Archive for the ‘Traitors’ Category.

Rosie Abuses Daughter, Calls It Art

Art or Child Abuse?
Rosie's Art Project

Looks like child abuse to me. As Ann Coulter says, this photo sets gay adoption back 20 years.

But if it’s art, then let’s expose its subtext:
Vivi O'Donnell

Perhaps Rosie could hook Vivi up with this 6 year old boy from Afghanistan, Juma Gul:
Afghan boy recruited by Taliban as suicide bomber

Juma had a bomb vest strapped to his body by the “brave Taliban warriors” so beloved by Rosie and her band, and told to throw himself at Americans.

Juma, at the age of 6, had more sense that Rosie does at… what 46?... and ran to the Afghan police instead. I’m sure Juma doesn’t care about art, but I’m sure he knows what he likes – and I doubt it’s seeing a kid like him wearing bullets or bombs.

You can almost imagine the conversation if they met:

Viv: Let’s play Jihadis and Crusaders. I’ll be the good Jihadi…
Juma: Like the ones who tried to strap bombs on me?
Viv: And you can be the evil Crusader..
Juma: Like the ones who gave me hot meal and candy.
Viv: Stop it. You are buying that anti-Islamic propaganda put out by Fox News aren’t you?
Juma: What’s Fox News? Besides you can’t be a jihadi. You’re a girl.
Viv: But my mommies say a girl can be anything a boy can be.
Juma: The jihadis I know would collapse a wall on your two mommies. The jihadis think the only place for a girl is on her hands and knees or behind a stove. Besides, where’s your burka and man-escort?
Viv: I’m wearing a scarf…
J: Not good enough. Your face is exposed. And where’s your man? You want everyone to think you’re a whore? Jihadis kill whores – after they rape them…
V: There’s no men in my family. Mommies say they are evil.
J: Well, some of them are – just not the ones your mommies think.

Rosie Picks Up Toys, Goes Home

So Rosie O’Donnell has left the View early.

It says a lot about the woman – namely that she can be bested by an intellectual lightweight like Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
It would be instructive to see her up against some “serious” Right Wing firepower like Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter. “Instructive” in the sense of a wounded buffalo getting ripped apart by a pack of hyenas could be considered “instructive.”

Rosie O'Donnell Rant Advisory - therazor.org

Bloomberg: Amity Shlaes on Carter

I lived through the Carter presidency, and like many who suffered through that era it scarred me and left me with a deep, smoldering hatred for the ex-President that will only be extinguished when I pass by the neighborhood post office and see the flag flying at half-mast. Bush-haters don’t know how easy they have it. While they have to make up conspiracies and create straw-men by the bale, History has been blunt: Carter’s ineptitude in office is matched only by his piousness out of it.

The man nearly ruined the strongest economy on the planet. He emasculated its strongest military. He watered the seeds of Islamic terrorism sown by the Ayatollah Khomeini and other fanatics, and as a result shares responsibility for every terrorist attack by Islamic fascists, every dead American soldier in Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and every secretary and office worker incinerated on September 11, 2001. Should a North Korean nuke devastate a city in Asia, the blood will spatter once more on his smug, righteous, dictator-kissing face for having negotiated the deal that allowed Kim Jong-il to get his hands on nuclear weapons.

My disgust with this man is long and deep, going back to 1976 when I shook the man’s flaccid hand at a campaign stop in St. Louis. I was all of nine years old, but I’ll never forget my brief meeting with the man who would single-handedly cause more damage to this republic than any foreign leader has ever managed to do during the four centuries of our nation’s history.

Here is one of my oldest – and best – pieces that delves deeper into Carter’s failings. If anything, his recent statement that Bush is one of the worst presidents in US history only shows that in his case, it takes one to know one.

Carter Takes the Prize Among the Worst Presidents

By Amity Shlaes

May 22 (Bloomberg) -- Jimmy Carter told NBC yesterday that he had been misinterpreted over the weekend in his comments on George W. Bush.

At issue was the former president’s statement in the Arkansas Post-Gazette on May 19: ``I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.’’

Yesterday, he was calling his remark ``careless.’’

