9/11 – A Decade Later

September 11, 2011 Leave a Comment

Take this opportunity to educate yourself of the facts surrounding the rise of Radical Islam, Neo-Conservatism, and the Politics of Fear. It may change the way you view the attacks of September 11, the subsequent “war on terror,” and the never-ending wars in the Middle East.

For those largely unfamiliar American Politics, you’ll be surprised to learn how long notorious figures of the George W.Bush administration, namely Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, have been on the political scene.

(Further viewing: *must see* 2011 Maddow/Engel Documentary - Day Of Destruction, Decade of War )

The BBC Documentary Series: The Power Of Nightmares 

Part 1 -  “Baby it’s Cold Outside“

Part 2 –  ”The Phantom Victory”

Part 3 – “The Shadows in the Cave”

Summary/explainer courtesy of CBC’s The Passionate Eye:

Part 1 – Baby It’s Cold Outside

Sayyed Qutb: Father of Radical Islam
In the 1950s Sayyed Qutb, an Egyptian civil servant was sent to the U.S. to learn about its public education system. As he traveled around the county, Qutb became increasingly disgusted by what he felt was the selfish and materialistic nature of American life.

When he returned to Egypt, Qutb turned into a revolutionary. Determined to find some way to control the forces of selfish individualism that he saw in America, he envisioned an Arab society where Islam would play a more central role. He became an influential spokesperson in the Muslim Brotherhood but was jailed after some of its members attempted to assassinate Egyptian President Nasser.

In prison a more radical Qutb wrote several books which argued that extreme measures, including deception and even violence, could be justified in an effort to restore shared moral values to society. He was executed in 1966 for treason in Egypt. But his ideas lived on and formed the basis of the radical Islamist movement.

Leo Strauss: A Neo-Conservative
At the same time Leo Strauss, an American professor of political philosophy, also came to see western liberalism as corrosive to morality and to society. Like Qutb, Strauss believed that individual freedoms threatened to tear apart the values which held society together. He taught his students that politicians should assert powerful and inspiring myths – like religion or the myth of the nation – that everyone could believe in.

A group of young students, including Paul Wolfowitz, Francis Fukuyama and William Kristol studied Strauss’ ideas and formed a loose group in Washington which became known as the neo-conservatives. They set out to create a myth of America as a unique nation whose destiny was to battle against evil in the world.

Both Qutb and Strauss were idealists whose ideas were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. The two movements they inspired set out, in their different ways, to rescue their societies from this decay.

Two Movements
By creating an alliance with the growing Christian fundamentalist movement in America the neo-conservatives rose to power during the Reagan administration. Senior American civil servants and politicians came to believe their view that the Soviet Union was an evil force against which the U.S. should be presented as a force for good.

The neo-conservatives turned to fear in order to pursue their vision and created a hidden network of evil run by the Soviet Union that only they could see. They used anti-communist propaganda which included Donald Rumsfeld’s over-estimation of Soviet military technology and the William Casey led CIA assertion that various terrorist organizations were backed by the Soviet Union to further their cause.

At the same time, the Islamists faced a refusal of the masses to follow their dream and began to turn to terror to force the people to “see the truth”. Underground Islamic leaders like Ayman Zawahiri, who would become a mentor to Osama bin Laden, ordered the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in an attempt to shock the masses into seeing their version of reality.

Afghanistan: A Battleground 

In 1979, Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan. War in this remote country marked the beginning of key battleground in the Cold War and an extraordinary alliance between radical Islamists in Afghanistan and around the world and the neo-conservatives in the U.S.

Washington provided money and arms including Stinger missiles capable of shooting down Soviet helicopters. But it was Islamic Mujahideen fighters who would fire them. Among the many radical Islamists drawn to Afghanistan was a young, wealthy Saudi called Osama Bin Laden. Long before 9/11, he was seen by neo-conservatives in Washington as one of their foot soldiers, helping fight America’s cause.

