Oh yeah, there's no (subversive, leftist guerrilla) liberal media bias....... :evil4:

Funny how Dan, Peter and Tom have not touched the Kerry story....

Kinda like Monica.... that is until the DNA soaked dress materialized.

Can you explain this.I enjoy the AMERICAN threads but don't know enough about who did what to who,when and why.Keep us informed of the election please.May not contribute myself but it is interesting to here your views on what is going on.You lot seem pretty clued up eg.MM AGENTWOOD,TABOO and their ilk.So come on down and tell us BRITS what is happening in the LAND OF MILK AND HONEY!

several weeks back, the lead story on both my MSNBC homepage and CNN.com was something about the investigation into the lack of WMDs in iraq and the failure of american intelligence (this is when the story first broke). i visited the FOX site. not a single mention of it anywhere!

and regarding a 'left-wing media bias:' look at talk radio! the biggest names in talk radio are extremely conservative. not to mention that the 'big three' are losing viewers every year to cable--and nearly all of america's media is controlled by six companies...including the extremely conservative newscorp! i think there's a variety of left- and right-wing commentary out there, my problem is that american news isn't international enough. 'world news tonight' my ass!

If you ever read The Powers That Be by Dave Halberstam, it talks about how conservative the media used to be prior to Vietnam. Now it seems we're going back to that (at least since the "Monica-gate" scandel, when certain cable news outlets made their name calling for Clinton's removal), and so if anything there is a conservative media agenda out there that is much more cognizant than liberal. Hell, the morning show on "the fair and balanced" station tried to get Douglas Brinkley (a decent historian, though I've never read anything by him) to say that John Kerry was somehow best buds with Jane Fonda, but thankfully Mr. Brinkley pointed out that Kerry and Fonda barely knew each other.

There's a more rabid, vicious quality to the right-wing media because that's what sells these days. Since Clinton, the media has sought to take down politicians on both sides, but the right-wingers have had a better time of it. Individual reporters might be lefties, but I assure you the big corporations in charge of those outlets are conservative to the bone.

Maybe it's just because I come from the other side of the issue, but I really don't see any trace of overarching liberal "agendas" in the nightly news or CNN. Fox wears their Republicanism on their sleeves then cries foul when someone questions the integrity. Personally, I guess I could applaud them for their "honesty" in that regard, but anyone who thinks they're a serious news entity should go back to Yale :p

The Kerry story? Who cares if he's got another woman or not? His own businness. YOUR businnes is what he talks about. After decades of presidents destroying the Welfare, for the first time comes one talking seriously about the true issues of the half of your people. Health care, education, work. Maybe he won't do anything of what he's saying, but he's saying it, and he's the first one after too much time, during which your rights were stolen and life became a nightmare for half the population. It's the time the rich who became rich stealing the money from the poor gives something back. I'm not talking about communism or anything utopistic, I'm talking about social justice. Even Ford got it: I build cars and treat well my workers so my workers can buy them. But now the low waged can't even pay the fookin rent. Time to stop the madness. Kerry may not be the cure, but Bush is certainly the disease.

I don't see much 'liberal' bias in the US media. Rather theres one half of the media which has an apolitical bias to anything easy and cheap to report and to a kind of cautious follow-the-pack journalism (which occasionally leads to a 'liberal' bias more or less by accident), and another half which is rabidly right-wing and spectacularly dishonest.

The mainstream media does seem to tend towards the liberal on some social issues, probably because up-market journalists tend to be more likely to personally know openly gay people and feminist inclined women. On economic issues the entire US media seems pretty right wing, not suprising given its owned by rich people and staffed by well paid middle class people.

Mostly the mainstream media is just dumb and infuriatingly uncritical.

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 If you ever read The Powers That Be by Dave Halberstam, it talks about how conservative the media used to be prior to Vietnam. Now it seems we're going back to that (at least since the "Monica-gate" scandel, when certain cable news outlets made their name calling for Clinton's removal), and so if anything there is a conservative media agenda out there that is much more cognizant than liberal. Hell, the morning show on "the fair and balanced" station tried to get Douglas Brinkley (a decent historian, though I've never read anything by him) to say that John Kerry was somehow best buds with Jane Fonda, but thankfully Mr. Brinkley pointed out that Kerry and Fonda barely knew each other.

There's a more rabid, vicious quality to the right-wing media because that's what sells these days. Since Clinton, the media has sought to take down politicians on both sides, but the right-wingers have had a better time of it. Individual reporters might be lefties, but I assure you the big corporations in charge of those outlets are conservative to the bone.

Maybe it's just because I come from the other side of the issue, but I really don't see any trace of overarching liberal "agendas" in the nightly news or CNN. Fox wears their Republicanism on their sleeves then cries foul when someone questions the integrity. Personally, I guess I could applaud them for their "honesty" in that regard, but anyone who thinks they're a serious news entity should go back to Yale :p

You make good points, Trev. However, after I read Bernard Goldberg's book Bias (and realizing he has a rather large ax to grind) I found my self sensing the subtle but permeating liberal bias found in network news and certain Cable Network News organiztions.

There's bias on both sides; Foxnews has its great share of republican bias, yet CNN and any Viacom related news broadcast have their liberal biases. But I must admit that a conservative bias is much more prevalent today in the general American media.

this is how i deal with the american media: watch the BBC world news!!!

Originally posted by FREE JEFF THE CHEF! this is why I get all my news from MTV!!!

MTV news is awful, liberally skewed shite spewed from a Viacom owned station.

Originally posted by AgentWood this is how i deal with the american media: watch the BBC world news!!!

The BBC is ok, but the French news is far superior; less blabbing and discussion and more reporting on the scene.

Originally posted by AgentWood **several weeks back, the lead story on both my MSNBC homepage and CNN.com was something about the investigation into the lack of WMDs in iraq and the failure of american intelligence (this is when the story first broke). i visited the FOX site. not a single mention of it anywhere!and regarding a 'left-wing media bias:' look at talk radio! the biggest names in talk radio are extremely conservative. not to mention that the 'big three' are losing viewers every year to cable--and nearly all of america's media is controlled by six companies...including the extremely conservative newscorp! i think there's a variety of left- and right-wing commentary out there, my problem is that american news isn't international enough. 'world news tonight' my ass!

In your opinion, what has been the driving force behind the popularity of "right-wing" talk radio?

IMHO, it is because there had (has) been a distinct lack of alternate points of view provided by Dan, Peter and Tom. Also, as you pointed out, examine the success of Fox News. Whatever your opinion of it as a news gathering organiztion, it cannot be denied that it is an unqualified, smashing success. Especially in light of the ratio of number of households reached to total number of viewers.

The question again is, why is that?

If CNN, MSNBC et al were providing news and opinion in such a way as to seem "fair and balanced", what happened?