Carter was probably inspired to mouth off by the fresh popularity of the politician most like him—Al Gore, who’s being talked about as a presidential candidate. It’s interesting that Carter even raised the topic of bad presidents, for if he’s not the worst, he’s right up there.

Consider, to start, Carter’s domestic policies. The man subscribed to what might be called sloppy Keynesianism, believing the best way to help the economy was to spend on just about anything. And he loved to continue high-handed experiments, even years after they had proven themselves perverse.

By the time Carter came to office, for example, the long lines at the gas pumps had already become a cliche—an emblem of the failure of price controls. Carter started out by opposing controls—a good idea. But he did so for the wrong reason: He said the expectation of such controls would drive up prices as people hoarded gas.

Once in office, Carter kept many controls in place, helping to cause further pain at the pump. He also ignored his own campaign promise to governors to back the deregulation of natural-gas prices, a betrayal that kept prices up.

MEOW

What’s more, Carter added insult to injury by scolding his countrymen: ``Tonight I want to talk to you about an unpleasant topic,’’ he began in one of his speeches. Calling the American struggle for energy independence the ``moral equivalent of war,’’ Carter cast the energy problem as quasi-religious, something that might go away if citizens insulated their houses and dialed back the thermostat a few notches. In the same talk—it is known as the MEOW speech—he presented his ideas in apocalyptic tones worthy of Gore.

Wallowing in gloom, Carter warned that ``some time in the 1980s’’ oil demand would overtake production. This was the opposite of what happened—there was a glut later.

When it came to taxes, insightful lawmakers realized that a cut in the capital-gains tax might pull the country out of the doldrums. Capital-gains cuts are almost always beneficial, as the current president—as well as Bill Clinton in his day—have demonstrated.

But Carter threatened a veto. A Carter Treasury official even wrote the Wall Street Journal to make the absurd argument that such a cut would make it harder for the government to redistribute income. The president caved, and the tax cut did stir the economy, but you never got the idea Carter picked up on all the connections.

No Excuse

One might excuse Carter’s budget deficits by comparing them with those of Ronald Reagan, except in Carter’s case the spending was devoted to programs that yielded pathetic returns. Carter noisily doubled, for example, the number of federally funded public-service jobs. Unemployment in his years mostly stayed far above the 5 percent level upon which he premised his plans.

To be sure, Richard Nixon was the one to appoint Arthur Burns, the notoriously loose-money Federal Reserve chairman. But Carter was responsible for hiring Burns’s equally flawed successor, G. William Miller. Inflation during Carter’s tenure averaged 9.6 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, the highest of any four-year presidential term in modern U.S. history.

Strange Phrases

Strange new phrases became popular: the wage-price spiral, stagflation. To control these novel horrors, politicians came up with crazy gizmos, such as a device to protect workers from inflation by offering them something called the wage-insurance tax credit. The Dow Jones Industrial Average silently offered its own evaluation of Carter’s performance by staying below its 1000- point high of the summer of 1976 until October 1982, by which time the former president was safely ensconced at Emory University, teaching undergraduates political science.

But it is in the area where Carter assails Bush—foreign policy—in which he took the missteps that turned out to be of greatest consequence. By negotiating the soft Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty (SALT) with Moscow, he suggested to the Soviet Union that his administration wasn’t serious about protecting American interests. This emboldened Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev to send troops into Afghanistan in 1979. The later Soviet withdrawal led to the chaos that allowed Afghanistan to become a sanctuary for al-Qaeda.

Hostage Crisis

Then came a new kind of crisis. Heretofore, Arab nationalism had dominated unrest in the Middle East. Now Islamic fundamentalists stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking 66 Americans hostage. Instead of seeing the attack as an assault on U.S. interests, Carter treated the terrorists as if they were college sophomores staging a sit-in at Columbia’s Low Library. His approach involved group-prayer sessions at home and endless negotiations, telling the press that ``we are using every channel.’’ This virtually ensured the year-and-a-half-long siege that the hostages endured.

Carter did veer from his passivity to make a half-hearted rescue effort, a catastrophic mission. But shocked by the photos of malfunctioning helicopters, Carter retreated. His handling of the embassy crisis sent a message that the U.S. prefers sanctimony to fighting back against violent fundamentalist Islam. That picture of wishy-washy America is still costing lives today.

