C-Span 8:05am ET: Claudia Rosett "The Foundation for the Defense of

Democracies".... with the right wing, just read the opposite of the name for these "think tanks."
Accussing the UN for the food for oil program; claiming the money went to "terrorist organization", sliming Annan's son name then saying "we are not saying he got money but..."

biography: Claudia Rosett
Journalist

Claudia Rosett writes on international affairs, drawing on 22 years experience as a journalist and editor, reporting from Asia, the former Soviet Union, Latin America and the Middle East. Currently based in New York, she writes a column, “The Real World,” on issues of tyranny and human rights, especially as these relate to the War on Terror, for The Wall Street Journal's www.Opinionjournal.com and The Wall Street Journal Europe. She has also contributed to publications such as The New York Times, Commentary, The American Spectator and The Weekly Standard, and makes frequent guest appearances on TV and radio

Ms. Rosett has served as a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board in New York (1997-2002), and as a reporter and then bureau chief in The Wall Street Journal's Moscow Bureau, covering the former Soviet Union (1993-1996). Prior to that she covered Asia, writing both signed opinion features and unsigned editorials as editorial-page editor of The Asian Wall Street Journal (1986-1993). She has also worked as editor of the Journal's daily Bookshelf column, based in New York (1984-1986), and reported free-lance from Chile (1981-1982). More recently she has reported from Lebanon, and written on issues involving the United Nations, foreign dissidents, and tyrants who in various ways threaten the democratic world.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies_show.htm?attrib_id=7945

for Food Program if the UN is the one commissioning the investigation?" (My take: Good question...does it remind you of the 9/11 commission in the US?) Then he says he wants to use the result of a good investigation to blacmail the UN to help us in Iraq.
Ms. Rosett wants to have "total clarity and transparency" because secrecy does not help keep transactions clean and honest. SHE SHOULD BE PROTESTING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!

of this organization when some of the people on the board are DEMOCRATS! Nevertheless, this doesn't pass the smell test and perhaps the explanation for any bipartisanship within this organization lies in the fact that

"The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD)... was created two days after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

<snip>

In early 2001, a tightly knit group of billionaire philanthropists conceived of a plan to win American sympathy for Israel’s response to the Palestinian intifada. They believed that the Palestinian cause was finding too much support within crucial segments of the American public, particularly within the media and on college campuses, so they set up an organization, Emet: An Educational Initiative, Inc., to offer Israel the kind of PR that the Israeli government seemed unable to provide itself.

At first, Emet floundered, without an executive director or a well-defined mission. But that changed after Sept. 11, and Emet changed too, into what is now the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. The name is different, but the goal of influencing America’s opinion-forming classes remains.

What makes all of this possible is the support the foundation receives from its billionaire backers. Its nearly $3 million annual budget comes from 27 major donors, most of whom are members of “the Study Group”—also sometimes called the “Mega Group” because of their sizeable contributions—a semi-formal organization of major Jewish philanthropists who meet twice a year to discuss joint projects.

<snip>

When examining the biographies of individuals associated with FDD, the idealogical makeup of the individuals ranges from neo-conservatives (William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Newt Gingrich) and conservatives (Steve Forbes and Gary Bauer) to, at best, moderate (Donna Brazile), with a large percentage of those listed normally considered to be (neo-)conservative. For example, the Board of Directors is comprised of Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, and Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, all known to be conservative (as well as Republican).

The President of FDD, Clifford D. May, has served as Director of Communications for the Republican National Committee (RNC) from 1997 to 2001: "In that role, he was the Republican Party's staff spokesman, and appeared frequently on national television and radio programs. In addition, he managed all RNC communications activities, including long-range strategic planning; press, radio and television services; online services; TV and radio coaching; speech writing; advertising and marketing. He also served as the Editor of the official Republican magazine, Rising Tide." It is also worth noting that Mr. May worked for a PR agency: "After leaving the RNC, he was named Senior Managing Director in the Washington, D.C. office of BSMG Worldwide, a firm specializing in public affairs advocacy, public relations and media relations."

The site's biographies' page provides and indicator for party affiliations for members currently holding political office, but fails to list party affiliations for ex-office holders, giving an appearence of bipartisanship (note, we do not use the term non-partisan as FDD does). By the way, just because an organization includes former, or current, Republican and Democratic politicians, does not imply that the organization contains a variety of views. As politics, especially modern politics, has shown us, party affiliation does not imply a given set of views by any individual and it is quite common for political bureaucrats to serve with both major parties. For example, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., who is on FDD's Board of Advisors, worked both in the Ronald Reagan (Republican) administration (and at one time worked directly under Richard Perle) and as an aide to a Democratic Senator.

With a few possible exceptions, the members of FDD are predominately conservative and neo-conservative and the articles written by FDD's members and the literature on their site promote a neo-conservative slant.

For example, FDD's page on Iraq provides a list of documents authored by FDD members or documents FDD believes are worth highlighting. All the documents (as of this writing with documents ranging in dates from 8/2002 to 6/2003) support the hawkish view of Iraq. No documents provide any critical perspectives of U.S. policies towards Iraq. Also, some of the documents listed cite "facts" that have been proven to be false, such as the linkage of Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, as well as with Saddam's highly active WMD programs (see Weapons of mass deception for related analysis).

<snip>

...They provide links to numerous conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute (which some FDD members are either current or former fellows of) and the Hudson Institute. There is a link to the so-called student group Oxford Democracy Forum which portrays the same hawkish perspective and includes the same rhetoric with respect to Iraq and terrorism as is coming out of the Bush administration and neo-con controlled media. On OxDems' FAQ page, it repeats false information about Iraq, such as its links to Al-Qaeda by citing Colin L. Powell's discredited United Nations speech.

The list of related media links provided by FDD is very interesting, with Fox News listed first, and mostly conservative publications (like fellow FDD member Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard) that follows. CNN and the Washington Post are listed, but these news organizations are moderate at best. The New Republic is the only exception, as most consider it a liberal-oriented publication."

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Foundation_for_the_Defense_of_Democracies

this organization WAS STARTED 2 DAYS AFTER 9/11/01. IMHO, perhaps either they sought bi-partisan support or the dems who ended up on the board were so worried about 9/11 that they joined up.

Now is obviously a convenient time for this organization to deflect attention off the failures & scandals of the U.S. invasion of Iraq by its efforts to discredit the U.N. Perhaps the idea is, then, that the U.N. will get off of somebody's back (e.g., Sharon's) if it is effectively de-fanged.

My other concern is that too many Democrats on the hill have been naively taken in to these types of organizations which are serving neocon interests. That is, I'm ASSUMING they were acting out of naivete. Please tell me, DUers, where I could be wrong here.

so is her organization... good he read it.

I watched most of this segment. The total demonization of Annan and the UN clued me in, immediately.

Thanks for the link to the site. Very telling, a couple of the names on the biographies page - Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, etc.

Hmmmm.... :think:

'Nuff Said. OK, maybe not.

The editorial positions of WSJ reflect a dire lack of critical thinking and the ability to rationalize ideology to the actual facts. If she was a part of that group, there is no reason to believe that her thought process are superior to the other troglodytes that have written for those pages.
The Professor

For reparations for the war? And how many American hands were there with the Kuwaitis? I could not stand to watch that lady so I don't know if anyone asked her that question??