Last week 11/30/2007 I called Thom Hartman's nationally syndicated radio show to ask Bernie Sanders about what he thought about the AIPAC/Pentagon Spy Case. Unfortunately right after I mentioned the fact that there is virtually no real media coverage of this scandal, I was cut-off and brazenly attacked by none other than Hartman himself who called me a anti-semite. His direct quote which can be heard in the the audio above was:
"There's a small cadre of people who are convinced that Israel & the Jews are behind all evil things in the world and that AIPAC is there point person and uh.... I'm just... ya know...I'm not even gonna debate the....I'm not even gonna go there, I'm sorry."
This totally vicious attack was not warranted by any anti-semitic rhetoric. I said nothing about Jews, neither did I say anything about Israel. I am not anti-semitic.
My only concern was with the fact that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee was caught red-handed spying in the Pentagon for Israel.....and still is. Thom is simply too sensitive to handle the facts and their implications.
Some of the more high profiled members subpoenaed in the spy case are Stephen Hadley, Richard Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and the convict Lawrence Franklin himself. I guess the Judge expects Franklin to testify in his orange jumpsuit. You can print out the court Documents here:
Not clear what your point is. Does Israel spy on the us with impunity? Jonathan Pollard has been in prison for 25 years for doing it. Does the USA send too much money to Israel? Well, they send almost the same amount to Egypt, which isn't even a democracy. Are American Jews a powerful lobbying force? Yes, they are. In addition to being taxpaying American citizens who exercize their civil rights.
Maybe you can spell out exactly what your problem is with the Jews and Israel.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Maybe you can spell out exactly what your problem is with the Jews and Israel.
As I already stated in my first post, I said nothing about Jews, neither did I say anything about Israel. I am not anti-semitic.
My only questions are why is a pro-Israel lobby allowed to spy in the Pentagon? Who's national security comes first in Washington? Israel or the United States?
Not real clear what you mean Jonathan Pollard has been in prison since 1986, and the severity of his sentence has angered both Israel and American Jews for 20 years. Numerous attempts by powerful lobbying groups to get him released have failed through 4 administrations. In consideration of the Pollard situationt, it's hard to imagine how Jews have free access to spy for Israel (as you claim).
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: Not real clear what you mean Jonathan Pollard has been in prison since 1986, and the severity of his sentence has angered both Israel and American Jews for 20 years. Numerous attempts by powerful lobbying groups to get him released have failed through 4 administrations. In consideration of the Pollard situationt, it's hard to imagine how Jews have free access to spy for Israel (as you claim).
Look, I don't like Wolfowitz, Perl and the rest of those warmongering Jews any more than you do. I strongly doubt, however, that the pro-Israel lobby is the force behind the warmongers. This looks like a red herring to distract naysayers from the real threat, which is a well organized attempt to undermine American sovereignty perpetrated by both Jews and non-Jews.
Don't forget that in Nazi Germany there were highly influential Jews who were held up as proof that Hitler didn't have a problem with the Jews. These were the token Jews, used for their money, brains and public image. A clever propaganda campaign to convince Germans that "good" Jews were OK in Germany, and that campaign resulted in more Jews being trapped inside.
Today we are subject to the same kind of propaganda. As wealthy white Gentiles consolidate power, Jews are getting the blame for it. And you are taking the bait like an obedient American.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: Look, I don't like Wolfowitz, Perl and the rest of those warmongering Jews any more than you do. I strongly doubt, however, that the pro-Israel lobby is the force behind the warmongers. This looks like a red herring to distract naysayers from the real threat, which is a well organized attempt to undermine American sovereignty perpetrated by both Jews and non-Jews.
Don't forget that in Nazi Germany there were highly influential Jews who were held up as proof that Hitler didn't have a problem with the Jews. These were the token Jews, used for their money, brains and public image. A clever propaganda campaign to convince Germans that "good" Jews were OK in Germany, and that campaign resulted in more Jews being trapped inside.
Today we are subject to the same kind of propaganda. As wealthy white Gentiles consolidate power, Jews are getting the blame for it. And you are taking the bait like an obedient American.
I think people like you & Hartman are the real ones creating the distraction. You & Hartman are the only people who are making this about Jews. Don't forget there are a lot of Christian groups like "Christians United for Israel" who are members of AIPAC too.
In pursuit of his support of Israel, Pastor Hagee helped found Christians United for Israel on February 7, 2006 as a "Christian AIPAC" lobbying Congress to support Israel.
Also, I'm not saying Israel took it upon itself to spy in the Pentagon, I'm saying the Bush Administration set up an apparatus "Back Channel" for them to spy for Israel.
It actually sounds like you are complaining that the system works. As a Jew, I am glad it works, and traitors are in jail. No doubt there are Russian and German spies in American prisons, but for some reason you are obsessing on a few wayward Jews.
To me it looks like prejudice... against Jews.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: Why is Jonathan Pollard in prison?
It actually sounds like you are complaining that the system works. As a Jew, I am glad it works, and traitors are in jail. No doubt there are Russian and German spies in American prisons, but for some reason you are obsessing on a few wayward Jews.
Why does nationality matter? Isn't spying in the Pentagon for the last 5 years scandalous enough? Who's National Security is more important to you as an American, Israel or the United States?
quote:
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: To me it looks like prejudice... against Jews.
To me it looks like you need a psychiatrist. Grow up.
Thom Hartmann: "There's a small cadre of people who are convinced that Israel & the Jews are behind all evil things in the world and that AIPAC is their point person and uh.... I'm just... ya know...I'm not even gonna debate the....I'm not even gonna go there, I'm sorry."
Mr. Truth: This totally vicious attack was not warranted by any anti-semitic rhetoric.
Huh?
Where's the "totally vicious attack" and where's the accusation of "anti-semitic rhetoric"?
