MEDIA ROOTS – At Ground Zero this past September 11, a more docile crowd congregated at the site for eternal mourning. The number of family members and protestors were generally smaller and most in the 9/11 Truth movement honored a four-hour silence out of respect for the victims and their families. What ensued was a gathering of people from across the 9/11 landscape with several constructive conversations and very few emotional diatribes.
The goal for this year’s annual gathering of 9/11 questioners was to capture activists’ collective experience. Several individuals from around the country were featured, some whom made the pilgrimage from as far as the state of Georgia. New York City is the de facto home of the 9/11 Truth movement where weekly street actions continue at Ground Zero every Saturday for several hours each afternoon.
Reflections from the 9/11 Truth movement after 11 years.
***
Oscar Mosko is a producer at truth-march and is managing editor at Media Roots.
As the Salon explains, “the sight of [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu who, having defied and insulted the American president, addressing a joint session of Congress with congressmen and senators of both parties jumping to their feet like jack-in-the-boxes to show their support, was all anyone needed to understand Israel’s power in the American Congress.”
U.S. Senators and Representatives prioritize Israel
Almost all U.S. Senators and Representatives prioritize Israel’s interests over the United States’ when bowing to AIPAC’s persistent circulation of many harmful resolutions throughout the U.S. Congress. It is incumbent upon Republicans and Democrats, as self-proclaimed patriots, to shun the lobby of any foreign nation in favor of true U.S. interest. Yet the status quo, under which the Israeli Prime Minister receives 29 bi-partisan standing ovations compared to the U.S. President’s 25 partisan standing ovations, remains woefully askew. Former Senator Charles Mathias (R – MD) cautions us to draw distinction “between ethnicity, which enshrines American life and culture, and organized ethnic interest groups, which sometimes causes that derogate from the national interest” (Blitzer: 134).
Wolf Blitzer also counsels, “those American Jewish political activists who are the most successful in supporting AIPAC are those who are Zionists first, Democrats or Republicans second” (Blitzer: 132). This describes Eric Cantor (R – VA) perfectly. When President Obama offered Tel Aviv lucrative incentives in order for them to temporarily halt colonization of the West Bank, Cantor pledged to support the Israeli Prime Minister over the U.S. President. Cantor effectively vowed to protect Israeli interests against U.S. interests. One can think of no other historical example of a Congressional representative pledging loyalty to a foreign leader on an issue of such international significance, in direct opposition to his own President. Even Ronald Reagan, the mythical idol of all Republicans, had told Israeli proxies to mind their own business and stop interfering with the United States’ own self-interest (Blitzer: 135-136).
American gifts to Israel remains top priority, despite own financial crisis
Lately, Cantor has attempted to hide the United States’ annual $3 billion gift to Israel within the Department of Defense budget, in an effort to safeguard it from fiscal oversight. Wolf Blitzer explains that this move is unlikely to happen because the State Department counts on the gift to Israel in order to finagle the State Department’s foreign aid bill through U.S. Congress each year; foreign aid is not a strong issue in many lawmakers’ eyes, but giving money to Israel is (Blitzer: 7). Throughout such twisted maneuvering, no elected U.S. official possesses the temerity to even question the illogic of aiding Israel at all.
Another AIPAC Congressman has assured Israel that the United States’ worst financial crisis since the Great Depression will have no impact on aid to Israel. The United States is rife with unemployment, attempting to recover from a mortgage crisis, struggling with decrepit infrastructure, and waging global war, yet subsidizing the Israeli military remains a top priority with the U.S. Congress. The historical record has taken note.
The U.S. Senate operates in lockstep with the Israeli political right. In June 2011, a resolution promising to halt aid to the Palestinian Authority if it seeks statehood in the UN General Assembly passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate. Senator Ben Cardin (D – MD) summarized the Senate’s position: “The Senate has delivered a clear message to the international community that the United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state at this time does not further the peace process… A permanent and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.” AIPAC issued a statement “applauding the resolution.” On the bright side, Israel finally allowed a shipment of cars into Gaza for the first time since 2007. As Wolf Blitzer reminds, Israeli residents “of course, have a well-earned reputation for being charitable” (Blitzer: 125).