Why are they consistently getting their clocks cleaned in the ratings when they reach more homes? It's not as if FNC is drawing from a different viewer pool. They are drawing from the same pool (at a disadvantage) and kicking tail.

i think many talk-radio hosts get ratings because of their shock value, be they right- or left-wing--howard stern or rush limbaugh. either way, if the 'media' were so blatantly left-wing, i don't think there would be an outlet provided for either one of these men, as both can be pretty offensive at times!

as for the popularity of fox, the only times i've ever watched it (or looked at foxnews.com) it wasn't the conservative slant that stuck out in my mind, but the 'dumbing-down' of the news. the website refers to michael jackson as 'jacko,' a term i hadn't seen since browsing the british tabloid stands. on fox news, i've never watched any of the commentary or analysis shows, so perhaps they're different, but the news itself was more tabloid journalism (not in the american 'national enquirer' sense, but in the british 'sun' sense) than serious news. not that CNN is much better, mind you, and don't get me started on MSNBC (also known as '57 tickers and nothing on'), but i'm not at all impressed with the presentation of fox. it was only after i got past the 'dumbing down' factor that i noticed the right-wing bias. i don't particularly care about that, however, as there's no such thing as an impartial media--it simply doesn't exist--and there's room for fox alongside CNN and the others. i just think it's a bit ridiculous that conservatives are taking pride in a company which gives off the appearance of electronic and television tabloid journalism.

Originally posted by FREE JEFF THE CHEF! actually...this is where I go for all the news I need!!!http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePageand if I can't get it from them...I go here!!!http://www.weeklyworldnews.com

the published grocery store version of WWN is much better because of the page 5 girl!

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol > Originally posted by FREE JEFF THE CHEF!> actually...this is where I go for all the news I need!!!> http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage> > and if I can't get it from them...I go here!!!> > http://www.weeklyworldnews.com

the published grocery store version of WWN is much better because of the page 5 girl!

nope. weekly world news is too highbrow. i stick with the old standard: inquiring minds want to know!

Originally posted by FREE JEFF THE CHEF! this is why I get all my news from MTV!!!

so what did J Lo do today?

US Presidents and their weiners. The thing is, the rest of the world looks at this and says WTF?? If our economy was as good as the US extracurricular nookie would not be news.

I wouldn't mind getting a job with Weekly World News, I could have some great ideas for the further adventures of "Bat Boy"

Oh, my all-time favorite WWN story concerened a haunted house in which actual "photographs" of the spirits were featured. The "ghosts" in question bore a striking resemblence to the cast of "Little House on the Prarie"

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> If you ever read The Powers That Be by Dave Halberstam, it talks about how conservative the media used to be prior to Vietnam. Now it seems we're going back to that (at least since the "Monica-gate" scandel, when certain cable news outlets made their name calling for Clinton's removal), and so if anything there is a conservative media agenda out there that is much more cognizant than liberal. Hell, the morning show on "the fair and balanced" station tried to get Douglas Brinkley (a decent historian, though I've never read anything by him) to say that John Kerry was somehow best buds with Jane Fonda, but thankfully Mr. Brinkley pointed out that Kerry and Fonda barely knew each other.

There's a more rabid, vicious quality to the right-wing media because that's what sells these days. Since Clinton, the media has sought to take down politicians on both sides, but the right-wingers have had a better time of it. Individual reporters might be lefties, but I assure you the big corporations in charge of those outlets are conservative to the bone.

Maybe it's just because I come from the other side of the issue, but I really don't see any trace of overarching liberal "agendas" in the nightly news or CNN. Fox wears their Republicanism on their sleeves then cries foul when someone questions the integrity. Personally, I guess I could applaud them for their "honesty" in that regard, but anyone who thinks they're a serious news entity should go back to Yale :p

You make good points, Trev. However, after I read Bernard Goldberg's book Bias (and realizing he has a rather large ax to grind) I found my self sensing the subtle but permeating liberal bias found in network news and certain Cable Network News organiztions.

I'll give you that, but it's not as if there's any organization to the liberals who are in the news business. CNN (believe it or not) has a fair amount of conservatives on staff (Bob "Bulldog" Novak is the most obvious) and I think they try not to wear their beliefs on their sleeves. I think it has something to do with the global view of the networks in question: CNN tries to be more international, while Fox News certainly comes off as America-centric. That's just my view, I could be dumbing down the actual stances of said companies but I believe the general idea is on the right track.

Goldberg has a HUGE ax to grind, and I could kinda tell from the first couple of paragraphs (in which he describes being snubbed by either Rather or Jennings, I can't remember which) where he was going with the book, thus I stopped right there. I'm all for differences in opinion, but the way that Fox disguises it as "fact" makes me queasy. I just don't think there could be an organized "liberal media" anymore in comparison to the Fox folks.

In time, perhaps, Fox may fade away like a lot of the other "alternative to CNN" stations, or it may even replace CNN ( ), but for right now, it's pretty obvious where they stand on a lot of issues. Be careful of throwing the "liberal media" tag around too much; like the dinosaurs, it may already be extinct

Too many Conservatives whining "Liberal media conspiracy." Ever notice that there is not a single nation wide liberal radio talk show??? NPR is about as close as it gets.

Let's not forget that the so-called "liberal" journalists have to fight the conservative owners of the media conglomerates.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Funny how Dan, Peter and Tom have not touched the Kerry story....Kinda like Monica.... that is until the DNA soaked dress materialized.

Another silly premise from the far right. The "liberal" media is subversive-- i.e., is plotting to overthrow the government of the United States-- because they haven't reported allegations of-- what-- that Kerry chases skirts? Come on, Michael, this is so last century already.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott

In your opinion, what has been the driving force behind the popularity of "right-wing" talk radio?

*I don't know. People can be funny. After all here we have a rich clown called Berlusconi and his ghost party (no internal debate at all, every decision comes from him) has one third of the votes.

Also, as you pointed out, examine the success of Fox News.

*I find that channel frightening and offensive to any intelligent mind. If they were the channel of a party, alright. You read neo-Nazi magazines, and you see worse. But they are neo-Nazi magazines, they don't pretend to be a "news" channel. News my arse. It's pure propaganda in classic regime style. The North-Korean TV is not very different.

Whatever your opinion of it as a news gathering organiztion, it cannot be denied that it is an unqualified, smashing success.

*A success, yes, Hitler was a success in the 30s. Michael Bolton was a success in the 80s. So what.

Thanks Almanso for the support :) Hope that things in Argentina are getting better. One of the many examples of the failure of extreme capitalism, which failed just like communism. The right way is in the middle, folks. You just have to balance economy and welfare, otherwise it's a mess. All the good periods in recent history have seen people with strong social rights making turn the wheel of the economic machine. You give me money, I spend money, you get money. That's how it works the circle. If I have no money I don't spend and you don't gain and the circle is broken. Easy.