After nearly 10 years of fighting, Soviet troops pulled out of Afghanistan and shortly afterwards, their own government collapsed.

Both the neo-conservatives and the Islamists believed that it is they who defeated the “evil empire” and now had the power to transform the world.

Part 2 –  The Phantom Victory

The neo-conservatives – determined to push on with their agenda – were convinced that there were other evil regimes that needed to be conquered in order to spread democracy. So they turned their focus to Saddam Hussein, who had just invaded Kuwait. But at the end of the first Gulf War, President Reagan was not in power and the neo-conservatives no longer had a leader that shared their vision. Once Kuwait was secured, President George HW Bush called a halt to the fighting.

The neo-conservatives turned to the religious right and began a campaign to bring moral and religious issues back into the center of conservative politics. And they invented a new enemy, Bill Clinton, focusing on the scandal surrounding him and Monica Lewinsky.

Meanwhile, the Islamists descended into a cycle of violence and terror to persuade people to follow them. They launched attacks against the leaders of the Arab world – in Egypt and Algeria – to overthrow what they believed were corrupt regimes. Then they began using bloody terrorist attacks to shock ordinary people into rising up.

But both groups failed in their revolutions. The neo-conservatives did not succeed in their attempt to impeach Bill Clinton because polls showed that Americans simply didn’t care about the moral issues involved. And the Islamists – lacking the popular support to topple regimes across the Arab world – returned to Afghanistan.

Defeated, the Islamists formed a new strategy. In the late 1990s Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and a follower of Sayyid Qutb, paid the Taliban to allow them to recruit and train Islamist fighters for attacks on a new enemy – the U.S. The new jihad would be against the source of corruption itself.

Zawahiri and bin Laden began to implement their new strategy in the late 90′s. Suicide bombings outside American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania attracted the attention of the West. And the neo-conservatives now had a new phantom enemy.

Then bin Laden funded a plan first proposed by an Islamic militant, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. On September 11th, 2001 19 hijackers brought down the World Trade Center, killed thousands of Americans and shocked the world.

But the attacks had another dramatic effect: they brought the neo-conservative agenda back into the forefront.

Part 3 – The Shadows in the Cave

In the wake of the shock and panic created by the devastating attack on the World Trade Center, the neo-conservatives reconstructed the radical Islamists in the image of their last evil enemy, the Soviet Union.

They created a sinister web of terror run by Osama bin Laden from his lair in Afghanistan. And they were able to convince George W. Bush to begin a “War on Terror”.

The war in Afghanistan removed bin Laden’s main source of recruits, but the U.S. military and the Northern Alliance also captured and killed many people in the Taliban camps that had nothing to do with bin Laden’s goal.

The story circulated that bin Laden and the core of al-Qaeda had retreated to a complex in Tora Bora, but an exhaustive search revealed no sign of an underground fortress.

The arrests of various groups of suspected terrorists in the U.S. following the September 11 attacks failed to find any substantial evidence of terrorist sleeper cells. Similarly, in the UK, arrests under new terrorism laws have resulted in only three convictions of Islamists, all for fundraising or possessing Islamist literature.

Much of the media coverage of potential terrorist attacks also became highly speculative and sensational. There were reports that al-Qaeda was poised to use a radiological weapon, referred to as a “dirty bomb”, which would kill thousands of people. But nuclear scientists argued that this was a false threat. They said that a “dirty bomb” wouldn’t kill many people from fallout because the radioactive material would be spread thinly by any explosion.

Still, the neo-conservatives had found they could use the threat of Islamist terrorism and claimed that they had found hidden links between al-Qaeda and their old enemy, Saddam Hussein. Iraq became an important enemy against which to unite the U.S., and other politicians such as Tony Blair who wanted to play an important role in protecting their countries from attack.

Politicians and counter-terrorist agents have decided that they must be pro-active in imagining the worst possible attacks and in stopping those who seem likely to carry out attacks. They are convinced that it’s the only way to save the world from a looming catastrophe.