What happens to Palestine?
Prior to the U.S. Senate’s ugly display, half of U.S. Democratic Senators urged President Obama to suspend assistance to the Palestinian Authority if Fatah continued to participate in a unity government with Hamas. One week later, the House Republican Majority Leader and Democratic Minority Whip circulated a resolution calling for sanctions against the Palestinian Authority if it pursued statehood recognition in concert with the unity government. AIPAC’s efforts paid off. In July 2011, the House of Representatives passed Resolution 268, urging President Obama to suspend financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority if it proceeded with efforts to achieve statehood at the United Nations. Professor Zunes, of the University of San Francisco, puts Congress’ actions in perspective:
“Congress went on record reiterating their ‘strong opposition to any attempt to establish or seek recognition of a Palestinian state outside of an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.’ It called on Palestinian leaders to ‘cease all efforts at circumventing the negotiation process, including through a unilateral declaration of statehood or by seeking recognition of a Palestinian state from other nations or the United Nations.’ It called upon President Obama to ‘announce that the United States will veto any resolution on Palestinian statehood that comes before the United Nations Security Council which is not a result of agreements reached between the Government of Israel and the Palestinians’ and to ‘lead a diplomatic effort to oppose a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and to oppose recognition of a Palestinian state by other nations, within the United Nations and in other international forums prior to achievement of a final agreement between the Government of Israel and the Palestinians.’
“Reread the above paragraph and replace ‘Palestinians’ with ‘Namibians’ or ‘East Timorese’ or ‘Kenyans’ or ‘Algerians,’ or any other people under foreign occupation in recent decades, and replace ‘Israel’ with the respective occupying power, and the implication of this resolution becomes clear: Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are still trapped in an early 20th century colonialist mindset which believes that colonized people should only be allowed independence under the terms and conditions granted them by their occupiers. Not a single member of the U.S. Senate and only a handful in the House were willing to consider the idea that, as a territory under foreign belligerent occupation, the Palestinians of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip have a legal right to self-determination under international law, and that not Israel, the United States or any other government can legally deny that to them. Yet, both major parties are still blinded by a pre-Wilsonian belief in the right of conquest, whereby political freedom can only be allowed to the extent of what may be voluntarily granted by the conqueror (which both Republicans and Democrats have repeatedly referred to as potential ‘painful concessions’ by Israel).”
Even a majority of Israelis think the Israeli government should accept a UN resolution recognizing an independent Palestinian state. Despite this reality, AIPAC’s hard-right stance forces the corrupt U.S. Congress and the Executive branch to facilitate colonialism. Even a former Israeli Defense Minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, acknowledges it is in Israel’s best interest to recognize a Palestinian state. In sum, AIPAC has pulled U.S. policymakers farther right than most Israelis.
Consider HR 4133, which demands: the U.S. veto any UN resolutions that are remotely critical of Israel; give Israel all “necessary” military support; throw even more money at Israel’s military occupation; give the Israeli government greater access to U.S. intelligence, including classified satellite imagery; allow Israel to participate more in NATO activities; tie Israel and the U.S. so closely together that the Pentagon is forced to back Israel regardless of U.S. strategic interests; allow the Israeli Air Force to train with greater frequency on United States soil; and supply Israel with more sensitive weaponry [read: bunker-busting bombs and cluster munitions]. Israel already possesses nuclear weapons, some of the world’s finest special operations forces, the most ruthless intelligence service, disciplined infantry units, and a top-notch Air Force. So why pepper them with more gifts?
AIPAC flies U.S. Congress to Tel Aviv for their summer vacations
Vociferous advocacy for hard-right Israeli policies extends to state and local legislatures
The Colorado Senate and House of Representatives recently passed Senate Joint Resolution 27, recognizing Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people, inaccurately commending Israel as the lone democracy in the Middle East, and affirming a “close affinity” between Colorado residents and the Israeli people.