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN FEB 15, 2004 23:00:32 ET XXXXX

FLASHBACK: MEDIA GRILLED BUSH OVER 'ADULTERY' CLAIMS

As main press players blast the DRUDGE REPORT and foreign outlets for revealing details of a behind-the-scenes campaign drama surrounding candidate Kerry and the nature of his relationship with a mystery woman -- just 12 years ago the same players peppered former President George Bush with questions surrounding an infidelity rumor!

In 1992 top reporters swiftly reacted to a footnote in a book quoting a long dead ambassador.

CNN rushed to get the rumor into the media stream as White House correspondent Mary Tillotson confronted President Bush as he hosted Israel Prime Minister Rabin in the Oval Office.

"There is an extensive series of reports in today's New York Post alleging that a former U.S. ambassador, a man now deceased, had told several persons that he arranged for a sexual tryst involving you and one of your female staffers in Geneva in 1984."

Asked NBC's Stone Phillips to the president's face at the height of the "rumor mongering":

"Have you ever had an affair?"

CBS' Harry Smith then confronted Bush spokesperson Mary Matalin over on-air morning coffee:

"Let me ask you about something else. There's a book out, or a book that's just about out that in a footnote names that then-Vice President Bush had an affair with an assistant when he was on a mission in Geneva. Well, that footnote has turned into frontpage news (holding up N.Y.POST), at least in New York, in the N.Y. POST. Albeit a tabloid, it is usually a conservative newspaper. Are you ready to say that accusation is a flat out lie?"

NEWSWEEK's Jonathan Alter defended the aggressive adultery rumor line-of-questioning of the first President Bush on ABC's NIGHTLINE on August 12, 1992, on a broadcast titled: "The Media Charges George Bush With Adultery."

"In this situation, the Oval Office isn't a temple," Alter explained. "The President is a candidate and he has to be asked tough, often distasteful, but nonetheless important kinds of questions."

UPI's Helen Thomas also defended the Bush affair reportage:

"Some people might have felt that it wasn't appropriate. But when you have the President there, I think it's very legitimate to ask him any question."

CUT TO 2004:

NEWSWEEK'S Alter blasted any and all coverage of the Kerry infidelity probe last week on a New York City talkradio outlet -- calling the investigation "sleazy."

The media outrage over an erupting story of possible infidelity of a presidential candidate -- 2004 -- peaked with Joe Conason's cover story in SALON late last week ["There he goes again! Matt Drudge and the GOP smear machine are back in the Democrats' pants"]

Conason lamented:

"But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations isn't what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation."

But is this really the same Joe Conason who in the Summer of 1992 wrote a magazine cover story entitled "1,000 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR GEORGE BUSH?"

Consaon's reason #1:

"He cheats on his wife."

The rumor of President Bush having an affair was never proved by the media.

The developing Kerry drama may or may not join it on the shelf.

Yes, I'm sure liberals are the ones behind claims of adultery. That makes obvious sense.

Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope Yes, I'm sure liberals are the ones behind claims of adultery. That makes obvious sense.

I don't think anyone has made an assertion as to who is behind the claims. I'm just pointing out who chooses to investigate certain claims and with what type of intensity.

So they're equals on the infidelity issue then. Can we talk about politics now please? That's what's supposed to be the vote, isn't it? And I don't care wether Bush went to Vietnam or stayed at home like any boy with the will to live would have done. What we should care about are true issues affecting people: work, health, environment, guns, death penalty, war, welfare etc. Plenty to discuss about without wasting time about personal stories...

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 I wouldn't mind getting a job with Weekly World News, I could have some great ideas for the further adventures of "Bat Boy" Oh, my all-time favorite WWN story concerened a haunted house in which actual "photographs" of the spirits were featured. The "ghosts" in question bore a striking resemblence to the cast of "Little House on the Prarie"

the best one was, Saddam Huseins Weapons Of Mass Destruction Are Really Dinosaurs And George Bush Knows It...

Originally posted by Jeff Tomlinson > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> I wouldn't mind getting a job with Weekly World News, I could have some great ideas for the further adventures of "Bat Boy" > > > Oh, my all-time favorite WWN story concerened a haunted house in which actual "photographs" of the spirits were featured. The "ghosts" in question bore a striking resemblence to the cast of "Little House on the Prarie"

the best one was, Saddam Huseins Weapons Of Mass Destruction Are Really Dinosaurs And George Bush Knows It...

Don't forget the constant findings of Titanic surivivors some 90 years after the fact

who gives a fuck (excuse the ban punning) if dean had / has a mistress? his wife and kids i suppose, but how is that an election issue?

msn cnn fox are all much of a muchness. patriotic* crap. perhaps bushs biggest achievement is making a star out of michael moore.

So america gets a choice between a rich white male conservative to plunder around the world, or a richer, whiter, maler, neo conservative to plunder around the world breaking emmisions aggreements to pay back the vast sums he owes to military industrialists, industrialists and assorted oil companies who funded his celebrity based white teeth "campaign".

this happens once every 5? years ? tens of millions sacrifice power to a handful of individiuals, who run the counrty with the corporates whose money guarantees them power......... and this is democracy

at least fox is honest. this is where i gets me my news http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml

* = dont question your leaders.

Originally posted by nearly there who gives a fuck (excuse the ban punning) if dean had / has a mistress? his wife and kids i suppose, but how is that an election issue? msn cnn fox are all much of a muchness. patriotic* crap. perhaps bushs biggest achievement is making a star out of michael moore.So america gets a choice between a rich white male conservative to plunder around the world, or a richer, whiter, maler, neo conservative to plunder around the world breaking emmisions aggreements to pay back the vast sums he owes to military industrialists, industrialists and assorted oil companies who funded his celebrity based white teeth "campaign". this happens once every 5? years ? tens of millions sacrifice power to a handful of individiuals, who run the counrty with the corporates whose money guarantees them power......... and this is democracy at least fox is honest. this is where i gets me my news http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml * = dont question your leaders.

The United States is not a democracy. It is a Republic.

If by "emissions agreements" you mean the Kyoto Protocol, you must understand that for the US government to enter into any international treaty, it must first be approved by the Senate. It was never introduced by it's greatest champion, the Clinton administration. One wonders why.

Not to go on a rant here, but have you ever wondered why when environmentalist decide to get together, they don't video/teleconference? Instead they burn untold hundreds of thousands of pounds of jet fuel flying to places like Kyoto and Rio. This is not to mention the greenhouse gases emitted by taxis and buses that haul around these environmentalist once they get to their vacation...I mean conference destination.

Michael, you're getting awfully dangerous to the Devil's mark for a total post count (666). At this point, you will reveal that you are none other than John Ashcroft and that you have been monitering all the un-American activity on this board and are satisfied that you can try all of us on charges of treason or just general unpleasantness underneath the Patriot Act. At which point black helicopters will be dispatched to all the various locales of the New Order Online residencies, and a hunt for those who esacpe the first wave will take on a "Running Man"-like game show premise....

