You don’t often get a piece of cable TV this good, so it’s worth transcribing and posting in its entirety.
Yesterday, two Netanyahu propagandists appeared on MSNBC prior to Glenn Greenwald, painting a picture of the flotilla raid that was so grossly distorted it was unrecognizable as the incident that is being rightfully condemned around the world. Host Eliot Spitzer vigorously agreed with them, and then brought them back once again to counter Glenn after his appearance.
Spitzer was not nearly so conciliatory with Glenn, and during the interview, clips of the selectively edited IDF propaganda videos and their helpful English subtitles played continuously. In a rare and contentious eight minute cable news segment, Glenn decided to set the record straight:
ELIOT SPITZER: Now let’s bring in Glenn Greenwald from Salon.com who calls Israel’s actions quote, “heinous and repugnant” and, well let me just ask you, you have ships approaching Gaza, controlled by Hamas; Hamas is a terrorist organization, Israel did (I don’t think this is disputed) offer to have the ships inspected, if there was no contraband on board, let the ships continue on to Gaza. Why was that not a reasonable offer, why should Israel not intercede to stop the flow of contraband?
GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, international waters, which is where this ship was, is not owned by Israel. It is a crime, a war crime, to attack a ship in international waters that has not engaged in any aggression, and no one claims that these ships were. I mean, what you’re describing is absolute anarchy, that any country can just say, “no ships can go here, and if you disobey our order, we’re going to attack you, board your ship forcefully, and kill anybody who does resist.”
SPITZER: Well, let me interr…
GREENWALD: No, let me just finish because you just had on 10 minutes of uninterrupted pro-Israeli propaganda filled with falsehoods. The blockade is one of the most brutal and inhumane blockades that we’ve seen in the last generation. Look at UN reports that are objective, not Netanyahu aides, that say that 60% of the babies in Palestine have anemia, 65% of the population is food insecure; the entire Palestinian economy has collapsed as a result of this blockade. Israel routinely refuses to permit all sorts of imports including food, chocolate, french fries, anything but the barest necessities to keep those prisoners — which is what they are — alive…
SPITZER: Glenn, I hear you. Hold on one second. Let’s go back to Ruth Wedgewood, who is really a top-flight intellect and scholar of international law, said that nations that are a war are permitted in international water to enforce a blockade and to check to see if contraband is on board. Now, nobody has said that Israel has prevented humanitarian materials to flow through to Gaza. You may be saying there’s not enough…
GREENWALD: I just said that, the UN has said that, everybody says that. Israel constantly prevents humanitarian aid from going through to Gaza, and that’s why the claim, “oh, you just give us the cargo and we’ll take care of it for you,” is an absolute absurd joke.
For the last three years, the Israeli prime minister’s aide – top aide, when the blockade was first imposed — said, “The purpose is to put the Palestinians on a diet.” That’s what the Israeli prime minister’s top aide said about the reason this blockade was instituted. It is a completely inhumane blockade; that is that it starves the people of Palestine, as the UN says, not as I say, or as Hamas says, or as you say, or as Netanyahu aides say. Look at the objective reporting about what’s happening to that population.
SPITZER: OK, can we…let’s step back for one second. Let’s see if we can agree on one thing. Is Hamas, in your view, a terrorist organization?
GREENWALD: Hamas is the democratically-elected leadership of the people in Gaza and they’re recognized in fair and free elections as having been elected by everybody across the world, so that’s what they are. Have they engaged in terrorism? Yes. Have the Israelis, who founded the Israeli government and the Israeli state, engaged in terrorism? Yes, they have. Turkey says that what Israel just did is an act of terrorism itself. But Hamas is the democratically-elected government of the Gaza Strip and is the chosen government and is to be represented. Has Israel been brutally occupying the Palestinian people for the last 40 years? Have they or haven’t they?
SPITZER: Does it affect your analysis Hamas has as its stated policy the destruction of the State of Israel? And, in fact, Egypt as well is blockading Gaza and Hamas because Egypt as well views Hamas as a terrorist organization. So, both Israel and Egypt here are agreeing that only humanitarian materials can go through and both have as a stated objective to prevent more material from going through over this border by land or by sea. And so it would have…
GREENWALD: What you’re referring to is the Egyptian dictator that is the leading recipient of US aid, several billion dollars, billions of dollars a year, right after the Israelis. So, yes, the Egyptian dictatorship, along with the Israeli government under the patronage of the United States, all agree that the people of Gaza should be suffocated and closed off into a prison. And if you’re going to cite actions of the Egyptian dictatorship, as though that lent moral authority to this horrendous blockade. That’s pretty bizarre. Now yet…
SPITZER: Wait. In all fairness, I think, Glenn, I think what you also need to acknowledge is that Egypt is in form a democratic government as well, as is Israel, of course. And so when you say that that alone…
GREENWALD: As is Hamas. As are the Gazans.