Further reading this September 11 -

This Is What War Looks Like – The aftermath of the 9/11 attacks took photojournalist Kate Brooks to Afghanistan and Pakistan to cover the fall of the Taliban.

Those Who Face Death  - Photojournalist Kate Brooks spent the decade after 9/11 photographing the U.S. military struggles and political upheaval in the Greater Middle East. The following collection is from her time in Iraq in 2003-2004.

Fareed Zakaria –  Reflections on 9/11 and its aftermath
Juan Cole - A tale of two Afghan Leaders, before and after 9/11
Noam Chomsky - The Imperial Mentality and 9/11
Foreign Policy Mag - The Black Hole of 9/11
A Television News Archive - Understanding 9/11
Foreign Policy Mag – The 9/11 Anniversary Reader: FAIL edition
Foreign Policy Mag – 9/11 from Arab Shores
Globe & Mail – The Muslim world’s 9/11 generation emerges from a long shadow 
Al Jazeera - The Decade of 9/11: war without end
Slate – Trutherism 2011: The Rise and Fall of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Doug Saunders - Al-Qaeda’s zealots of yesteryear turning to politics, democracy
The Nation - The Years Since 9/11: A Lost Decade
Mother Jones - Patriot Acts
Paul Krugman – The Years of Shame 
The Atlantic – The Soldier and the Rap Star: A Tale of Two Post-9/11 Students 
Michael Ignatieff – 9/11 and the age of sovereign failure 
Daily Mail UK – The 9/11 victims America Wants To Forget – the 200 jumpers who’ve been ‘airbrushed from history’
Alternet – “I Stayed to Fight” — Being a Muslim Immigrant in Post 9/11 America 
Reuters – Decade after 9/11, Afghans languish in Pakistan 
The Independent – 9/11 lost decade: The American dream, and the missing years 
Reuters - Iraq: Victim or beneficiary of September 11 attacks?
Washington Post – Public sees wars in Iraq, Afghanistan as least effective means of reducing terrorism 
New York Times – One 9/11 tally – 3.3 Trillion 



On TV:


National Geographic Channel - 9/11 and the American Dream  (Phenominal footage of the day’s events)

Raw Story - Paul Simon performs ‘The Sound of Silence’ at Ground Zero


Sounds:


Eminem – Mosh





                


                

					

						Filed under Media, Middle East, Politics
						Tagged with , , , , 					

                


            


        
            


           		


                    
Sun News Network: Because Facts Have A Well Known Liberal Bias


                    

                        

                        	April 27, 2011
                        	                        	1 Comment
                        	                        

                    


                    
“Folks, this is gonna be a thing.” ~ Sun TV host Theo Caldwell


Sun News Network, a channel brought to by its own sense of self importance, is the epitome of pseudo-journalism, comprised of (self professed) semi-literate on-air personalities with the collective intellectual curiosity of Sarah Palin.


Irresponsible at best, the inherent lack of journalistic integrity is an insult not only to the many well-established, credible, hard working news organizations across the country, but to Canadians who’ve come to expect both accuracy, and honesty, in reporting.


Simply put, Sun TV is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Conservative Party of Canada, the National Citizen’s Coalition, and the Canadian network of (Oil & Gas, Pharmaceutical, Tobacco) industry funded ‘think tanks’ dedicated to promoting a neo-conservative agenda.


OK, maybe not so ‘simply put,’ but still an accurate description.


Modeling itself after Fox News – with ‘Hard News’ in the morning and throughout the afternoon, followed by “Straight Talk” opinion programming during prime time evening hours – it’s hardly surprising that like their southern counterparts, there is little to distinguish between the two.


Take for instance “Straight Talker” and host of Byline, Brian Lilley.


Three days into its network debut, Sun TV’s ‘Hard News’ team began the day with an “exclusive” report from Lilley, who suggested Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was “on the front lines of (the Iraq War) pre-invasion planning.”


