, Missouri. Host: GRETA BRAWNER.
*Sept. 21, 2011 – 7:06 AM, Bill from Saint Louis, Missouri. Host: GRETA BRAWNER.
*May 19, 2011 – 7:15 AM, Darrell from St. Louis, Missouri. Host: PETER SLEN.
*May 2, 2011 – 9:18 AM, Bill from Defiance, Ohio. Host: GRETA BRAWNER.
*March 18, 2011 – 7:30 AM, Bob from St. Louis. Host: SUSAN SWAIN.
*Feb. 26, 2011 – 7:16 AM, Bill from St. Louis. Host: ROB HARLESTON.
*Feb. 1, 2011 – 7:21 AM, Darrell from St. Charles, Missouri. Host: PAUL ORGEL.
November 7, 2011 – 7:15 AM


Topic: Report says Iran closer to nuclear weapons.

Caller: Kevin from Woodbridge, Virginia.   
Caller: “My concern is, if you study history, the United States is the only country in the world who has dropped nuclear weapons, who has destroyed countries. You look at Libya. Libya gave up all their weapons and look at what NATO did to that country. We continue to focus on what other countries are doing as our country collapses. I am not concerned about Iran, I’m not concerned about, Iraq. I’m not concerned about Afghanistan. I’m not concerned about all these countries. I don’t know why they even put it in the news all the time and let us know about these things.
We have problems right here in the United States. People losing jobs, people are homeless. This is supposed to be the strongest country in the world and look what is going on in this country. But yet we can talk about what is going on in Iran. We don’t talk about Israel. They have plenty of nuclear weapons. It is really sad that we continue to focus on these countries. The United States is a conqueror. That’s all it does is go to other countries and talk about what they are doing. I don’t care what the other countries are doing. My only concern is what is going on in the United States. Our country is dying and the only thing we know how to do is create war and it is really sad.”
NOTE: The caller’s lengthy, indiscriminate attack on the United States, with a off-hand slap at Israel is aired without interruption or response by C-SPAN host Orgel. The Washington Journal continues to allow itself to be used for hate-America, anti-Israel rhetoric. The caller begins by misrepresenting America’s sole uses of nuclear weapons: against Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring World War II in the Pacific, begun by Japanese aggression, to an end. He concludes with an unhinged claim that “our country is dying and the only thing we know how to do is create war” without a reference to how the fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya came to be. In between he alludes to a variety of discrete problems as if they were connected. And he ignores the reality that as a presumed nuclear power, Israel has not threatened any neighbor with destruction, as Iran has threatened it.

November 7, 2011 – 7:18 AM


Topic: Report says Iran closer to nuclear weapons.

Caller: Susan from Annapolis, Maryland.
Caller: “I agree with what you just said about that other tweet [“…don’t blame Iran for trying to protect themselves”]. I truly believe that we don’t get the full truth in the news media about the real story is. But my comment is, I saw an interview with [Iran’s President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad on [CNN’s] GPS [with Fareed Zakaria] a few weeks ago [broadcast on Oct. 23]. In the interview, I have to say, he mentioned that Iran does not have any intention of attacking Israel and he does not have any problem with the Jewish state of Israel. He was referring to a small group of international bankers, corporations, that have no loyalty to any country that do control the system. That is what he speaks of against.
And what he was referring to, when I listened to that, is the Bilderberg Group [a Dutch organization – a target for conspiracy truthers – that sponsors annual closed-door meetings of Western thinkers and power-brokers] because they do control what goes on, on this planet. Now, here is the question that I have for C-SPAN, I would love for a C-SPAN to do a program on who the Bilderbergers are. I cannot believe that you have a meeting once or twice a year were the most powerful people get together and nobody in the news media covers what they are talking about. They are talking about the president of the United States, former presidents, the head of the Federal Reserve, the central bankers, economists. You know, you’re talking the top elite sitting and plotting behind closed doors and not one media outlet talks about that. I would like to see more coverage on that one. Thank you.”
NOTE: Host Orgel is either unwilling or unable to challenge (or even weakly comment on) the caller’s anti-Israeli, anti-American fringe conspiracy theories. The caller provides an apologetic for Iran’s president, “I have to say, he mentioned that Iran does not have any intention of attacking Israel and he does not have any problem with the Jewish state of Israel.” But this is untruthful. In the televised interview, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad singled out “Zionists” as the enemy, saying “They have no religion [except] wealth and money” to which Mr. Zakaria reveals Ahmadinejad’s disengenousness by asking, “But what do you mean by that? Every person in Israel is by definition a Zionist because they believe in a state for the Jewish people.” Clearly, the object of Ahmadinejad’s hate is Israel and Jews, but he tries to finesse this by using a code word, “Zionists.” Further, the caller claims, in support for her conspiracy theorizing, that “He was referring [in this interview] to a small group of international bankers, corporations, that have no loyalty to any country that do control the system.” But Ahmadinejad mentioned no such thing in this broadcast. Further, Ahmadinejad has advocated for the destruction of Israel.