Or maybe I just need to go back to bed :D

The United States is not a democracy. It is a Republic.

so its " a group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field", a state that RE presents its PUBLIC ?

                 If by "emissions agreements" you mean the Kyoto Protocol, you must understand that for the US government to enter into any international treaty, it must first be approved by the Senate. It was never introduced by it's greatest champion, the Clinton administration. One wonders why.

did i say clinton / dean etc are angels ?As i said, clinton was a democrat conservative, white , male , president, in the pocket of mulitnationals etc.

My point being this "election" is a choice between a anti labour, union busting asshole, a warmonger, and a former soldier - all white , all rich, all male, all old, all looking after the intrests of those(oil companies, missile makers, and car makers) who pay for their campaigns, i.e. not you

not that theres anything worng with being any of the above, just doesnt seem like a choice

              Not to go on a rant here, but have you ever wondered why when environmentalist decide to get together, they don't video/teleconference? Instead they burn untold hundreds of thousands of pounds of jet fuel flying to places like Kyoto and Rio. This is not to mention the greenhouse gases emitted by taxis and buses that haul around these environmentalist once they get to their vacation...I mean conference destination.

ever wonder how many tonnes of fuel these militarists/world bank boyos burn when they get together for a "lets kill for peace" / "lets up consumption to please our shareholders" confrences? ferrying their fat asses and private armies along in their private jets? your point is of no consequence. enviromentalists arent anti planes, or trains, or taxis, or buildings, or steel or central heating or anyhting engineered, they just realise that all these things have side effects that need to be looked into. like most humans are, unlike most execs/presidential candidates.

Originally posted by nearly there The United States is not a democracy. It is a Republic.so its " a group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field", a state that RE presents its PUBLIC ? If by "emissions agreements" you mean the Kyoto Protocol, you must understand that for the US government to enter into any international treaty, it must first be approved by the Senate. It was never introduced by it's greatest champion, the Clinton administration. One wonders why.did i say clinton / dean etc are angels ?As i said, clinton was a democrat conservative, white , male , president, in the pocket of mulitnationals etc.My point being this "election" is a choice between a anti labour, union busting asshole, a warmonger, and a former soldier - all white , all rich, all male, all old, all looking after the intrests of those(oil companies, missile makers, and car makers) who pay for their campaigns, i.e. not younot that theres anything worng with being any of the above, just doesnt seem like a choice Not to go on a rant here, but have you ever wondered why when environmentalist decide to get together, they don't video/teleconference? Instead they burn untold hundreds of thousands of pounds of jet fuel flying to places like Kyoto and Rio. This is not to mention the greenhouse gases emitted by taxis and buses that haul around these environmentalist once they get to their vacation...I mean conference destination.ever wonder how many tonnes of fuel these militarists/world bank boyos burn when they get together for a "lets kill for peace" / "lets up consumption to please our shareholders" confrences? ferrying their fat asses and private armies along in their private jets? your point is of no consequence. enviromentalists arent anti planes, or trains, or taxis, or buildings, or steel or central heating or anyhting engineered, they just realise that all these things have side effects that need to be looked into. like most humans are, unlike most execs/presidential candidates.

In your assumption that I don't help pay for the campaign of my chosen candidate, you have made an ass of yourself, but not me. I contrubute to the RNC on a quarterly basis. In 2000, I decided to put my money where my ideology was and have been contributing ever since.

I don't think I ever stated that environmentalist were anti-transportation (althought many of them are). However, the point (that you missed) was, in context to Kyoto and Rio, that it seemed the height of hypocrisy that a group would gather to decry the output of emissions by the industrialized West yet have created so much of same to get to said gathering.

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 Michael, you're getting awfully dangerous to the Devil's mark for a total post count (666). At this point, you will reveal that you are none other than John Ashcroft and that you have been monitering all the un-American activity on this board and are satisfied that you can try all of us on charges of treason or just general unpleasantness underneath the Patriot Act. At which point black helicopters will be dispatched to all the various locales of the New Order Online residencies, and a hunt for those who esacpe the first wave will take on a "Running Man"-like game show premise....Or maybe I just need to go back to bed :D

Actually, I fancy a squadron of AC-130 gunships....

Ahhh, I love the smell of Pringles and Guinness in the morning....did I type that out loud???? Uh oh....

I really dislike the number 6_6. When I'm creating proposals at work, I'll purposely adjust figures to avoid it. Just superstitious I guess.... ;)

Well, getting back to the theme of this thread, I suppose we should have more unbiased reporting from the right? "We don't create the news, we just report it. You decide." Or whatever crap line it is that they spout.

The RNC, as in Republican national congress?

Youre a republican?

Ah, fuckit maan. dealin with a real reactionary here.

Im not, ammm im not you know going to sit here, and go into the ins and the outs, what have you ummm while i try to find out why some republican has problems beyond lack of pacifism.

Mark it dude : http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml

Almonso is correct.

Where i come (Irlande) from,a "liberal" is on the right wing - liberal refering to their economic ideals (free trade, although there aint much trade moving "freely" if you live outside the "first" world).

A "leftist" is obviously a socialist.

A "gurellia" is a member of an indigenous army trying to undermine a government. this is independent of political orientation. For instance, the US government supported right wing gurellias who overthrew the democratically elected government of chile, imposing the facist dictatorship of pinochet, and subsequent deaths of thousands on that other september 11. ernesto and pals , on the other hand, were left wing gurellias.

a "subversive" is anyone who sets out to overthrow the elected government (george bush ) - again, independant of political orientation (right or left)

From what my american cousins tell me, a liberal in the states is someone who is pro personal (as opposed to economic) freedom, michael is proberbally just a bit culturally conflustered about that. he is totally wrong on the last two tho;)

Originally posted by nearly there Almonso is correct.Where i come (Irlande) from,a "liberal" is on the right wing - liberal refering to their economic ideals (free trade, although there aint much trade moving "freely" if you live outside the "first" world).A "leftist" is obviously a socialist.A "gurellia" is a member of an indigenous army trying to undermine a government. this is independent of political orientation. For instance, the US government supported right wing gurellias who overthrew the democratically elected government of chile, imposing the facist dictatorship of pinochet, and subsequent deaths of thousands on that other september 11. ernesto and pals , on the other hand, were left wing gurellias.a "subversive" is anyone who sets out to overthrow the elected government (george bush ) - again, independant of political orientation (right or left)From what my american cousins tell me, a liberal in the states is someone who is pro personal (as opposed to economic) freedom, michael is proberbally just a bit culturally conflustered about that. he is totally wrong on the last two tho;)

It would seem that we were dicussing these issues in terms of North America. At least that's what I was doing. Therefore, the fact that the venacular I chose to use happens not to fit your local constructs does not make it wrong.

I can assure you that there is no confusion on my part.

