Charley Reese, newspaper coumnist, America Hater, and Jew Hater, is at it again. Accussing America of being brutally imeprialistic and being lapdogs for Israel. Tell me- what's the difference between Charley Reese and Noam Chomsky? I can't think of one either.

If I were to listeverything senile Charley has ever been wrong about this would be a book. So we'll just stick to his latest column. I think Reese is living proof that someone can make a living writing opinion columns without having a single fact.

In his latest article, which reads more like a love letter to Bashar Al- Assad, Charley takes up the cause of defending the worlds last Baathist regime.(I'm sure when North Korea is teetering on the brink, Charley will serenade Kim Jong Il as being a great father figure to his country)

First he asserts that there is no way a Baathist regime would ever help Islamists. Haven't we all heard that one before? There is no way Bin Laden would ever help Saddam, one is an islamist the other a secuarlist. Well they help each other in Iraq pretty well, and Syria gives shelter to such nice people like Hiboallah, and Hamas. You would have thought that a "realist" like Resse would have heard of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Next Resse Denies Syrian involvement in the burning of foreign embassies in Damascus. Syria, even by Middle East standards, is one of the least free countries in the world. Its people have no political rights or civil liberties. Spontaneous demonstrations just don't happen. If a crowd emerges, and they are not violently put down, then it is safe to say they had Baathist approval. Otherwise all demonstrations are looked upon as a threat to the state. Apparently Syria is innocent in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri. Well, now we know that at least one person bought their official denial. A high ranking lebanese official, critical of the Syrian occupation of his country, is going to be left alone by Damascus. You see the whole thing is neo conservative fiction. (I don't know what makes Resse angrier, the fact that there are "neo cons" in the government or the fact that Robert E. Lee surrendered) Even that stalwart of freedom, that beacon of hope, the UN is convinced that Syria was responsible for the murder.

But the old man is just warming up. Not even taking time to adjust his swastika armband he accusses the US of preparing a preemptive bombing raid on poor innocent Iran.(note to Charley, a bombing run wouldn't work. The Iranians have too many "peaceful" sites, which they have gone to great lengths to protect. Veey peaceful of them.) I wish. At least then it would show that we take the Iranian situation seriously. You see according to old Charley, who's still in mourning over the capture of Jefferson Davis and the end of the Third Reich, poor old Iran is going to be bombed any day now, and is at the mercy of the US. even though in his words "... since at present there is no evidence that Iran intends to build a bomb."

"Ok, let's dissect that logic. First of all Iran has no need for nuclear energy. It has enough natural gas, and oil to fuel itself for centuries. Secondly,as already mentioned, the Iranians have gone to great lengths to defend and keep these sites secret. Not exactly the trademark of peace. Why the belligerent attitude? (although to Resse, "death to America" and "death to Israel" aren't belligerence, they are the cornerstone of any sound foreign policy) Why the refusal to cooperate and show the world what they are doing? If you've got nothing to hide you don't expend all that energy on hiding everything.

It seems that Reese, and the other fascist whores on the Paleo right, would rather see terrorists win. They see them as the good guys who have legitimate grievances against the U.S. They should retire to some Neo Nazi nursing home where they can delude themselves about Iranian peace and virtue all day long and stop wasting space in the newspapers.