Recalling all this puts other unpopular presidents in a new light—especially on the question of consistency. Whatever you say of the 43rd president, when it comes to the Middle East, Bush is sticking to his policy. As yesterday’s recanting demonstrates, Carter, by contrast, is still prevaricating. Who’s worse?

(Amity Shlaes, a visiting senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

Bush Derangement Syndrome

Reality - The only approved treatment for Bush Derangement Syndrome BDS by Rove Pharmaceuticals

(click for full image)

See below for warnings and contraindications.

Continue reading ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’ »

Rosie O’Donnell’s New Fashion Line

Wealthy media mogul and conspiracy-theorist Rosie O’Donnell has announced a new fashion line today. Speaking at a gala thrown by the Billionaires for Change, O’Donnell – rumored to be mulling over a $40 million dollar contract by ABC - announced her new line which she guarantees will protect the wearer against “all microwave radiation beamed out of CIA headquarters in Langley,” and prevent Bush from “reading the minds everywhere and keep his Israeli mafia from gunning them down.”

EEEvil Conservative

O’Donnell, who believes that part of her $40 million mission is to “speak truth to power” has denied that as one of America’s wealthiest people, she in fact is the power. When told that she’s an overweight intellectual lightweight who is single-handedly holding back the Gay Rights movement, sources in orbit of Ms. O’Donnell confirm she consulted her attorneys regarding a possible libel lawsuit – thereby proving that for Ms. O’Donnell, speaking truth to power is not okay when she’s the power.

Hat-tip (literally): EEEVil Conservative

Rosie O’Donnell Rant Advisory

I received this from a source at ABC.
Rosie O'Donnell Rant Advisory - ABC

Mike Castle Claims To Support Our Troops

But he sure has a weird way of showing it. Since he’s my congressman, and I voted for him last November, AND my stepson is a Marine, I called the Congressman at his Washington DC office today and voiced my displeasure for his support of the Democratic bill condemning the troop build up.

He can vote his conscience, but so can I – and I won’t forget this vote which emboldens those who target my stepson and those he serves with.

Talking Ourselves into Defeat

Last Fall I foresaw the danger of talking ourselves into defeat in Iraq, a danger that no one against the war truly recognizes. Now the sentiment is captured in this editorial by the WSJ:

Our slide to a national nervous breakdown because of Iraq is not going unnoticed. Australia’s foreign minister, Alexander Downer, has been visiting across the U.S. this week. “I’ve been pretty worried about what I’ve heard,” Mr. Downer said in an interview. Walking on Santa Monica beach Sunday before last, Mr. Downer said he encountered a display of crosses in the sand, representing the American dead in Iraq.

“What concerns me about this,” he said, “is that it’s sort of an isolationist sentiment, subconsciously, not consciously, and that would be an enormous problem for the world. I hope the American people understand the importance of not retreating and thinking the world’s problems aren’t theirs.”

Hat tip: Dean Esmay.

Pro-war Joe Lieberman Wins Reelection

And anti-war Lincoln Chafee loses.

So much for the anti-war vote…

Seymour Hersh: Confusing Fantasy with Reality

Is Seymour Hersh confusing scenes from a movie with reality?

During his hour-and-a-half lecture – part of the launch of an interdisciplinary media and communications studies program called Media@McGill – Hersh described video footage depicting U.S. atrocities in Iraq, which he had viewed, but not yet published a story about.

He described one video in which American soldiers massacre a group of people playing soccer.

“Three U.S. armed vehicles, eight soldiers in each, are driving through a village, passing candy out to kids,” he began. “Suddenly the first vehicle explodes, and there are soldiers screaming. Sixteen soldiers come out of the other vehicles, and they do what they’re told to do, which is look for running people.”

“Never mind that the bomb was detonated by remote control,” Hersh continued. “[The soldiers] open up fire; [the] cameras show it was a soccer game.”

“About ten minutes later, [the soldiers] begin dragging bodies together, and they drop weapons there. It was reported as 20 or 30 insurgents killed that day,” he said.