‘Hard News’ host Neelam Verma dedicated her entire two-hour show to covering the “bombshell” report, often wondering aloud whether Canadians “know the REAL Michael Ignatieff.”


Joining Verma in “exposing Ignatieff” was Lilley himself, along with Sun TV’s ‘Hard News’ analysts Brigitte Pellerin (wife of Sun Media columnist & Sun TV contributor John Robson, and founder of Canada’s anti-choice movement Pro Woman Life,) and Alex Mihailovich.


Among the notable statement to arise from the two hour assault on reality:


Lilley:  “Ignatieff was on the front lines of pre-invasion planning … his own words show he was intimately involved.”


Verma:  “This is really important information right before the election.”


Pellerin: (noting Ignatieff professed to have been on the sidelines) “Why do I feel this Bill Clintonian debate here by the meaning of sidelines? Really!”


“This new information shows that indeed he was on the front lines. His role was in the pre invasion planning.”


Mihailovich:  “I keep hearing over and over ‘compassion’ coming out of (Ignatieff’s) mouth and how compassionate he is and how Liberals are about compassion … Ignatieff himself was in the war room. He was in the background. He was planning this stuff out. He was helping the US build towards a war.”


“Ignatieff was involved with the US government planning the Iraq war – that’s the bottom line …. Ignatieff was in on the Iraq war”


“I have a document here; This isn’t written by Ignatieff but this is from one of the centers that he chaired, looking at civilian body count and what would be acceptable. Now these are not words of compassion, in my eyes. This is something far beyond. This is cold and constantly it is something these guys in the back room do to go forward, and he was a part of this … Now all of a sudden he’s a peacknik of sorts and he’s compassionate? Like, really!”


Pellerin:  “This is going to be a revelation for a lot of Canadians for how deeply involved Ignatieff was in these ‘cold calculations.’ “


“You can bet the term ‘flip flop’ will be used a lot today, and in the coming days. This is really damaging info.”


“Will the real Michael Ignatieff please stand up?”


Verma:  “Do you think it will have an impact on how Canadians vote?”


Mihailovich:  “I hope it does.”


“The amount of flip-flopping we’re seeing here is unprecedented.”


Where Verma’s morning show left off, subsequent ‘Hard News’ programs picked up, delivering eleven straight hours of fomented outrage, which was then followed by five ‘Straight Talk’ hours of rhetorical hyperbole.


Given the amount of time, and effort, dedicated solely to the coverage of Lilley’s “earth shattering investigative journalism,” one would assume the accusations regarding Ignatieff’s involvement in the Iraq war were unequivocal; that the article was thoroughly vetted and meticulously fact checked, as is standard procedure with all credible news organizations.


Of course, that would require Sun Media (Quebecor/QMI) to be either credible or a news organization, neither of which it qualifies as.


Within hours of the report saturating the Sun TV airwaves, respected journalist Glen McGregor put Lilley to shame by swiftly, and thoroughly, disproving the entire premise of his piece.


Following a run down of the facts regarding Ignatieff and his activities with the Carr Center for Human Rights, including listing multiple NGO’s in attendance for the “Understanding Collateral Damage” conference, McGregor levels the following blow:


“If the Sun was unaware these groups also participated in ‘invasion planning,’ that’s just shoddy reporting. It took me four minutes to find the participants list on the Carr Center website.


If the Sun knew and chose not to include this fact in the story, readers can draw their own conclusions about the integrity of the reporter and his news organization.”


Ouch.


Ironically, “Hard News” personality Krista Erickson hosts a ‘Media Monitor’ segment with Lilley where they heap criticism on other media personalities; the first one taking place two days after Lilley’s failed attempt at investigative reporting.


In the category, “Barefaced Bias”, Lilley scolds the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge for his interview  with Ignatieff versus his interview with Stephen Harper.