Originally posted by almanso i was reading this thread´s title again.... are you saying the liberals are subversive, as leftist guerrilla? you´re insulting both liberals and subversives without even knowing it, mind! liberals are right oriented. on the left of republicans, true. but still right. but that´s because on the right side of the republicans there´s a wall! you can´t get much right than that. you need to go out more, partner. and maybe read some books for a change. that could help!

I'd happily put up my personal library against yours any day.

Originally posted by nearly there The RNC, as in Republican national congress?Youre a republican? Ah, fuckit maan. dealin with a real reactionary here.Im not, ammm im not you know going to sit here, and go into the ins and the outs, what have you ummm while i try to find out why some republican has problems beyond lack of pacifism.Mark it dude : http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml

"Reactionary"??? How political commisariate of you....

"Liberal" has a different connotation in the U.S. than it does in the rest of the world. In the U.S. "liberals" are on the left of the political spectrum, while "conservatives" are on the right.

Those terms themselves are unique to the U.S.; at present, the left in the U.S. would be considered center-right in the rest of the world. There is no real, viable left in the U.S. Yes, there are leftists, and leftist parties, but the winner-take-all (or in the case of G.W., loser-steal-all) election system we have creates a two-party system, and in order to win, a party has to appeal to the greatest number of voters. Thus, there is no viable left in the U.S. We have two center-right parties, or, in the words of Noam Chomsky, we have one party-- the Business Party-- with two wings-- the Democrats and the Republicans.

In the rest of the world, as well as in U.S. academia, "liberal" has its proper connotation-- one who espouses laissez-faire capitalism.

Originally posted by almanso > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > Originally posted by almanso> i was reading this thread´s title again.... are you saying the liberals are subversive, as leftist guerrilla? you´re insulting both liberals and subversives without even knowing it, mind! liberals are right oriented. on the left of republicans, true. but still right. but that´s because on the right side of the republicans there´s a wall! you can´t get much right than that. you need to go out more, partner. and maybe read some books for a change. that could help!

I'd happily put up my personal library against yours any day. Time magazine doesn´t count as a book, man.... and your library.... the fact that you have millions of books doesn´t mean you read them. in fact all of this you wrote shows CLEARLY you didn´t! ;)

So, what tomes of enlightenment are on your shelf, hot rod????????

Don't play dumb semantics guy , it does not suit you. You know what I meant by "personal library".

Porno? :p

Playboy has good articles

I learned "How to Please Your Man in Bed" from Cosmo.....I mean, I looked at the near-naked models on pages 26-104!

I said in my post that you weren’t wrong about lumping liberal in with the other 3 terms (Leftist, subversive, guerrilla)? Didn’t I? just equating the "last two".

A guerrilla is automatically a subversive, but a subversive is not necessarily a guerrilla. To say someone is a subversive guerrilla is akin to saying that someone is a "human male man" or the like.

Regardless of culture, anyone in the Republican Party who has read up anything on their party, the party they fund and vote for (you), should know that it is one of the most forceful practitioners and exporters (often by force) of “neo-LIBERAL market economics”. Since your library didn’t inform you of your party’s economic / social policy, one can only assume that it is indeed stocked with a lower grade of porn than “playboy” :p

Time magazine isn’t a book :D

Originally posted by nearly there I said in my post that you weren’t wrong about lumping liberal in with the other 3 terms (Leftist, subversive, guerrilla)? Didn’t I? just equating the "last two". A guerrilla is automatically a subversive, but a subversive is not necessarily a guerrilla. To say someone is a subversive guerrilla is akin to saying that someone is a "human male man" or the like.Regardless of culture, anyone in the Republican Party who has read up anything on their party, the party they fund and vote for (you), should know that it is one of the most forceful practitioners and exporters (often by force) of “neo-LIBERAL market economics”. Since your library didn’t inform you of your party’s economic / social policy, one can only assume that it is indeed stocked with a lower grade of porn than “playboy” :pTime magazine isn’t a book :D

Oh, you're sooooo right. JFK and LBJ never did anything like what your suggesting.

Regardless, if you find the liberation of millions of people, the ouster of a murderous despot and the honoring of duly ratified treaties to be distasteful and worthy of scorn, then that sounds like a personal problem you'll have to struggle with on your own.

It would appear by your comments that you need to bury your head in a few books.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Regardless, if you find the liberation of millions of people, the ouster of a murderous despot and the honoring of duly ratified treaties to be distasteful and worthy of scorn, then that sounds like a personal problem you'll have to struggle with on your own.

If thats the case why won't Dubya go into Haiti ? (when the people of the country are begging for help)

And with regard to the bit about ratified treaties - why does the US still support Isreal then ??

(Oh, and you forgot to mention about the gaining control of of the black gold)

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Regardless, if you find the liberation of millions of people, the ouster of a murderous despot and the honoring of duly ratified treaties to be distasteful and worthy of scorn, then that sounds like a personal problem you'll have to struggle with on your own.

so, the US liberated iraq from saddam hussein. what exactly did we liberate the country towards?

i'm constantly amazed when people try and justify the war as follows: we liberated iraq from saddam hussein, so let's forget the original failed objective, which was iraq's proliferation of WMDs and the imminent danger this posed to the US and the rest of the world, and concentrate on how the planet is now rid of this evil dictator. did i miss something here? did saddam hussein become bad only after the US broke ties with iraq after the 1980s? was it okay to give saddam hussein WMDs during the iran/iraq war? was he a soft, gentlemanly dictator back then? was the torture of iraqis okay back then because saddam hussein was our ally, and only our enemies can do nasty things? come on. there are a lot of baddies in the world--many of whom we cozy up to--and the war in iraq was not about ridding the country of a 'murderous despot.' it was a misguided attempt at shifting the balance of power in the middle east and gaining control of key natural resources: textbook neo-realist doctrine. let's not sugarcoat it with all of this bleeding-heart nonsense.

Daft cunt :p (note the eerie resemblence :D )

Originally posted by AgentWood so, the US liberated iraq from saddam hussein. what exactly did we liberate the country towards?

*Exactly. Even before the war started, I was already saying Saddam was a bastard, but his oppositors are no better. They're fundamentalists of the worst kind. It's unbelievable, America repeated the same error made years ago when, to get rid of a Communist dictator, they sent the Talibans in Afghanistan (who were refugees in the friendly Pakistan). And you know what happened next, the worst regime ever together with Hitler and Pol Pot (btw, another mate of the USA because he was anti-Vietnam). You never learn, do you?

i just typed "leftist gorilla" into Yahoo images just for fun, and pulled this up

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by AgentWood> > > > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > Regardless, if you find the liberation of millions of people, the ouster of a murderous despot and the honoring of duly ratified treaties to be distasteful and worthy of scorn, then that sounds like a personal problem you'll have to struggle with on your own.> > >

so, the US liberated iraq from saddam hussein. what exactly did we liberate the country towards?

i'm constantly amazed when people try and justify the war as follows: we liberated iraq from saddam hussein, so let's forget the original failed objective, which was iraq's proliferation of WMDs and the imminent danger this posed to the US and the rest of the world, and concentrate on how the planet is now rid of this evil dictator. did i miss something here? did saddam hussein become bad only after the US broke ties with iraq after the 1980s? was it okay to give saddam hussein WMDs during the iran/iraq war? was he a soft, gentlemanly dictator back then? was the torture of iraqis okay back then because saddam hussein was our ally, and only our enemies can do nasty things? come on. there are a lot of baddies in the world--many of whom we cozy up to--and the war in iraq was not about ridding the country of a 'murderous despot.' it was a misguided attempt at shifting the balance of power in the middle east and gaining control of key natural resources: textbook neo-realist doctrine. let's not sugarcoat it with all of this bleeding-heart nonsense.