(Source: McGill Daily)

It is eerily similar to this scene from the anti-Semitic, anti-American Turkish movie “Valley of the Wolves”:

Marshall raids an Arab wedding on the pretext of hunting terrorists. When the usual celebratory gunfire starts, one soldier says: “Now they are shooting, now they are terrorists.” They attack a wedding party. A small child named Ali sticks a branch up the barrel of one of their guns. The soldier fires as a reflex response, shooting the child Ali dead in front of his parents. The rest of the soldiers panic and begin firing on the wedding guests, beat up the bride, shoot the the groom at head in front of the bride, shoot the guests and children. (see controversy, below) The survivors are captured and forced into a airtight container truck and sent to Abu Ghraib prison (the infamous prisoner mistreatment is then depicted later). Enroute an American soldier complains that the prisoners might be suffocating in the truck. One of Marshall’s men then fires on the truck, spraying the detainees with bullets. Claiming he is providing them fresh air. “I’m helping them breathe. They’re not going to die of suffocation anymore.” he says. When the soldier threatens to report the incident, he is promptly shot.
(Wikipedia)

Given the details he cites, it would be fairly easy to find out a case where an ambush resulted in “30-40 insurgent” fatalities. So far I have not come up with any references to such a skirmish – beyond the similarities to Valley of the Wolves.

Is Hersh losing it? All that hard living in the ‘60s may have finally caught up with him.

UPDATE:
This appears to be an urban legend that Hersh has been trying to peddle for over a year.


For example, in July 2005, the counter-misinformation team researched the allegation that U.S. soldiers in Iraq had killed innocent Iraqi boys playing football and then “planted” rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) next to them, to make it appear that they were insurgents.

Using a variety of search terms in “Google,” a researcher was able to find the article and photographs upon which the allegations were based. Because weapons did not appear in the initial photographs, but did appear in later photographs, some observers believed this was evidence that the weapons had been planted and that the boys who had been killed were not armed insurgents.

The researcher was also able to find weblog entries (numbered 100 and 333, on June 26 and July 15, 2005) from the commanding officer of the platoon that was involved in the incident and another member of his platoon. The weblog entries made it clear that:

the teenaged Iraqi boys were armed insurgents;
after the firefight between U.S. troops and the insurgents was over, the dead, wounded and captured insurgents were initially photographed separated from their weapons because the first priority was to make sure that it was impossible for any of the surviving insurgents to fire them again;
following medical treatment for the wounded insurgents, they were photographed with the captured weapons displayed, in line with Iraqi government requirements;
the insurgents were hiding in a dense palm grove, where visibility was limited to 20 meters, not a likely place for a football game, and they were seen carrying the RPGs on their shoulders.
Thus, an hour or two of research on the Internet was sufficient to establish that the suspicions of the bloggers that the weapons had been planted on innocent Iraqi boys playing football were unfounded.

Note how Hersh’s story has grown with age from “a bunch of kids” to “30-40 insurgents”. Also, the still pictures of the soccer playing insurgents become animated in the McGill University speech. However he doesn’t forget that the American troops pulled the bodies together.

Hersh is blaming the college newspaper for misquoting his speech. Hersh seems to be very good at blaming everyone but himself for spinning lies.

It’s pretty sad…

When you feel you need to post your political statement on the side of a trashcan in downtown Philly.

I was going to make a comment about a sign I saw on a trashcan at 16th & JFK in Philly that pointed out the number of Americans killed in Afghanistan and Iraq now surpasses those who died on 9-11, when I realized the futility of the sign itself.

The person who placed the sign obviously thought they were doing a good thing. However did they honestly believe they would change hearts and minds by placing their message on a trash can? Perhaps they thought that somehow – by magic perhaps – their message would end the wars and usher in world peace. Such magical thinking is commonplace with the anti-war crowd, who tend to forget that America was not at war in either Afghanistan or Iraq when al Qaeda commandeered 4 airliners and killed 3,000.

Cafepress sticker

Dealing with the MSM

Instead of holding the journalists and their bosses to account for their writing – something that the jihadis, Saddam Hussein and other tyrants do to journalists – the Department of Defense has decided to publish its own view of media reporting.

So while Newsweek delivers the propaganda of jihadis and even attempts to romanticize them (idealizing men who view women as property and execute homosexuals? Who would have imagined it), they refuse to print the other side, calling it “the government position“.