SPITZER: Hamas has — again, let’s get agreement where we can – Hamas has stated very clearly that it wants…that the destruction of Israel is what it seeks, and therefore it is rational for people to say they are trying to get armaments, they have been shelling into Israel for many, many years, so Israel has a legitimate reason, in terms of self defense, to check to make sure that armaments are not flowing through with humanitarian resources. I assume agree with that.
GREENWALD: Nobody ever claimed or thought until today that those ships had arms, and they didn’t have arms. Not even the Israeli government claims they have arms. Everybody knew that the purpose of that flotilla was to try and deliver humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, which is not being allowed to pass through by the Israeli government as a means of dramatizing what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. That was the entire purpose of that flotilla, and nobody ever claimed, “oh, this is a terrorist organization trying to deliver arms.” That’s an absolute, after-the-fact lie and the entire world knows it.
SPITZER: OK.
GREENWALD: So I was just saying, you could have as many Netanyahu aides on your show as you want, but the entire world outside of the United States is condemning Israel. Democracies all over the world…
SPITZER: Glenn. I appreciate your participating. I think there are startling, divergent views here about both the morality and the legality of what we’re seeing. I think, to a certain extent, you assume your conclusion when you say there are only humanitarian materials…only humanitarian materials are on those ships. That is precisely what the Israeli government said it wanted to verify.
Kudos to Barney Frank, too, who — unlike Anthony Weiner, Jerry Nadler and Kirsten Gillibrand — had strong words for Israel and is demanding an independent inquiry.
Co-authored by Jane Hamsher.
In 2007, 82 Democratic members of Congress signed a pledge. They would never again vote to fund the war in Iraq without plans for troop withdrawal.
Republican critics accused them of demagoguing the war. Of using our soldiers as a political pawns, of not meaning what they said.
Those who signed that pledge need to cast their vote against the Supplemental Appropriations Act on Tuesday and prove them wrong.
We may agree or disagree about what needs to be done in Iraq, but a promise is a promise. Anti-war activists have supported these members of Congress because of that 2007 pledge. They knocked on doors and distributed leaflets and donated to their campaigns. They and marched side by side with them as they sought to bring an end to the war that still lingers in Iraq and escalates in Afghanistan, as the new film Rethink Afghanistan documents.
Teabaggers are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that true "grassroots" demonstrations aren't orchestrated by corporate lobbyists. Understandable -- if you didn't have any experience organizing a demonstration that didn't have millions in free PR from Fox News and well-funded GOP fat cats providing a national infrastructure, you wouldn't know the difference.
They seem to be particularly upset about links I sent out yesterday on Twitter (using the teaparty hashtags #tcot and #teaparty) regarding a report by Lee Fang at Think Progress documenting the involvement of corporate lobbyists FreedomWorks in organizing the teabaggers. FreedomWorks is run by ladies' man (and registered lobbyist) Dick Armey, and if they're not "organizing" the Tea parties, it's news to them.
From the FreedomWorks website:
With your help, we have been able to organize hundreds of Taxpayer Tea Parties across the country, from Santa Barbara, California to Amarillo, Texas, and all the way to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
[]
If you are not able to organize or attend a Taxpayer Tea Party, you can still help the cause by donating or buying a t-shirt. You can also spread the word via email, facebook and word of mouth. If you would like to post updates on tea parties in your state, or if you’d like to get in touch with other people planning tea parties, visit our Tea Party HQ. We have created an interactive Google map that you can use to locate a tea party near you!
The "donation" for the Tea Parties page goes to -- you guessed it -- the FreedomWorks Foundation. The "thank you" lettter is signed by Matt Kibbe, President & CEO, who cut his teeth working for Lee Atwater. He was behind the attempt to get Ralph Nader put on the ballot in Oregon in 2004, prompting a complaint to the FEC of illegal collusion with the GOP.
Remember: Tell members of Congress that you want them to take action here. And join us today at 4:30 pm Eastern Daylight Time (1:30 pm Pacific) for a chat with economist James Galbraith, and at later, at 7:00 pm Eastern (4pm Pacific), when Rep. Alan Grayson joins us to talk about the need for bank bailout transparency.
Last night, Timothy Geithner appeared before the House Democratic Caucus and was singularly unimpressive. He was apparently dispatched to absorb Congressional ire about the AIG situation, but didn't say much of substance, according to those who attended the meeting -- he mostly just shook his head and cussed about AIG.
From Roll Call (subscription only):
Banks’ Cash Still Welcome
Members of Congress are scoring political points tongue-lashing Wall Street for its role in the economic meltdown, but they are proving less willing to put their campaign money where their mouths are.