Iraq was the enemy of our enemy in the 80's and therefore our friend. Don't play dumb geo-politics person and pretend it was anything otherwise. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

The only people who cried foul during this operation were the ones who were trading Iraqi blood for oil. Those folks being France, Germany, Russia and the United State's bestest buddy in the whole wide world, Koffi Annan. They are the ones who raped the people of Iraq of their natural resources.

As far as WMD's are concerned. Do you think the months and months we wasted kissing the UN's a$$ gave 'ol Saddam time to hide his WMDs (which let's remind the class, the UN said he had and could not be accounted for?

And, by your opening salvo, you seem to imply that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam. Well, the trains ran on time under Mussilini, too.........

Originally posted by The Haçienda must be (re)Built > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> Regardless, if you find the liberation of millions of people, the ouster of a murderous despot and the honoring of duly ratified treaties to be distasteful and worthy of scorn, then that sounds like a personal problem you'll have to struggle with on your own.> If thats the case why won't Dubya go into Haiti ? (when the people of the country are begging for help)And with regard to the bit about ratified treaties - why does the US still support Isreal then ??(Oh, and you forgot to mention about the gaining control of of the black gold)

A byproduct of the liberation was wresting control of the "black gold" from France, Germany, Russia and Koffi Annan to give back to the people of Iraq.

Originally posted by Michael McDermottA byproduct of the liberation was wresting control of the "black gold" from France, Germany, Russia and Koffi Annan to give back to the people of Iraq.

Michael, whilst not agreeing with your previous posts i can see the merit in your agruments, but i have to take issue wiith this one.

Do you honestly believe your will be giving back the black gold to the Iraqis ???

Originally posted by The Haçienda must be (re)Built > Originally posted by Michael McDermottA byproduct of the liberation was wresting control of the "black gold" from France, Germany, Russia and Koffi Annan to give back to the people of Iraq.

Michael, whilst not agreeing with your previous posts i can see the merit in your agruments, but i have to take issue wiith this one.

Do you honestly believe your will be giving back the black gold to the Iraqis ???

Yes, I do. It's in everyone's interest to have an economically strong Irag. That means the people being able to profit from their own natural resources. Will they need help in setting up infrastructure and distribution systems? Yes. Will a majority of that help come from American multi-national corporations? Probably so.

But what was it before? TotalElfFina. What did the people of Iraq get for Saddam's dealings with those European multi-national corporations? Palaces? Wood chippers? Acid pools?

What I'm saying is, while I fully expect whatever companies that help Iraq harvest their natural resources to make a profit, I also expect it to be a fair and equitable exchange.

I see horrible similarities here with Saudis - a totalitarien regime in place ignoring the democratic voice of the poeple who are only in power due to the patronage of America.

Any why ??? so Uncle Sam has a steady flow of oil.

And where did the majority of the 9/11 hijackers come from ??

Afganistan - nope

Iraq - nope

thats right, the friend of America Saudi Arabia

ps

I hate to think of the hatred the US are building up through their support of Isreal

Y'all are ensuring your gonna be looking over your shoulders for a long time

pps

I'm one of the few who actually likes the US of A

Originally posted by The Haçienda must be (re)Built I'm one of the few who actually likes the US of A

For our pornstars?

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol For our pornstars?

nope, sports stars like A-Rod, Al Unser, Greg LeMond, Larry Bird, Walter Payton, Tony Hawks, Kenny Roberts, Sugar Ray Leonard, Willie Shoemaker et al

Originally posted by Michael McDermott

Pure post hoc rationalization.

If anybody cares to remember at this point, The original basis for Bush's threat to invade Irag was a demand that Hussein comply with weapons inspections. Not "liberation," not a despot, not giving back the "black gold to the Iraqi people, none of that post hoc nonsense. It was a demand that Hussein stop obstructing the weapons inspections. To the extent that Hussein played games with weapons inspectors, and played brinksmanship with Bush, I say he brought all this on his own head. I have no sympathy for him.

So Hussein ultimately agreed to cooperate with the weapons inspections. At that point, Bush changed his demand. Now it wasn't weapons inspections Bush wanted, but the removal of Hussein. Not the liberation of the Iraqi people, or giving back their black gold, but the removal of Hussein. As if that wasn't what he had a hard-on for from the moment he stepped into office. So the US demanded that Hussein abdicate. The US has never had, and will never have the authority to make this demand of any other nation. On that point, regardless of how loathesome a character Hussein was, Hussein was right to refuse our demand. Stupid, maybe, because it was clear beforehand that we were preparing for war.

[sidenote: Under its laws, Rome was forbidden to enter into any unjust war. Therefore, Rome was required to give another nation the opportunity to make peace. Rome gave other nations this opportunity by making a peace demand that was so outrageous, that no nation would have ever conceded. After Rome's "peace overtures" were rejected three times, Rome would then attack the other nation, because the war was then just. Sound familiar?]

In order to justify the war, Bush suddenly discovered that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs-- a claim that the CIA denies it ever made, and that the Bush team itself is backing away from now. So what we are left with is the post hoc rationalization that "at least the Iraqi people are free."

As far as Hussein being "the enemy of our enemy," there's a reason for that situation that you haven't explored. In the 1950's, the U.S. and the British (sound familiar anybody?) collaborated to overthrow the republican government of Iran, and installed the Shah. We did this because the Iranians nationalized their oil, which was owned at that time by the British. The Iranian political opposition to the Shah eventually united behind the Ayatollah Khomeini, driving the Shah into exile. Because we were the power behind the Shah, the Iranian people viewed us as their oppressors. The enemy of our enemy? The Iranian people viewed us as their enemy because we forced an unwanted, despotic ruler on them.

Finally, regarding us "giving back" the black gold, that's fantasy unsupported by fact. Read the UN documents. Who has control of the oil? The Iraqi people, or the United States? Read the documents, Michael, and then tell me where it says we're giving the control of the oil to the Iraqi people. We didn't let the Iranians control their oil in the 50's...Sound familiar anyone?

Oh, you're sooooo right. JFK and LBJ never did anything like what your suggesting.