Moths love flames, and the liberal media just can’t get enough of jihadis. Of course, if they printed an article critical of them, they’d have to risk getting their heads lopped off – something that they don’t have to fear from the US military.

Pathetic Protest Passes

Looked out my window and watched a protest march down Market St. in Center City Philly this afternoon. The group was small, and vastly outnumbered by cops who ringed their march. The group covered about half a city block while marching – so I’d estimate it to be about 200 at best. Onlookers were scarce, as most of the business district is finishing up the day’s business.

I had seen an ad for the protest in the local freebie paper that litters the streets, as well as the men’s room floor in the building. The group demanded people quit their jobs and cut classes to attend the protest. Judging by the turnout, hardly anyone did.

The signs were the usual “Impeach Bush” along with crudely drawn caricatures that are so cliche that I can’t imagine them eliciting any emotional response from anyone except the other protesters. “Say, I like your Bush. Nice dumbo ears.” “Thanks, I dig your beady eyes.”

The protest passed within seconds, with taxis making more noise as they cut each other off and honked horns catching fares.

The Increasingly Popular War in Iraq

That’s the problem when you write what you think is obvious: you get sucker-punched when you are wrong.

Stephen Zunes – Professor of Anti-American Studies

The following is a revised version of this post.—-
Research United Nations Security Council Resolutions and you will inevitably discover the work of Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Relations at the University of San Francisco, and Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project. During the run up to the American invasion of Iraq, Zunes published “United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by Countries Other than Iraq” which attacks the Bush Administration argument that Iraq’s failure to comply with UN resolutions necessitated military action.

The work immediately attacks Israel, beginning with Resolution 252 which calls upon Israel to cede control of Jerusalem, a city it gained complete control over in the Six Day War of 1967. The list ends with the 2002 Resolution 1435 calling for Israel to leave positions around the West Bank town of Ramallah. Its conclusion is that Israel stands in violation of more UN Security Council Resolutions than any other nation, and that the United States – Israel’s primary foreign backer – cannot remove Saddam Hussein from power using sanctions violations as a casus belli.

However evidence supporting his analysis is as hard to find. Zunes fails to mention that Israel has been party to roughly 270 UN Security Council Resolutions to begin with – about 16% of all resolutions made by institution. Nor does he tell the methodology used to determine whether a state is in compliance with a UN Security Council Resolution, merely stating “I did not include those resolutions which simply criticised a particular action by a government. Nor did I include resolutions where the language is ambiguous enough to make assertions of non-compliance debatable.”

Zunes’s bias begins to creep in when he states, “Since the early 1970s, the United States has used its veto power nearly fifty times, more than all other permanent members during that same period combined.” This is a bit disingenuous, given the fact that since its founding, the Soviet Union and its successor state Russia hold the record for most solo vetoes – 119 compared to 58 by the US acting alone. By compressing date ranges one can use statistics to make any point. What point exactly is Zunes is trying to make?

It’s all America’s Fault

In his essay “U.S. Government Must Take a Consistent Stance Against Terrorism,” Zunes compares a terror attack on the Shiite city of Najaf in Iraq to the assassination of a Hesbollah cleric in 1985 masterminded, he alleges, by the United States: “While no existing government is believed to have been behind the An-Najaf bombing, the Beirut bombing was a classic case of state-sponsored terrorism: a plot organized by the intelligence services of a foreign power. That foreign power was the United States.” He then goes on to criticize the American refusal to extradite to Venezuela four alleged bombers of a Cuban plane in 1976. As for the War in Iraq, Zunes states that America propped up Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, and as a result has no moral authority to remove him from power simply because it was in America’s interests to do so.

Like your garden variety conspiracy buff, Zune sees American power behind every troublespot in the world. Somalia? The prolific Stephen Zunes pens “The Long and Hidden History of the U.S in Somalia”. East Timor? “For example, in 1975, after Morocco’s invasion of Western Sahara and Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor, the Security Council passed a series of resolutions demanding immediate withdrawal. However, then-US ambassador to the UN Daniel Patrick Moynihan bragged that “the Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. The task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.” East Timor finally won its freedom in 1999.” Global Warming? Our Fateful Choice: Global Leader or Global Cop.