Florida’s House Federal Affairs Subcommittee passed HR 1447 unanimously, which commends Israel on the “cordial and mutually beneficial relationship with the United States and with the state of Florida and supports Israel in its legal, historical, moral, and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon the entirety of its own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others, and that peace can be afforded the region only through a whole and united Israel governed under one law for all people.”
The state of Florida recognizes Israel’s inherent right to Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem and unanimously commends Israel as “the greatest friend and ally of the United States in the Middle East.” Embracing ignorance, Florida legislature affirms “haters of Israel also hate, and seek to destroy, the United States of America.”
According to the Executive Director of Florida’s Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) branch, “the strong and honest language used in the [Florida] resolution recognizes the rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, and that Jerusalem and the so-called West Bank must remain united under Israeli sovereignty for the sake of peace and security.” Hundreds of Christian Zionists joined ZOA in lobbying for Resolution 1447. The ZOA national president stated:
“It is imperative to note the particularly important role played by Israel’s Christian friends who joined with the Jewish community to urge the passage of this resolution… The Land of Israel is the rightful homeland of the Jewish People, and the enemies who seek Israel’s destruction are also self-avowed enemies of America.”
The South Carolina General Assembly recently passed Resolution 4339, which commended “the nation of Israel for its relations with the United States of America and with the state of South Carolina.” Resolution 4399 clings tightly to religious fervor:
“The roots of Israel and the roots of the United States are so intertwined that it is difficult to separate one from the other under the word and protection of almighty God; Those same haters of Israel also hate, and seek to destroy, the United States of America; Recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others, and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.”
The Utah legislature unanimously affirmed “cultural, economic, military and security bonds to Israel” and encouraged the Governor to visit Israel on a trade mission.
The flagrant falsehoods, which are perpetuated by the Centennial State, the Sunshine State, the Palmetto State, and the Beehive State in pseudo-solidarity with Israel, are contrary to humanity’s common decency. However, they’re quite rational expressions when one considers how AIPAC “has sought out younger Jewish political activists in local city councils, state legislatures, and the better law firms.” “Whenever they cooperate with AIPAC,” “both the Jewish Lobby on Capitol Hill and the local Jewish organizations benefit.” As a result, Jewish communities around the country “are constantly approaching their representatives and senators. They stay on top of the issues. By doing so, they become politically persuasive” (Blitzer: 133).
On the municipal level, the Philadelphia City Council, which should be tackling issues of poverty, education, and budgetary woes, voted to oppose Palestinian efforts of independence at the United Nations. The City Council, which has passed three other resolutions relating to Israel since 2000, neglected to see the irony in their symbolic suppression of Palestinian self-determination: Philadelphia was the birthplace of the United States’ unilateral independence.
Colorado, Florida, South Carolina, Utah, and Philadelphia are just a few examples of an invasive phenomenon. AIPAC is increasingly targeting state and local legislatures, with the explicit intent of spreading disinformation and dragging U.S. communities into the bellicose side of a distant fight.
The U.S. Legislative and Executive branches treat Israel like the fifty-first state.
MEDIA ROOTS – The Pentagon and the corporate media establishment are again attempting to control the 9/11 and War on Terror narrative by claiming that they are considering legal action against former Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette (a.k.a. Mark Owen) for publishing his book No Easy Day. The supposed context for the publication of his story, scheduled for release on Tuesday, is that the veteran did not offer the manuscript to the Department of Defense for prior review and he now may face legal recourse from the agency. Additionally, his name was leaked by the Associated Press last week, resulting in possible threats to his life.
The book was originally scheduled for release on September 11 of this year. It was an attempt made by Owen to remain apolitical about arguably the most politicized event of the decade. But the current debate appears to be scripted for the history books as several hard questions about the death of bin Laden continue to be ignored and will most likely not be answered in the upcoming publication distributed by Dutton.