[]
The list of 400 companies that have taken advantage of the $700 billion bailout package includes some of the biggest donors in politics: Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley, among others. Altogether, TARP recipients doled out $5.2 million to members of the Senate Banking and House Financial Services committees in the 2008 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Bank lobbyists were working through Ellen Tauscher and the New Democrat Coalition, in conjunction with the Blue Dogs, tried to kill the bill that would allow bankruptcy judges to write down mortgages, cutting foreclosures by 20% at no cost to taxpayers. Thanks to a big public outcry, the New Dems backed down and the bill passed the House. A bankruptcy judge in Kansas speaks today about how important it is going to be that it pass the Senate and that judges be given the powers that they need to help deal with an unmanageable crisis.
In Ryan Lizza's New Yorker profile, Rahm Emanuel says:
"They have never worked the legislative process," Emanuel said of critics like the Times columnist Paul Krugman, who argued that Obama's concessions to Senate Republicans--in particular, the tax cuts, which will do little to stimulate the economy--produced a package that wasn't large enough to respond to the magnitude of the recession. "How many bills has he passed?"
[]
Now, my view is that Krugman as an economist is not wrong. But in the art of the possible, of the deal, he is wrong. He couldn't get his legislation."
The stimulus bill was essentially held hostage to the whims of Collins, Snowe, and Specter, but if Al Franken, the apparent winner of the disputed Minnesota Senate race, had been seated in Washington, and if Ted Kennedy, who is battling brain cancer, had been regularly available to vote, the White House would have needed only one Republican to pass the measure. "No disrespect to Paul Krugman," Emanuel went on, "but has he figured out how to seat the Minnesota senator?" (Franken's victory is the subject of an ongoing court challenge by his opponent, Norm Coleman, which the national Republican Party has been happy to help finance.) "Write a fucking column on how to seat the son of a bitch. I would be fascinated with that column. O.K.?" Emanuel stood up theatrically and gestured toward his seat with open palms. "Anytime they want, they can have it," he said of those who are critical of his legislative strategies. "I give them my chair."
Krugman responds (via email):
One more sigh of relief:
In late December the United Nations General Assembly held a symbolic vote on a statement calling for the universal decriminalization of homosexuality. France spearheaded the resolution, which was a 13 point declaration "to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention." The statement received 60 votes in support, mostly from Europe and South America. Opposing the resolution, were the United States, the Holy See, and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. At the time, the Bush administration couched its objection to the measure in legal technicalities.
Now we know what it takes to get a smile out of her.
Seriously, she's...glowing.
Via Media Matters
Ben Smith says today that the left is "silent on Social Security reform" even as the administration considers it, and quotes Blue Dog Jim Cooper who says Obama is "in a honeymoon phase, and many liberals are afraid to express concerns."
Atrios calls it trolling. Perhaps it is, but there have been signs that serious Social Security reform is in the works, and people who have been briefed on the administration's plans indicate that things like raising the retirement age and cutting benefits are under consideration.
Consider -- in December, Cooper said a report which showed "that the governments unfunded liabilities are roughly $56 trillion" was "shocking." He called for a commission to address it, which Hoyer endorsed but Pelosi opposed. The White House agreed to it in January:
Obama said that he has made clear to his advisers that some of the difficult choices--particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare - should be made on his watch. "We've kicked this can down the road and now we are at the end of the road," he said.
So who is going to be on this panel? Kent Conrad, Judd Gregg, the Blue Dogs and "a host of outside groups with ideas on the matter." Said Paul Rosenberg:
So, Blue Dogs in. Progressives? Not so much. Surprised? Didn't think so. The agenda here "difficult choices--particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare" is straight out of the fiscal slasher movie on CNN last weekend, IOUSA, which Digby blogged about earlier in the week, and which was thoroughly debunked by economist Dean Baker and his associates at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), which he co-directs, when it first came out in theatrical release last fall.
Whatever plan the task force comes up with, Cooper does not want Congress to be able to amend it.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee cleared Hilda Solis' nomination as Secretary of Labor today. The vote by the entire Senate will probably happen this week.
Only two Republicans voted against her -- Pat Roberts and Tom Coburn. Even though Mike Enzi made a stink and said that she was not qualified to be Secretary of Labor because she supported labor, he ultimately voted for her.
Mike Hall of the AFL-CIO blog:
After eight years of the Bush administration's Department of Labor under Elaine Chaoâ€â€trashing workers' rights, weakening workplace safety rules, ignoring wage and hour violations and siding with Big Business at about every junctureâ€â€the idea of a labor secretary siding with workers must be terrifying to some.
Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Alternet All Access and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.
Subscribe Annually
$95 / year — Just $7.91/month
Subscribe Monthly
$1 trial
I want to Support More
$14.99 per month