Regardless, if you find the liberation of millions of people, the ouster of a murderous despot and the honoring of duly ratified treaties to be distasteful and worthy of scorn, then that sounds like a personal problem you'll have to struggle with on your own.

It would appear by your comments that you need to bury your head in a few books. ______________________________________ I AM NOT A FUCKING DEMOCRAT

I DO NOT THINK THE FRENCH LEADERS,IRISH LEADERS,GERMAN LEADERS etc ARE ANY BETTE THAN YOUR LEADERS

I DO NOT THINK FRENCH MUTINATIONALS ARE ANY BETTER THAN US MULTINATIONALS.

get that straight..... man!

So the us overthrows democratically elected governments arond the world (e.g. chile, which you havent responded to), supports osama, saddam, and assorted scum around the world, gives them arms, they kill torture, etc, the us decide to turn a blind eye, then these lads get a bit to big for their boots in the eyes of the us, and so they turn on them.all the time they are funding osama and saddam (and MANY others) innocents get killed, then when they are fighting AGAINST them , innocents get killed. this is in the name of democracy. (that is the choice between 2 rich white union busting neo liberal warmongers).

"wake up america, youre dead"

the my enemy is his enemy therefore he is my brother idea is nonsense.

By that logic, the us and the plo should oppose the french states banning of the wearing of the haijb and other religious emblems in schools, and set up a united front against it. (bush oficially opposes it and sent a letter to that effect to chiraq, so too, im sure , does your average islamic extremist). the "suicde bombers and bush say no to religious ban" campaign. youre really talking bullshit here mike. ':('

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr "Liberal" has a different connotation in the U.S. than it does in the rest of the world. In the U.S. "liberals" are on the left of the political spectrum, while "conservatives" are on the right. Those terms themselves are unique to the U.S.; at present, the left in the U.S. would be considered center-right in the rest of the world. There is no real, viable left in the U.S. Yes, there are leftists, and leftist parties, but the winner-take-all (or in the case of G.W., loser-steal-all) election system we have creates a two-party system, and in order to win, a party has to appeal to the greatest number of voters. Thus, there is no viable left in the U.S. We have two center-right parties, or, in the words of Noam Chomsky, we have one party-- the Business Party-- with two wings-- the Democrats and the Republicans.In the rest of the world, as well as in U.S. academia, "liberal" has its proper connotation-- one who espouses laissez-faire capitalism.

Though in the UK 'liberal' came to mean someone in the middle-of-the-road who didn't want to choose between conservativism and socialism. Which is why it sounds like a contradiction in terms to me when I hear the term 'extreme liberal' used in the US. Extremely in the middle??

Really 'liberal' means someone who believes in individualism, in the individual persuing his/her idea of the good by their own means. As opposed to conservatives or socialists, both of whom are suspicious of individualism and believe in common values. Liberals in turn can be divided into 'welfare liberals' or pro-free market 'classical liberals', a division which I think came about because originally liberalism was in opposition to monarchism and so had no clear position on positive vs negative rights. Really much of both the right and 'left' in the US are liberals, just of those slightly different flavours. There are almost no socialists, so the only non-liberals are the, mostly religious, conservatives.

And then there's those who combine anti-immigrant, anti-gay attitudes with anti-big business views (like Pat Buchanon??) who I guess are bordering on being fascist.

// conservatives or socialists, both of whom are suspicious of individualism and believe in common values. //

"There is no such thing as society" Ms Tatcher

Originally posted by Michael McDermott And, by your opening salvo, you seem to imply that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam. Well, the trains ran on time under Mussilini, too.........

*You see, when the USA invaded Italy (and I still have huge gratitude for that) there was a strong democratic opposition to Mussolini's fascism. There was a National Liberation Front including all the parties (the same which opposed to his coup 20 years earlier) which would have written the Constitution and they set up partisan forces when the army refused to going on supporting Hitler's madness and the soldiers were being made prisoners and sent to concentration camps. So those who could excaped to the mountains (including many relatives of mine, I'm proud to say) and fought in the Resistance, in connection with the allied forces and the constitutional parties, and everyone knew after the end of the war there would have been democracy, a Western liberal democracy for a welfare state. It was clear from the start, even for the communists. In Iraq there's no such a thing, the 90% of the people are with the Iran-friendly ultra-fundamentalists who want an Islamic republic under the guide of the religious leaders. The only Western-friendly democratic opposition comes from the minority of the Kurds, though they're still a bit annoyed by the silence about the oppression of the Kurds in the NATO member Turkey, and how to blame them... You just have to understand there aren't people like Massud or Karzai in Afghanistan, who could guarantee a soft-Islam democracy, the Iraqis are hardcore and we'll notice that more and more. Just look at the terrorist attacks, the USA have been telling us they come from Saddam's supporters, that's bollocks, Saddam isn't worth a penny now, it's obvious they come from fundamentalists (helped by Al Qaida, much more friendly with them than with Saddam, who was a bit too un-religious with all his cigars, his alcoholic drinks and his women dressed in Western fashion) who are working to make the Americans retire and help the establishment of the new extreme Islam state. I hate to say "told you so". But well, told you so. :D And BTW, Saddam might have hidden his weapons, but if the Americans can't find any evidence they're just looking too terribly stupid. And don't blame the democrats, Bush had all the time to reorganize secret services, army and stuff. It's just that gasoline in the USA is much cheaper than in the rest of the world, and it must stay this way, no? So what's this story the French and the Russians have oil contracts with Saddam and we haven't? Let's take Iraq, then. That was easy, but now you've taken it, you can't keep it, that's the hard game. Good luck, but please please please will you learn history's lessons before it's too late?

Originally posted by almanso > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> A byproduct of the liberation was wresting control of the "black gold" from France, Germany, Russia and Koffi Annan to give back to the people of Iraq.

come on, man. you´re misinformed, cinic or naive. choose one. there´s no other way you´re saying that seriously. i refuse to think an informed, balanced and intelligent person could say that. really, i´m starting to worry about you. i guessed we only had totally opposite opinions, but now i´m sure there´s something more!

Just who, then, controlled the oil contracts during the last decade of Saddam's reign? Hmmmm? Who was enriching himself with the UN run "oil for food" program? Why don't you take a look. Just for grins.....