Lilley: “the tone was different … with Ignatieff it was relaxed, it was sitting back, it was in his studio; it was cordial. There was a much more aggressive nature with Stephen Harper than there was with Michael Ignatieff. (Mansbridge) constantly interrupted him … Harper is constantly interrupted.”


Assuming Lilley watched both interviews, he had to have known, as was explained by Mansbridge at the beginning of each, it was the politicians who chose the manner in which to be interviewed. Ignatieff was “relaxed, sitting back, in studio” because he chose the “in studio” option. Harper, on the other hand, selected “location of choice,” his choice being to stand awkwardly inside a minor Hockey arena.


Lilley’s suggestion that Harper was “constantly interrupted” by Mansbridge is countered by observations made by respected journalist, and national editor of Maclean’s magazine, Andrew Coyne:


“It’s telling that in interviews Harper simply talks through and over questions he does not wish to answer. The interviewer asks a question. Harper talks around it. So the interviewer tries to follow up. At that point most (people) yield long enough to at least listen to the question. Harper does not. He just ploughs on. He won’t take the cue. Saw that (with) Mansbridge, now (with) Friesen. Can’t recall whether he was always that way, or only since becoming (Prime Minister). But that absolute refusal to yield the floor is not incidental.”


Next, Lilley names Tonda MacCharles of the Toronto Star as the “Sloppiest Story” of the week, referring to her coverage of controversial remarks made by Conservative candidate Brad Trost about the funding status of funding of Planned Parenthood.


Lilley claims MacCharles “failed to contact the International Planned Parenthood Federation in London, England,” claiming he did, and was told “the election got in the way” of their funding and “there’s no problem with the Harper government.”


Had Lilley bothered to read past the first paragraph of the article, he’d have come across this:


“William Stairs, chief of staff in Oda’s ministerial office said in an email to the Star late Wednesday that despite Trost’s claim, no decision has yet been made on Planned Parenthood’s application because CIDA is ‘still reviewing the file.’ 


Brad Trost did not respond to the Star’s queries.


Ryan Sparrow, spokesman for the national Conservative campaign, responded late Wednesday via email, and did not deny that the group had been turned down.


He said only: ‘We base funding decisions on the quality of the proposals we receive. We are proud of our international assistance record and we are proud of the results that have been accomplished under our Conservative government.’


CIDA had not yet responded to the Star’s questions on the Planned Parenthood’s funding applications.”


In light of recent reports which detail Planned Parenthood’s struggle with the Harper Government, it begs the question whether Lilley spoke with the organization at all.


Elizabeth Payne of Postmedia writes:


“In 2010, while Prime Minister Stephen Harper was getting kudos for putting maternal health on the international radar screen, Canada, for the first time in 40 years, provided no money to support an organization which is one of the world’s biggest health providers to vulnerable women.


As a result, International Planned Parenthood Federation was forced to draw on reserve dollars and had to make cuts to some technical services to make up a $6-million shortfall, officials at the organization’s London office confirmed.”


So, that’s journalism : 2 -  Lilley: 0.


Evidently, the Sun News Network can’t even accurately consume the news, let alone report on it. It’s a woefully inadequate, amateurish parody of itself, destined to fail miserably once viewers have to start paying subscription fees.


It will, however, be interesting to see who the ‘champions of the free market’ point the finger at following when they meet their inevitable demise.


George Soros? The ‘homosexual agenda’? Muslims? Frank Graves? The Human Right’s Commissions?


Who am I kidding? They’ll blame the CBC.


*This entry also appears on rabble.ca, where you’ll find  my (Sun) Media Watch initiative*




                


                

					

						Filed under Canada, Media, Sun TV News
						Tagged with , , , 					

                


            


        
            


           		


                    
Ezra Levant vs Reality – A Prelude To Fox News North


                    

                        

                        	September 7, 2010
                        	                        	1 Comment
                        	                        

                    


                    


The battle between supporters and opponents of Sun TV News – the Fox News style channel headed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former communications director Kory Teneycke – reached new heights when members of the ‘Fox News North’ team took issue with a growing online petition urging the CRTC to reject Quebecor’s (QMI) request to “make it mandatory for cable and satellite networks to provide access to the channel ‘for a maximum period of three years to effectively expose and promote its programming to viewers across Canada’.”