I'm not catching your drift, Mr. Truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Mr Truth I am a big fan of Thom's, but I was disappointed in the way he handled your call. I am not sure if I would agree with everything you have to say, but do believe you have the right to say it. Unless I am missing something I think Thom was completely wrong in the way he dealt with you, and quite frankly am glad that you came to the board to complain about it. Regardless of my feelings on an issue, red flags go up for me when discussion on any issue is stifled. I feel Thom needs to explain why this issue cannot be discussed.
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
I agree, Mr Truth, Thom treated with outrageous disregard, then caricaturized what you had said, insinuating you are anti-semitic when there was nothing remotely anti-semitic in your comment. This is becoming a pattern with Thom. He appears to be a shill for AIPAC all right, and his respect for open debate and "hearing the other side" goes out the window every time someone mentions the inordinate influece of AIPAC and the Israeli lobby. This is one of those matters that many on the left have been weak on, so I'm not that surprised to find it in Thom. But it's still outrageous.
-------------------------- "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" - Sherlock Holmes
I didn't hear the question and answer on the program. I'm just reading the memories of it.
I do have an observation about introducing delicate topics into a conversation with a person who is "running a show" -- a radio broadcaster who has a theme he's developing, a teacher who is presenting material, a supervisor who has a view of how things should be done, etc. and so forth.
Talk radio blurs the interpersonal and role relationships, because listeners can phone in and make comments, and for that time they are on the air, the listeners are on "equal footing" with the broadcaster, at least in terms of access to the listeners. How well the call-in listener seizes that opportunity is related to how prepared and articulate the listener is. That preparation includes an awareness of what will play into making a good coherent program, which is the broadcaster's goal. In that slice of exposure, the listener actually has a huge job to use the air time well.
Listener comments that reflect attitude and bias themselves, and are presented in a confrontational way won't get as much air time as measured and articulate talking points. Where the topic itself, that the listener seeks to introduce in the live phone comment, has been foreclosed as a program topic before the call was ever made, the challenge is even greater, because first the listener has to turn a hands-off topic into something reasonable to discuss. It's hard to tell exactly what went into the back and forth raised by this part of Thom's talk radio show, whether AIPAC has been foreclosed as a topic, and so on.
It does seem clear that AIPAC was not introduced by Thom; what's unclear is how AIPAC was related to something Thom was discussing.
What's the best way to introduce a topic (that the person in charge has not introduced) and elicit some developed response. I don't know.
Who's in charge of how the program rhythm develops and who should be? These questions apply, also, to our monolithic representatives in the Senate and in the House. How do People have their say and get policy makers to consider the People's concerns carefully? And who are the People? Even on this board, the People speak in disparate voices. It's hard to find a consensus on what the burning issues for "Us" are.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
I just listened to the tape, and Thom's transition was abrupt, and the listener had a calm voice and a set-up to his question, involving other scandals that have erupted on the national scene. The place where things would have gotten uncomfortable for me, if I were the guy in charge of the flow of the discussion and the one with the capacity to shut off the caller, ... was the listener's flagging of AIPAC, with the acronym and then the slow set-up of what each word in the acronym was. It was done in a calm voice, but it opened up a huge huge issue that would be impossible for Thom to fully and thoughtfully discuss, or Bernie Sanders for that matter.
I don't think what's being printed in mainline newspapers is off limits for these phone-in comments. And it's hard to bring up something that's *not* being reported in mainline media, even here on the message boards. Perhaps a way to introduce it, next time, would be to focus on what *is* being reported (as in the official hearings and so on that are being reported), and then the question is not flagged with "the media is trying to hide" or by the term AIPAC which has a warning light attached to it. Framed in that way, the question would allow Thom and Bernie to give their perspective on the news item, rather than unpack the perspective presented by the call-in listener.
Why is AIPAC a warning ("this is a contentious issue") signal? I'm not sure. The wikipedia article on AIPAC undoubtedly (I've not checked) has its own flame war. I did, however, observe the protracted flame wars on Palestine and Israel over there at wiki.
Our public policy is driven by so many unseen and inarticulable forces. One of the disarming and infuriating things about Noam Chomsky, for example, is his dispassionate and clear way of connecting some of the dots. Of course he, himself, is a watch word for "I'm not going there."
Interesting planet we live on.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Kate- I am not completely clear on what your final stance on this is. I have to say if Thom thought this was "too huge" an issue to be discussed then that is what he should have said.
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
Well, a couple of years back I called the show and unlike Hartmann's disciples who go to the front of the line, I never got passed the censor. I think Hartmann provides a good effort on environmental awareness even if his method undercuts environmental sustainability via his domesticated political doctrine.
Despite that critique, I also think Hartmann is in bed with the Israeli lobby, if not owned by it. He often remarks about "not being in the suck up, zone." Or something to that effect.
Israel invaded Lebonon and created a massive humanitarian nightmare as the Israeli Army completely destroyed the infrastructure of the country without so much as a whimper of protest from Sanders (who affirmed the invasion with his vote) and Hartmann's culpability through his silence.
While Hartmann and all the shepple march lock step to the status quo.
Posts: 1162 | Location: Boulder Creek Watershed | Registered: 14 February 2004
Yeah, Loki, slab and his little playmates are dressed up every morning by mommy in their cute little outfits. They run around in their tu tu's and are the token lemmings on this site.
Posts: 1162 | Location: Boulder Creek Watershed | Registered: 14 February 2004
Loki, personally I don't give a damn that the Powers let loose a couple of lemmings on this site; but unlike the shepple, I have no intention of letting sewer scum attak
Read-Only Topic
To me it looks like you need a psychiatrist. Grow up.
I sound like a conservative because I care about National Security? Are you retarded? How about I sound like a Patriot.