Anything bad that happens in the world – rest assured that there is some nameless group or corporation of American origin behind it. However he refuses to name names or provide specific examples of these groups, relying instead upon meaningless cliches of American “policymakers”, “elites”, “wealthy class”, and “corporations” in the assumption that proof is not needed and that the reader knows instictively who he is talking about. After all, he is a tenured professor at University of San Francisco – the backup school for Bay Area Catholic kids who didn’t have the grades for Berkeley or UCSF and whose parents didn’t want them partying away their education at San Franscisco State.

Where he differs from Chomsky and much of the rest of the anti-Semitic Left is his viewing of the Jews and Israel as puppets of America, “mercenaries of America to fight the wars of what the ruling persons in America consider to be American interests.” In fact, take any one of his papers, swap the terms Israel for America, Jews or Jewish for American, and the piece reads like your run of the mill anti-Semitic diatribe.

Zunes believes that no country has done more to thwart the authority of the United Nations Security Council and its enforcement mechanisms than has the United States. While the UN Security Council had a strong case to insist that Iraq be more fully compliant with its resolutions, Zunes argues that the United States is the last country to claim the right to enforce alleged non-compliance militarily. Not only does the UN Charter and UN Security Council resolution 1441 explicitly recognise that only the Security Council as a whole – and not any single member – has the legal authority to enforce such resolutions militarily, but the United States is the last member of the world body to claim any kind of moral authority to do so.

By Zunes logic, no country can be held accountable to the UN because some have gotten away it. This is akin to a serial killer saying that he should be freed because Scotland Yard never caught Jack the Ripper.

While criticizing the number of American vetoes of UN Security Council Resolutions, Zunes does not address the number of resolutions passed by that body, meaning that the United States stood in agreement with the permanent members of the council other than to criticize Israel directly (and by association, the United States indirectly) for not implementing them completely. Of the 1,427 resolutions passed between 1970 and August 11, 2006, Israel has been party to 195 of them or roughly 14% of them. While that may sound like a lot, as a percentage it is actually less than the 16% of resolutions it was party to prior to 1970.

Zunes’s “logic” leaves one feeling like one has just been rolling around in the intellectual mud with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other great conspiracy fictions. Reading him one is reminded of the conservative intellectuals of the 1920s and 1930s who were seduced by the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini. In fact, little beyond being born 70 years too late separates him from his intellectual peers of that bygone era.

Worse, his logic dehumanizes those he defends. In Zunes world, the Palestinians, Jews, Hezballah, North Koreans – everyone – are merely automatons, reacting to Americans in predictable ways. All their actions are instigated by Americans; they have no will to act on their own. Only Americans are born with the human quality of free will.

Unfortunately for the world according to Zunes, Americans use this free will to choose greed and avarice. In a sense, by imbueing these qualities to Americans alone, Zunes in effect advocates a type of “super nationalism,” where the only nation that matters is America, and like the warriors of old that ate the hearts of their enemies to gain their bravery, its only by overcoming and destroying America that the rest of the world becomes human. This problem is not Zunes alone; it is inherent to the “politics of victimization” where suffering is the only scale that matters while true power remains in the hands of the victimizer.

Zunes advocates this destruction of the United States by using a common tactic of the Left: Denying the right of the United States to pursue its goals, while allowing other nations to pursue their own goals. Zunes criticizes any American action when it pursues a goal to its benefit, for example by denying the United States the right to pursue a strategic victory over Syria or prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. At the same time, Zunes argues that Iran has the right to nuclear weapons because its in its own interest.

Leftists like Zunes are fundamentally terrified by the hegemony America represents, and seek to bind it with Lilliputian threads. It must be frustrating for Zunes, who is so widely quoted in the Leftist media to see his threads ignored as the United States moves forward and follows its strategic interests. Luckily for Zunes, and the Leftists like Chomsky who are his intellectual peers, the nation sees men like him as evidence that the United States is not the nation they believe it is – for the nation that Chomsky and Zunes claim exists would have executed both men long ago and burned their writings. Instead, both are esconced in Academia where they can safely promulgate their vision of a world terrorized by the United States.