In an article entitled Anti-Sun TV News campaign in U.S., Sun Media (QMI)’s Brian Lilley alleges the petition is the work of “a group of left-wing Americans supporting interests in Canada that don’t want to see competition in news broadcasting … backed by MoveOn.org a lobby group that has taken millions of dollars from currency speculator George Soros.”


What followed is known as the “saga of the Great Sun TV Petition,” in which Teneycke, fellow Sun Media (QMI) personality Ezra Levant, and Conservative blogger/activist and founder of the BloggingTories.ca Stephen Taylor, took to twitter to express their ‘outrage’, as ‘someone‘ spammed the petition with the names of journalists, actors, and fictional characters, and simultaneously penned an editorial about “why Canada needs Sun TV News.”


In their co-ordinated effort, Teneycke, Levant, and Taylor not only attacked Avaaz.org - a global online advocacy community whose co-founder and Executive Director, Ricken Patel, happens to be Canadian – as a foreign operation, but specifically, and repeatedly, refer to George Soros – a progressive philanthropist who is despised by Right Wing America.


By connecting Soros to the Avaaz petition, Lilley, Levant, Taylor, and Tenycke aim to stoke fear in their followers who, more often than not, are avid consumers of extreme Right Wing media such as Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Andrew Breitbart (BigGovernment.com), Pamela Gellar (AtlasShrugs.com), WorldNetDaily.com, and Judi McLeod (Canadafreepress.com).


Soros can be found at the centre of nearly every conspiracy concocted by the aforementioned, widely discredited media sources, who’ve alleged:


“Soros is a Nazi Collaborator“

“Move over, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. There’s a new kid on the block: Soros“

“Obama-Soros Blueprint For US Surrender To Islam“

“Soros’ New World Order“

“Soros is Obama’s Secret Boss“

“The Oil Spill Was An Obama-Soros Act Of War Against The United States“

“Soros Is The Anti-Christ“

“Soros is The Biggest Enemy Of Freedom“

“Soros And Obama: Crime Inc.“


As if on cue, Levant – who spent the summer of 1994 in Washington, D.C., in an internship arranged by the Right Wing Charles G. Koch Foundation Summer Fellow Program – used his Sunday Sun column to import the ‘Soros is scary’ propaganda from his conspiracy theorist counterparts in the U.S.


In his piece Moral hollowness at work, Levant claims Soros, a Hungarian Jew born in 1930, survived the holocaust by ‘collaborating with the Nazis.’


“First he worked for the Judenrat,” writes Levant. “That was the Jewish council set up by the Nazis to do their dirty work for them. Instead of the Nazis rounding up Jews every day for the trains, they delegated that murderous task to Jews who were willing to do it to survive another day at the expense of their neighbours.”


This oft repeated ‘nazi collaborator’ smear is taken from the pages of The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, a thoroughly discredited book written by right-wing pundits David Horowitz and Richard Poe.


Levant’s fictitious claim that Soros “collaborated with the nazis” and “worked for the Judenrat,” is based wholly on unsourced allegations, originating in The Shadow Party, and echoed by Right Wing pundits.


Moving on, Levant writes:


“(Soros’ father) hatched a better plan for his son. He bribed a non-Jewish official at the agriculture ministry to let (Soros) live with him. (Soros) helped the official confiscate property from Jews.


By collaborating with the Nazis, (Soros) survived the Holocaust. He turned on other Jews to spare himself.


How does Soros feel about what he did as a teenager? Has it kept him up at night?


Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes asked him that. Was it difficult? ‘Not at all,’ Soros answered.


‘No feeling of guilt?’ asked Kroft. ‘No,’ said Soros. ‘There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there. If I wasn’t doing it, somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. Whether I was there or not. So I had no sense of guilt.’