And, in what should have been the reddest of red flag for Washington Journal, requiring either a cut-off or a direct challenge, host Orgel allows the caller to parrot the “Bilderberg world control” delusion.

November 7, 2011 – 7:36 AM


Topic: Report says Iran closer to nuclear weapons.

Caller: Abdullah from Wisteria, California (click here to listen).

Caller: “I would just like to say that I call C-SPAN only when something really pushes my button. This one this morning is really pushing my button. I am an American Muslim. I want to preface my comments by asking other Muslims in this country to please speak up. I speak for many American Muslims when I say to you, we are sick and tired, as Americans but especially as American Muslims, at our country always attacking Muslim countries. They lie to us, they villainize and dehumanize the leaders of these countries that we had become friends with and then we turn around and tell the American people that they are bad, bad, bad and then we go in and kill the people. There are millions of untold casualties.
You know, if America really does get attacked, I might be (indistinct) that don’t believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by 19 people with box cutters. If America is really finally attacked by someone – you can only push a cat into a corner for so long before it will scratch you. We’ve got to stop this. We have to study peace and we’ve got to stop villainizing the Muslim world. As an American Muslim, I feel under attack every day because of our politics of our country. Please stop. All American Muslims, please start calling in and make your voice heard. We are not all terrorists. We love this country just as much as everybody else. I would say the same thing if I was a Christian and we were a Muslim nation attacking Christian countries. Stop it, stop it, stop it. Thank you so much.”
NOTE: First a Bilderberg conspiracy theorist, now a 9/11 “truther,” again without cut-off or challenge. This caller is allowed a lengthy diatribe, tacitly accepted by host Orgel, condemning America and exhorting American Muslims to flood talk-shows like Washington Journal with calls. Orgel offers not even a weak response to the caller’s lunatic fringe claim that the U.S. government was behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks against New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. The official go vernment 9/11 commission report clearly shows that the perpetrators were Muslims sharing an Islamic triumphalist belief. Jihadist groups and Web sites world-wide have praised these “blessed martyrs.” But rather than point this out, the Washington Journal host sits mute.

Likewise, Orgel is silent before the charge that the United States, which intervened militarily to save Bosnian Muslims from Serbian Christian aggression, freed Iraqi Muslims (and Christians) from Saddam Hussein’s oppression, led the overthrow of Aghanistan’s brutal Taliban regime, led the relief effort for Muslim Indonesia and Malaysia after the 2004 tsunami, and helped end the Qaddafi regime’s enslavement of Libya, is “always attacking Muslim countries.” Rather than “villainizing the Muslim world,” the United States has provided its Muslim citizens with greater civil rights and religious freedom than Muslim majorities, let alone non-Muslim minorities, have in virtually all Islamic states, virtually none of which are Western-style democracies. The caller claims to feel “under attack every day” as an American Muslim, but year after year since Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda murdered nearly 3,000 Americans (including Muslims), annual FBI hate crimes statistics show that blacks and Jews are more likely to be targeted than Muslims. But “Journal” host Orgel still sits silently.

When it comes to issues dealing with the Middle East, Muslims, Israel and Jews, Washington Journal seems unable to insist that callers deal in reality. C-SPAN calls the Journal its daily public affairs program. But, via its call-in segments, the show is more a cable travesty.

November 6, 2011 – 7:34 AM


Topic: Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain on media: “Downright dishonest.”