The first and probably the most obvious discrepancy is if military intelligence had known of his precise location for eight months prior to the raid, then why hasn’t more proof of his whereabouts been released to the American public? “Despite the intense surveillance effort the CIA was unable to obtain a photograph of Bin Laden or a recording of the voice of the mysterious man, presumed to be the al-Qaida leader,” states the Guardian the week after the raid.
With such precise knowledge of the bunker, why was bin Laden not captured for trial in a court of law? Attorney General Eric Holder answers that the operation was not only lawful according to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001) but was simply an act of national self-defense. But in a nation where children are taught the belief of liberty and justice for all, it’s quite contradictory for this nation’s leadership to not protect and promote these ideals worldwide.
Furthermore, Owen recounts a scene where bin Laden may actually have already been dead upon their arrival. “At first it was funny because it was so wrong,” Owen reflected in his account of May 1, 2011. This version is in direct conflict with that of the White House in which bin Laden was allegedly reaching for a weapon at the time of the fatal shots. Owen confirms that the suspected terrorist was unarmed at the time of his death and their team may have just been on a kill mission.
But the greatest and most pertinent question has still not been asked: was Osama Bin Laden actually killed on May 1, 2011? This past March, the online hacker group Anonymous was able to obtain emails from the intelligence analysis group Stratfor which directly contradicts the official story about what happened with bin Laden’s body after the raid. While possibly the smoking gun of a White House cover-up, several news stories reported before the raid also directly contradict the official narrative. Below are a just few examples:
2001 – “Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.” [Fox News]
2002 – “Pakistan’s president says he thinks Osama bin Laden is most likely dead because the suspected terrorist has been unable to get treatment for his kidney disease.” [CNN]
2006 – “Saudi intelligence services seem to be sure that Osama bin Laden is dead. The elements gathered by the Saudis indicate that the head of Al Qaeda was the victim, while he was in Pakistan on Aug. 23, 2006, of a strong case of typhoid fever that led to a partial paralysis of his lower limbs.” [France’s Directorate-General for External Security]
2007 – “… he also had dealings with Omar Sheikh, the man who murdered Osama bin Laden.” [Benazir Bhutto]
2009 – “What if everything we have seen or heard of him on video and audio tapes since the early days after 9/11 is a fake – and that he is being kept ‘alive’ by the Western allies to stir up support for the war on terror? Incredibly, this is the breathtaking theory that is gaining credence among political commentators, respected academics and even terror experts.” [Daily Mail]
MEDIA ROOTS – Released nationwide on Friday, the documentary film Barack Obama: 2016 is not only highly critical of President Obama’s job performance, it again raises the question of who he is and what his view of America is in the world. While the film does not offer many certainties about the president’s potential second term in office, it does use his previous actions as a device for telling a story that many Americans may not be familiar.
The film, distributed by Rocky Mountain Pictures, is written and directed by Dinesh D’Souza and based on his book The Roots of Obama’s Rage. It is very open about its conservative approach, which allows the viewer to set aside any perceived spin and focus on the information presented. Some ideas about the president’s past would excite conspiracy theorists as the production makes clear there are many more questions than there are answers.
After a brief description of his own youth in India, D’Souza begins his narrative with a brief comparison of his own life and that of Mr. Obama. Born, having graduated from college, and married in the same years as each other, the two lives appear at first quite parallel. What shapes their youth more than anything is their immigration to the United States and, in particular, their Ivy League education.
But what Mr. D’Souza cannot relate to is having not been brought up with a father. He does, however, appear to make an honest effort in learning the developmental psychology of such abandonment during childhood by interviewing a specialist and a former co-worker of his mother. Additionally, he uses Obama’s own words – literally Obama’s voice from the book-on-tape – from the book Dreams from my Father, to help paint a picture of an upbringing that often felt empty. But because of his mother’s compassion, “Barry” did have several male influences throughout his upbringing and it is this subject matter that seems to interest D’Souza the most. Who were these men and how come so little is known about them?