Originally posted by nearly there Oh, you're sooooo right. JFK and LBJ never did anything like what your suggesting.Regardless, if you find the liberation of millions of people, the ouster of a murderous despot and the honoring of duly ratified treaties to be distasteful and worthy of scorn, then that sounds like a personal problem you'll have to struggle with on your own.It would appear by your comments that you need to bury your head in a few books.______________________________________I AM NOT A FUCKING DEMOCRATI DO NOT THINK THE FRENCH LEADERS,IRISH LEADERS,GERMAN LEADERS etc ARE ANY BETTE THAN YOUR LEADERSI DO NOT THINK FRENCH MUTINATIONALS ARE ANY BETTER THAN US MULTINATIONALS.get that straight..... man! So the us overthrows democratically elected governments arond the world (e.g. chile, which you havent responded to), supports osama, saddam, and assorted scum around the world, gives them arms, they kill torture, etc, the us decide to turn a blind eye, then these lads get a bit to big for their boots in the eyes of the us, and so they turn on them.all the time they are funding osama and saddam (and MANY others) innocents get killed, then when they are fighting AGAINST them , innocents get killed. this is in the name of democracy. (that is the choice between 2 rich white union busting neo liberal warmongers). "wake up america, youre dead"the my enemy is his enemy therefore he is my brother idea is nonsense.By that logic, the us and the plo should oppose the french states banning of the wearing of the haijb and other religious emblems in schools, and set up a united front against it. (bush oficially opposes it and sent a letter to that effect to chiraq, so too, im sure , does your average islamic extremist). the "suicde bombers and bush say no to religious ban" campaign. youre really talking bullshit here mike. ':('

Here ya go. It's the condensed version. If you want more, just ask.

To respond to Section 311 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (referred to hereafter as the Hinchey Amendment), the Intelligence Community (IC), led by the National Intelligence Council, reviewed relevant CIA records of the period predominantly from recent document searches; studied extensive Congressional reports regarding US activities in Chile in the 1960s and 1970s; read the memoirs of key figures, including Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger; reviewed CIA’s oral history collection at the Center for the Study of Intelligence; and consulted with retired intelligence officers who were directly involved.

This broad information base has given us high confidence in our responses to the three questions, which are answered directly below. The body of the report, however, provides much greater detail in an effort to tell the story of CIA involvement and put the answers into their proper historical context. The Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities—the Church Committee—conducted in 1975 a thorough document review and interviews, and produced a report that still stands as a comprehensive analysis of CIA actions in Chile during the period from 1963 to 1973.

CIA’s response to the Hinchey amendment should be viewed as a good-faith effort to respond in an unclassified format to the three questions, not as a definitive history of US activities in Chile over the past 30 years.

Summary of Response to Questions

1. Q. All activities of officers, covert agents, and employees of all elements of the Intelligence Community with respect to the assassination of President Salvador Allende in September 1973.

A. We find no information—nor did the Church Committee—that CIA or the Intelligence Community was involved in the death of Chilean President Salvador Allende. He is believed to have committed suicide as the coup leaders closed in on him. The major CIA effort against Allende came earlier in 1970 in the failed attempt to block his election and accession to the Presidency. Nonetheless, the US Administration’s long-standing hostility to Allende and its past encouragement of a military coup against him were well known among Chilean coup plotters who eventually took action on their own to oust him.

2. Q. All activities of officers, covert agents, and employees of all elements of the Intelligence Community with respect to the accession of General Augusto Pinochet to the Presidency of the Republic of Chile.

A. CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency. In fact, many CIA officers shared broader US reservations about Pinochet’s single-minded pursuit of power.

3. Q. All activities of officers, covert agents, and employees of all elements of the Intelligence Community with respect to violations of human rights committed by officers or agents of former President Pinochet.

A. Many of Pinochet’s officers were involved in systematic and widespread human rights abuses following Allende’s ouster. Some of these were contacts or agents of the CIA or US military. The IC followed then-current guidance for reporting such abuses and admonished its Chilean agents against such behavior. Today’s much stricter reporting standards were not in force and, if they were, we suspect many agents would have been dropped.

So youre saying that aside from actually killing alliende, the cia/us state did everything in its power to have this democratically elected leader overthrown , then shrugs its shoulders when a raving madman takes over!

hmmmm then theres the cias old mates osama and saddam

Carry on NOOL's .Some great reading material here although i find a lot of it harder to follow than the X-FILES meets 24.I cannot hope to explain what i understand of the USA and it's policy abroad.Ever since i found out the NAZI's got you to the moon my heart went out of politics altogether.Me..i never even trusted my dad! :D Please note the above views are not altogether mine because my dad told me about this and maybe i was influenced too much but then again i don't think he tells the TRUTH.So take what i say with a pinch of salts.Never mix politics and crisps.........

Originally posted by nearly there So youre saying that aside from actually killing alliende, the cia/us state did everything in its power to have this democratically elected leader overthrown , then shrugs its shoulders when a raving madman takes over!hmmmm then theres the cias old mates osama and saddam

Yes and yes.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Iraq was the enemy of our enemy in the 80's and therefore our friend. Don't play dumb geo-politics person and pretend it was anything otherwise. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

oh, i'm sorry, so i suppose having a masters' degree in middle eastern politics makes me a 'dumb geo-politics person,' then? deary me, i'd better throw the towel in! i obviously have no idea what i'm talking about--better go read some ann coulter and become enlightened.

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > Iraq was the enemy of our enemy in the 80's and therefore our friend. Don't play dumb geo-politics person and pretend it was anything otherwise. You know it, I know it, we all know it.>

oh, i'm sorry, so i suppose having a masters' degree in middle eastern politics makes me a 'dumb geo-politics person,' then? deary me, i'd better throw the towel in! i obviously have no idea what i'm talking about--better go read some ann coulter and become enlightened.

As for reading Ann Coulter, maybe you should. ;)

Do you not agree that the axiom of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has been a common practice of foreign policy for thousands of years?

Maybe "dumb geo-politics person" was somewhat harsh. I'm sorry for offending your academic sensibilities.

WIll this make 5?

Originally posted by Michael McDermott As for reading Ann Coulter, maybe you should. ;) Do you not agree that the axiom of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has been a common practice of foreign policy for thousands of years?Maybe "dumb geo-politics person" was somewhat harsh. I'm sorry for offending your academic sensibilities.

apology accepted. ;)

but i'll never read ann coulter (hives...you know)!

yes, i agree with you that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' is an accurate portrayal of US policy towards iraq during the 1980s. however, this just reiterates the point that the united states remained silent while saddam hussein abused his own people as long as it benefited american national interest. of course we're not the only country to play this game, but to think that nobody will notice the hypocrisy when his human rights record suddenly becomes a belated excuse for a war is rather naive.

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > As for reading Ann Coulter, maybe you should. ;) > > Do you not agree that the axiom of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has been a common practice of foreign policy for thousands of years?> > Maybe "dumb geo-politics person" was somewhat harsh. I'm sorry for offending your academic sensibilities.

apology accepted. ;)

but i'll never read ann coulter (hives...you know)!

I get the same reaction to Chomsky...

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by AgentWood> > > > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > > > > > As for reading Ann Coulter, maybe you should. ;) > > > > Do you not agree that the axiom of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has been a common practice of foreign policy for thousands of years?> > > > Maybe "dumb geo-politics person" was somewhat harsh. I'm sorry for offending your academic sensibilities.>

apology accepted. ;)

but i'll never read ann coulter (hives...you know)!

I get the same reaction to Chomsky...

aah, chomsky.