A Nazi would steal the Jews’ property anyways. So why not him?”


The assertion that Soros confiscated property of other Jews – including the imaginary interview Levant creates by cropping and rearranging portions of the actual 60 Minutes Soros interview – was debunked years ago, when the 60 Minutes interview was first selectively edited by conservative columnist Martin Peretz.


As evidenced by the unedited portion of the interview, the conversation between Kroft and Soros bears little semblance to the version scribed by Levant:


Kroft: You’re a Hungarian Jew …


Soros:Mm-hmm.


Kroft: … who escaped the Holocaust …


Soros: Mm-hmm.


Kroft: … by posing as a Christian.


Soros: Right.


Kroft: And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.


Soros: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.


Kroft: In what way?


Soros: That one should think ahead. One should understand that — and anticipate events and when, when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a — a very personal threat of evil.


KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.


SOROS: Yes. Yes.


KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.


SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.


Kroft: I mean, that’s — that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?


Soros: Not, not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t … you don’t see the connection. But it was — it created no — no problem at all.


Kroft: No feeling of guilt?


Soros: No.


Kroft: For example, that, ‘I’m Jewish, and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be these, I should be there.’ None of that?


Soros: Well, of course, … I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was — well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in the markets — that is I weren’t there — of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would – would — would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the — whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.


As they say, context is everything.


Soros had ‘no feeling of guilt’ because the property was going to be taken whether he was standing by watching, pretending to be the Christian Godson of an employee of Hungary’s Ministry of Agriculture, or whether he was among the Jews apprehended by the Nazis.


He did not, himself, take any property, nor did he condone it. He was an adolescent who watched it happen; who was powerless in the face of certain death; who could have done nothing to stop what he witnessed.


The remainder of Levant’s article plays out in the same fashion; inaccurate claims, misattributed quotes, baseless allegations.


Borrowing again from the Right Wing blogosphere, Levant claims “(Soros) called the world’s financial crisis ‘the culmination of my life’s work’.”


Had Levant bothered to locate the original source of this claim, he’d have learned the entire article has since been pulled, and replaced with a statement acknowledging that Soros “in fact made no such comment.”


The article reaches an ultimate low, however, when Levant invokes Soros’ dead mother, stating “he is a man who boasted he offered to help his mother commit suicide. Apparently he didn’t see enough death in Hungary.”


This repulsive attack reveals far more about Levant than it does Soros; Especially given that, in full context, Soros in no way ‘boasts’ about offering to help his mother end her life.


In 1994 at the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, Soros reflected on the experience of dying and bereavement in America while endorsing the Oregon Death With Dignity Act.


In his address, Soros explained how he “chose the problem of dying” as an area promote a better understanding “because of some very personal experiences in connection with the death of my parents, both of whom I was very devoted to and loved dearly.”


“My father died at home in 1963. He was terminally ill. Although he agreed to an operation, he didn’t particularly want to survive it because he was afraid that the combination of the illness and the operation would invade and destroy his autonomy as a human being. Unfortunately, that in fact is what happened. After the operation he had very little time left. I’m afraid I kind of wrote him off at that point. I was there when he died, yet I let him die alone. I could see him, but I wasn’t at his bedside. The day after he died I went into the office. I didn’t talk about my fathers death. So I kind of denied his dying, I certainly didn’t participate in it. Afterwards, I read Kubler-Ross and learned that I might have maintained contact with him if I tried. Had I read Kubler-Ross earlier I would have probably held his hand, because I did love him. I just didn’t know that it might make a difference. I forgave myself because I did not know any better


My mothers death was more recent. She had joined the Hemlock Society and had at hand a means of doing away with herself. I asked her if she needed my help; I offered it, although I wasn’t particularly keen to do it. But I would have helped her because I felt that I owed it to her. At the point of decision, however, she did not want to take her own life, and I’m glad she didn’t. Her decision gave the family a chance to rally around and be there as she prepared to die. And this time we did maintain good contact right to the end.”