The film goes on to explore several of these relationships. As a young boy in Indonesia, Obama’s stepfather Lolo Soetoro may have helped foster a free spirit and as a young man in Chicago, Obama worked with Weather Underground’s Bill Ayers and listened to radical sermons delivered by Reverend Jeremiah Wright. But it’s his childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, which seems to be of particular influence on his development while remaining virtually unknown to most Americans. After a closer examination into this relationship, one might develop a keen insight into what is yet to come for the United States.
Two comedies, one theme
Game Change, released by HBO in March, confirmed what every rational American already knows: Sarah Palin is about as adept at managing a family as she is at answering basic questions from the press. While the film was officially denounced by both Senator McCain and Governor Palin, it was endorsed by one of Senator McCain’s former senior advisers and appeared to be a way for the Republican establishment to reconcile its 2008 campaign blunder. It hardly challenged viewers perceptions of the right wing and provided very little insight into future GOP strategy.
The Campaign has been in theaters for almost a month and offers viewers a slapstick parody of the election process. Distributed by Warner Brothers, the film provides a non-partisan approach to politics but does reinforce the corporate media establishment by providing several product placements of cable news networks. Many television pundits made cameo appearances including Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz of MSNBC, Wolf Blitzer and Piers Morgan of CNN, and Bill Mahr of HBO. (Interestingly enough, many of these personalities seem to have close ties to the White House. Mahr made news earlier this year after donating one million dollars to the Obama re-election campaign while Schultz claims he would donate to the president if he could.)
Political films released during campaign seasons will continue to leave an impression on the minds of voters and nonvoters alike. But as the left-right paradigm begins to lose traction with an increasingly alert citizenry, it is still uncertain if this same awareness will be applied when considering the corporate media establishment. For if citizens continue to consume political comedies produced by this entity just prior to an election, then their laughter will most likely translate into increased apathy of the electoral process and the elite will remain in control.
MEDIA ROOTS – Abby and Robbie Martin talk about Julian Assange’s asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy and the US’ war against whistleblowers. They also get into discussing Trapwire, Marine veteran Brandon Raub and Abby’s new show ‘Breaking the Set’ due to air on RT America .
The above timeline is interactive. Scroll through it to find out more about the show’s music and to resources mentioned during the broadcast. To see a larger version of the timeline with clickable resources go to the soundcloud link below the player.
If you would like to directly download the podcast click the down arrow icon on the right of the soundcloud display. To hide the comments to enable easier rewind and fast forward, click on the icon on the very bottom right.
This Media Roots podcast is the product of many long hours of hard work and love. If you want to encourage our voice, please consider supporting us as we continue to speak from outside party lines. If you donate, we want to thank you with your choice of art from AbbyMartin.org as well as music from RecordLabelRecords.org. Much of the music you hear on our podcasts comes from Robbie’s imprint Record Label Records, and Abby’s art reflects the passion and perspective that lead her to create Media Roots.org.
$40 donation: One 8×10 art print and one RLR release (You choose! Tell us in the Paypal notes.)
$80 donation: Two 8×10 art prints and two RLR releases (You choose!)
$150 donation: Four 8×10 art prints and four RLR releases (You choose!)
Even the smallest donations are appreciated and help us with our operating costs.
MEDIA ROOTS – At Ground Zero this past September 11, a more docile crowd congregated at the site for eternal mourning. The number of family members and protestors were generally smaller and most in the 9/11 Truth movement honored a four-hour silence out of respect for the victims and their families. What ensued was a gathering of people from across the 9/11 landscape with several constructive conversations and very few emotional diatribes.
MEDIA ROOTS – When making decisions about Middle East policy, the 
MEDIA ROOTS – The Pentagon and the corporate media establishment are again attempting to control the 9/11 and War on Terror narrative by claiming that they are considering legal action against former Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette (a.k.a. Mark Owen) for 
MEDIA ROOTS – Released nationwide on Friday, the documentary film 