GUEST ON WORLD FOCUS DOWNPLAYS OBAMA'S OVERTURES TO IRAN

I watched World Focus with Martin Savidge tonight. The lead off story was on the cordial meeting between Richard Holbrooke and the under-secretary for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sec. of State Hillary Clinton herself described the meeting in promising terms. What a break from those war mongers, Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, who were looking for excuses to send bombs raining down in Teheran. The world is much safer thanks to Pres. Barack Obama's overture to Iranian leaders on the occasion of Now Roos, the Iranian New Year.

So why is Lisa Curtis, a guest on World Focus, so negative on Barack Obama’s wonderful and promising overture to the Islamic Republic of Iran? Oh, I get it - she is a senior research fellow with that neo-con Heritage Foundation. Martin, can’t you guys do a better job in screening these Bush left-overs who still think that Iran is the “enemy,” a country which they think should be bombed to smithereens? We know that the Heritage Foundation is on the same wave length as AIPAC, which thinks the best thing would be to start a war with Iran.

World Focus deserves better than Lisa Curtis as a guest “expert.”

WORLD FOCUS GIVES REPORTS ON GAZA, THE NEWS HOUR GIVES HARDLY ANY

Martin Savidge and WorldFocus do a great job in covering the Gaza story. Consider The NewsHour on PBS. Over the last several weeks, The NewsHour has aired hardly any stories or reports on Gaza other than brief mentions during the news portion at the very beginning of the program. If it weren't for WF, where would we Americans get a picture and a report of the human catastrophe caused by the Israeli war cruelty and Israel's attack upon Gazan civilians and their civilian institutions? Other than BBC World TV News, World Focus is the only source of the news that really matters.

Good job, everyone at World Focus.

NO EVIDENCE THAT IRAN WANTS NUCLEAR WEAPONS, NO REASON TO START WAR AGAINST IRAN

On World Focus tonight, Martin Savidge interviewed Martin Indyk, former ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration, and talked about Obama's engagement with Iran. Indyk said that if Obama's negotiations fail, then all the world will come to see that there remains only a military option to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. I object to this conclusion which seems to put an imprimatur on going to war against Iran.

For one thing no one has to date provided any credible evidence that Iran does want to make a bomb. The Israelis and the Bush gang just presumed that's what the Iranians were and are doing, but we know how far off their intelligence was about Saddam Hussein and the WMD. So far these guys just say that Iran is making a bomb and expect the whole world to believe them just because they say it. We need to suspect and reject such conclusionary assertions.

Second, even if the Iranians were developing a nuclear weapon, I argue that it is far better to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons than to start a world war whose repercussions would last at least 500 years and cause a permanent state of war between Iran and the West. Consider all the other countries that have nuclear weapons. Why must the US and Israel go to war over Iran having them?

No, there is no military option about Iran and its nuclear program. And people ("experts"?) like Martin Indyk are just war mongers for even countenancing the crazy idea.

GUEST ON WORLD FOCUS SAYS SHOE THROWER DISGRACE BUT MOST IRAQIS DETEST BUSH

I disagree with comments made by Raghida Dergham a guest on on World Focus last night regarding the recent show-throwing brouhaha in Baghdad. Dergham said it was disgraceful. But I think it broke through the Bush spin about doing great things for the Iraqi people, and showed that many if not most Iraqis hold Bush in rightful contempt.

Because of Bush and his unjustified invasion and war, more than 600 thousand Iraqis have lost their lives. The entire Iraqi society has been destroyed and broken. Instead of obsequious comments from politicians like al Maliki thanking Bush for his intervention, Muntazar al-Zaidi threw his shoes, nearly hitting Bush twice. Now that deserves a medal of honor.

PS Raghida Dergham is just a Bush lackey. Why does World Focus feature her as a guest or expert?

ASK FOR EVIDENCE WHEN "EXPERTS" CLAIM IRAN WANTS NUCLEAR BOMB

I think one of the most informative new news broadcasts is World Focus with Martin Savidge. It comes on weekdays and is a serious rival to BBC World News. But World Focus does a substandard job with news about Iran and its purported nuclear program. So here is a letter I sent to World Focus and Martin Savidge, asking them to be more sceptical of unsubstantiated claims that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb.

Can't you guys be more suspicious of "experts" and guests on your news show who claim that Iran is close to building a nuclear bomb? You just take it as if it were the gospel truth.

Doesn't your gullibility on Iran remind you of what happened to reports about WMD in Iraq? Remember all those experts who said Iraq had chemical agents that could kill within 45 minutes? Looking back those guys cried wolf and lots of people even from the NYT believed them on faith. So how could you let this paradigm be repeated today with Iran.

A suggestion. Anyone who comes on and says Iran is a month away or that Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon or that Iran poses a danger, stop and ask them for the evidence. Don't just take it.

Second. Whenever you have a guest who is going to claim Iran is a danger, have an Iranian on to give his or her countervailing opinion. Someone like Shirn Ebadi, the Nobel prize winner. Certainly you could arrange for an interview with her or someone of her stature.

My argument is that there is NO evidence that Iran is doing what it said it has no desire to do as to nuclear weapons. So be sceptical of these guys, whether from the Council of Foreign Policy or wherever. Don't contribute to the demonizing of Iran and Iranians without so much as a peep. Demand proof and evidence.

BIAS IN NEWS REPORTING ABOUT IRAN

Here is text of an email I sent to Martin Savidge and World Focus, the new internationally centered news broadcast. I take objection to the seemingly biased attitude of World Focus towards Iran.

I watch World Focus almost every night and enjoy your international news. However, I find your treatment of stories about Iran to be biased in favor of the neo-con Bush/Cheney approach of solving all international problems by shooting missiles and dropping bombs.

Why did you need to ask your NYT guest the other night whether "all options are still on the table," implying that the US would be justified in starting a war with Iran?

How about giving Ahmadinejad some credit for establishing closer relationships with Bolivia and Venezuela?

Why not talk about Israel having nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT instead of implying that Iran wants to develop nuclear technology for purposes of developing nuclear bombs?

EVIDENCE THAT GEORGIA STARTED SHELLING SOUTH OSSETIA WITHOUT RUSSIAN PROVOCATION

Watching World Focus last night, I was dismayed by statements made by Richard Holbrooke on what the U.S. policy under Obama should be regarding Russia. I disagree with Mr. Holbrooke that Russia poses a threat for U.S. security and policy.

First, why is Russia a threat? Holbrooke must be referring to the Georgia/Russia war. If so, does he not agree that Georgia was the aggressor? Today there is the lead story on page 1 of The New York Times indicating that Saakashvili started shelling Tskhinvali, capital of South Ossetia, without any provocation from the Russians. C.J. Chivers and Ellen Barry report:

"Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression.

"Instead, the accounts suggest that Georgia’s inexperienced military attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on Aug. 7 with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm."

If this is true, then how is Russia a “threat” to the United States? Somehow people like Holbrooke want to blame Russia and demonize the Russians. The threat to peace comes from statements such as made by Holbrooke. I want Obama to slice through such obfuscation and misinformation on Georgia and repair the working relations between the U.S. and Russia. People like Holbrooke want to make Russia the "enemy," but I want the United States to make friends not only with the Russians but with all other peoples on the earth.