Hooray for context.


Before ending this piece of fiction disguised as an article, Levant labels Soros as a “sociopath” who “has turned his attention to Canada” using “one of his front groups, called Avaaz” to petition the CRTC to reject “Sun Media’s license for a TV news channel.”


“The petition is a fraud!” Levant rages. “And the whole campaign is run out of New York.”


Cue the scary music for Levant’s grand finale:


“Do you think Soros should determine what you can watch on TV? Do you think that decision should be made in New York? Is our freedom of speech just another trinket for him to buy and sell? Hasn’t Soros silenced enough voices in his life?”


Really, Ezra? “Hasn’t Soros silenced enough voices in his life?” Classy.


But I digress.


As stated earlier, Avaaz is a global operation. Launched in 2007 with the intent to “organize citizens everywhere to help close the gap between the world we have and the world most people want,” Avaaz “has grown to 5.5 million members from every country on earth, becoming the largest global web movement in history.”


Being a global operation, Canadians are able to launch petitions for Canadian interests; Decisions “made in New York?” Not at all.


So where exactly does Soros factor into this debate?


He doesn’t.


Despite the repeated assertions of the contrary, Avaaz is not a “front group” for Soros, and by all accounts (excluding the unproven claims saturating conservative websites), Soros is, in no way, involved with this organization.


But why let facts get in the way of a good story, eh Levant?


After all, it helps draw attention away from reports of last year’s New York lunch date between Prime Minister Harper, Teneycke (driving force behind Sun TV News, who was still Harper’s director of communications at the time), News Corp. (parent company of Fox News) chairman Rupert Murdoch, and Fox News president Roger Ailes.


Though they’re (now) claiming not to be a Canadian version of Fox News, the ‘journalism‘ exhibited future Sun TV News host Ezra Levant provides a clear example of what Canadians can expect from Teneycke’s tabloid news organization, post ideological purge.


“Fair and Balanced.” “We Report, You Decide.” “Hard News, Straight Talk.”


They distort, you comply.


–


The CRTC wants to hear from the public regarding Sun TV News’ application. Make your voice heard in a single click!


You can also weigh in by signing the Avaaz.org petition.


*This post can also be found on my blog at rabble.ca*


—-


Two HUGE updates!


First, Kory Teneycke has resigned from Sun Media (QMI) as an RCMP investigation into the spamming of the Avaaz.org petition edges closer to him. (Replacing Teneycke is former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s spokesman, Luc Lavoie — so it’s one Tory insider for another.


**Note – as of January 2011, Teneycke is officially back in the saddle at Sun Media (QMI) **


Second, George Soros is threatening to sue Sun Media (QMI) - which includes Levant.


HERE is a snippet of Levant’s twitter attacks on Soros, and HERE is a snippet of Levant’s attacks on me following the publication of this article.


—–


Update – Success! – Saturday September 18, 1:00 am


Sun Media (QMI) and Levant issue a retraction and apology for Levant’s column:


On September 5, 2010, a column by Ezra Levant contained false statements about George Soros and his conduct as a young teenager in Nazi-occupied Hungary.


Upon receiving a letter of complaint from Mr. Soros’s legal counsel on September 13, 2010, Sun Media Corporation always intended to publish a retraction and apology for this column. Despite constant efforts on both sides, Sun Media and Mr. Soros’s counsel were unable to reach agreement on the content of a retraction.


The management of Sun Media wishes to state that there is no basis for the statements in the column and they should not have been made.


Sun Media, this newspaper and Ezra Levant retract the statements made in the column and unreservedly apologize to Mr. Soros for the distress and harm this column may have caused to him.






                


                

					

						Filed under Canada, Media, Politics
						Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , 					

                


            


        
        

        	

        	

        



	



















	

	

			
		
	

		Follow
		

			
					

		
			

			
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.