Deborah Norville and Warren Churchhill last evening

[rodeodance]

I was listening to Deborah Novill last night ans she had on Churchhill, the Colorado Professor who said something to the effect that people in the Trade Towers deserved to die. Norville was going on and on about how terrible and angry the families of 9/11 were about his essay (which was written on the day of the attach by the way.
He said if you read the book it is apparent that he is not talking of the dishwashers, the staff and others who hold those types of positions at the Towers. Instead he was referring to the corporate people and the industrial-military complex who, by what they do on a daily basis, treat others in an inhumane way. Just to clarify he said, no he does not agree with terrorists acts, but we need to understand what we, as a nation are doing to people in other lands--the anger that it has and is causing. He was quite convincing. I have to say I was not impressed with Devorah Norville, who did not seem to get what Churchhill was saying at all and instead just focused on how the families of 9/11 were feeling.
Did anyone catch this?

[rqstnnlitnmnt]

1. didn't she used to host like inside edition? n/t

[Rican1]

2. I saw him on Paula Zahn

She acted exactly like Deborah Norville did. She didn't want an interview, she just wanted to state how angry New Yorkers and the families of 9/11 were feeling. Churchhill made his point well

[rodeodance]

8. I may have made a mistake-maybe it was Paula Zahn--sorry.

I really do not recall at this moment, but thank you for bringing this to my attenition.

[JoshK]

12. Paula Zahn is a Nazi attack dog.

I saw the Churchill segment. I've seen Zahn in several other similar situations, where she had the chance to "interview" someone by portraying them as traitors, putting words in their mouths, etc. She always says stuff like, "So let me get this straight. You are basically saying that ..." -- then she completely distorts what actually was said, making it seem "unpatriotic." When she says this, her lips get tight, and her eyes flash with anger and righteous disgust.

She is the perfect example of the trained Nazi attack dog. Any country that allows a creature like her to be a significant "media personality" doesn't know the difference between propaganda and journalism.

[indigobusiness]

3. His point has been grossly mischaracterized.

He pointed out that the CIA etc had offices there, and that made it a legitimate target in an ongoing war. He pointed out the similarity to our claims of "collateral damage" when our bombs and missles kill innocent people.

Americans just don't like looking at the shoe, when it's on the other foot.

[TR Fan]

4. Read the article

He did not say that the reason the WTC was attacked was because the CIA had offices there.

[indigobusiness]

5. He said in his speech

that it did. Or, in his subsequent explanation.

The point was not that that was "why" it was attacked. But that the official offices legitimized it as a target, by our own justification of targets.

[rodeodance]

6. no, he was talking of how the US and other corporites treat the rest

of the world (greedy) in an inhumane, degrading manner. That was *one* of his points.

[rodeodance]

7. yes, and Deborah N. just would not listen.

[rodeodance]

9. transcript of Churchill and P. Zahn (NOT Norville) I will edit the title

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/04/pzn.01.html

CHURCHILL: I do know that the Pentagon sits and does computations on the extent of collateral damage to be anticipated. And that collateral damage is actually human beings, civilians, noncombatants. And yes, they are factoring it in.

ZAHN: Factoring in. But does that mean they want to kill them? That they want to do that on purpose? Or that happens as a result of a military target.

CHURCHILL: I don't know the people of 9/11 specifically wanted to kill everybody that was killed. It was just worth it to them in order to do what it was they decided it was necessary to do that bystanders be killed. And that's essentially the same mentality, the same rubric.

And yes, I do believe that that is official state terrorism when you do computations of collateral damage. I also believe the United States is conscious that it is a war crime and it doesn't care, because there is no one to impose the rule of law upon it. It acts as a unilateralist fashion.......

[rodeodance]

10. I got a memo saying I can not edit my own title--hope the previous

post clears up my mistake.


"You can't edit this message because the editing period has expired."

[Al-CIAda]

11. "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"

Audio-
Guest: John Perkins, author of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"
Fri., December 10, 2004
Deadline Live w/Jack Blood
mp3's-
pt1- Interview starts approx. half way through
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Blood/0412/20041210_Fri_JackBlood1.mp3
pt2-CIA sequence of Empire (economics, assasinations, torture, vote rigging, etc.) Naming names...vote rigging!
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Blood/0412/20041210_Fri_JackBlood2.mp3

Realplayer RAM-
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Blood/0412/20041210_Fri_JackBlood.ram

======

Democracy Now!
Tuesday, November 9th, 2004
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3      
Watch 128k stream       Watch 256k stream  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We speak with John Perkins, a former respected member of the international banking community. In his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man he describes how as a highly paid professional, he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Perkins describes himself as a former economic hit man - a highly paid professional who cheated countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars.

20 years ago Perkins began writing a book with the working title, "Conscience of an Economic Hit Men."

Perkins writes, "The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been his clients whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits - Jaime Roldós, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Roldós and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in.

John Perkins goes on to write: "I was persuaded to stop writing that book. I started it four more times during the next twenty years. On each occasion, my decision to begin again was influenced by current world events: the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1980, the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the rise of Osama bin Laden. However, threats or bribes always convinced me to stop."


Excerpt:
AMY GOODMAN: John Perkins joins us now in our firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!

JOHN PERKINS: Thank you, Amy. It’s great to be here.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Okay, explain this term, “economic hit man,” e.h.m., as you call it.

JOHN PERKINS: Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring -- to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It's been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that.

Con't-
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251

[sarahlee]

15. Thank you

This is one of the main points Ward is trying to make.

[deutsey]

13. As usual, no one is really interested in hearing what he said

Just what the rightwing media say he said (most of present DU company excepted).

Some of what he acutally said may have been distasteful to some extent, but strong medicine isn't usually known for its sweetness.

I suggest everyone read his original essay (it's online somewhere) and the press release from yesterday that someone posted here on DU.

[sarahlee]

14. I saw him on Paula Zahn

And she kept missing the point. Not sure if you all recall, but at one point this past fall, even Tony Blair tried to make this same point - that stopping terrorism has to include fixing the problems and disagreements that cause those without power to lash out in the only way they can.

I personally agree with the points Ward (not Warren) is trying to make. You have to understand that the Fascist propaganda machine is hard at work on this one - please don't be taken in by it.