Caller: Ken from Michigan.
Caller: “I think the national media is very dishonest. Let me give you just one example. Recently we had the two hikers, Americans, set free from Iran and that story ran for months if not years. At the same time, while those hikers are in the news every day, there was a young lady – her name was Rachel Corrie – she was protesting, this happened in 2003, the Palestinian (indistinct) were being demolished — and the Israelis decided to dump a bucket of sand on her and bulldozed her to death. They easily could have arrested her. During this Iranian crisis, the parents of Rachel Corrie were suing the Israeli government and that was going on at the same time and we never heard anything about the Rachel Corrie story in the national media. That’s the way the national media shapes content and controls what they want us to believe and how they want to guide us in the future conflicts, in my opinion. Thank you.”
SCULLY: “Ken, thanks for the call.”
NOTE: Either out of unwillingness or ignorance of the facts, host Scully fails to respond to the caller’s remarks which are disingenuous at best as they pertain to Rachel Corrie. For propaganda purposes, individuals and groups seeking to delegitimize the Jewish state have mythologized the 2003 accidental death of anti-Israel activist Rachel Corrie while impeding the Israel Defense Forces. An earlier CAMERA report focused on Corrie’s activities in conjunction with an extreme anti-Israel group, International Solidarity Movement (ISM):

On the day she died, Corrie and other ISM recruits repeatedly obstructed Israeli military bulldozers working along the Gaza-Egyptian border. In this area the Israel Defense Forces frequently uncover tunnels used for weapons smuggling. Bulldozers raze buildings that hide the entrances or serve as cover for snipers, and detonate explosives planted by Palestinian terrorists.

But on March 16, 2003 ISM interference in a closed military area caused the IDF repeatedly to halt its heavy machinery. According to an IDF investigation and American news reports, Corrie and others continued to hinder the work when it resumed.

A CAMERA report, Media’s Selective Martyrology, described the extensive mainstream media coverage, much of it containing anti-Israel bias, of the Corrie death. As to the false allegation by the caller, that during the coverage of the American hikers held in Iran, “we never heard anything about the Rachel Corrie trial story in the national media,” there was, in fact, extensive mainstream news media coverage in 2010-11 of the law suit brought in Haifa (Israel) District Court against the government of Israel by the Corrie family. The suit alleged that Israeli army members either deliberately killed Corrie or were guilty [at least] of gross negligence. According to the Nexis journalism research data base, dozens of news reports have been provided by major outlets such as: National Public Radio (NPR), Washington Post, New York Times, Associated Press, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Orlando Sentinel and Toronto Star.

In a recent report on-line, The Guardian (London) said on July 12, 2011: “The final witness in the case, Colonel Pinhas Zuaretz, told the court in Haifa that Rafah was a war zone in 2003 and ‘reasonable people would not be there unless they had aims of attacking our forces.’ Members of the International Solidarity Movement, such as Rachel Corrie, were aiding Palestinian terrorists, he said. In arguing the case should be dismissed, the Israeli government claimed Rachel was responsible for her own death.”

November 6, 2011 – 7:37 AM


Topic: Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain on media: “Downright dishonest”

Caller: Patrick from New Castle, Delaware.

Caller: “I agree with that gentleman [previous caller] who was just speaking about Rachel Corrie. That was a disgrace. Now, I would love to see C-SPAN put on a big story about that. As far as Herman Cain and the Republicans…”

NOTE: Previous entry’s NOTE pertains here as well.

November 4, 2011 – 7:12 AM


Topic: Is U.S. still [world] economic leader?

Caller: Anita from Chapel Hill, North Carolina (caller is allowed to pontificate at length off-topic including a bizarre quasi-racist view of what the U.S. attitude should be toward the Arab-Israel conflict).

Caller: “I agree with the previous caller about a lot of his [economic] issues and points. But what I want to say is, Americans need to have confidence in where we have c ome and what we are and where we are going to be later. I have great confidence in us. I think we are a great nation. I believe despite all of the disputes, I think we are all trying to take care of our families in the right way. I think the world has a lot to learn from us being that we are in a great country. I think we have provided a great example of diversity and having a good family and particularly sending women to school here and allowing them to have families also. I think we have done a lot, more so than any other nation. Now, that is my personal opinion. But I think as far as us having a global effect economically later, I think President Obama listens to a lot of our foreign allies which may not necessarily make a better decision for us, and I feel that we should stay out of the Middle East conflict because the children of Abraham, the Jewish people and the Arab people, they have conflicts of blood. This is not something we need to be concerned about because we are just not in that blood family, either.”

SWAIN (belatedly terminating the caller): “Alright Anita, we need to stop you there, getting into other issues.”

NOTE: <Pending>

Comments are closed.