US media whores whitewash Iraq war ESCALATION as momentary "SURGE"....

When the history of the Cheney-Bush administration is finally distilled to its essence some decades from now, the overwhelming factor of its "successes" will be that the Republican administration was able to WALLOW in its control of the American, corporatized press-media, and thus able to shovel entire tons of raw, unmitigated propaganda on the 'news' consuming American public.

This trend started as soon as the "Iron Curtain" and Soviet Union collapsed, robbing America's right-wing intellectuals and political advocates (wealthy businesses and billionaires) of the ENEMY they required to focus their ideology and party political goals on; the focus used by the Right-Wing ideology to 'rouse the troops' and rally political activists; the focus used to aim and define America's multi-trillion dollar foreign policy and defense policy goals.

For example, for a half a century - from 1945 to 1995 - America's rhetoric overseas and especially in Eastern Europe was that if Communist nations could just break free of Soviet tyranny, America would be there to safeguard their freedoms and independence. Yet almost simultaneous with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Bush-Baker-Eagleberger-Helms (et al) Republican foreign policy establishment pled "WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING" about Yugoslavia's descent into murderous chaos. (Baker's infamous formulation was "we don't have a dog in that hunt.") Which begs the question: "if America couldn't afford to safeguard SOME form of multiparty cooperation during the collapse of Yugoslavia (as Germany sought to safeguard Slovenia) after the Soviet Union GAVE UP WITHOUT A FIGHT, how the hell would the United States have sought to protect our allies in Europe in a real, NATO vs. Warsaw-pact shooting match?"

Sidestepping this propensity for Republican 'genius' foreign policy architects to create (or allow) huge debacles to occur right there in Europe (less than an hours flight from the Vatican in Rome), the greater problem is, how does the AMERICAN PRESS/MEDIA ENABLE the American Republican Right-Wing's WORST NATURE??

In 1992 Arkansas governor Bill Clinton ran for the Democratic Party nomination for president, and his right-wing detractors (most of whom detested the entire 1960s Civil Rights era) shouted "BILL CLINTON IS A DRAFT-DODGER!"

Yet these same critics utterly FAILED to hold the same criticism to the Bush family, who had FOUR sons of military age during the Vietnam war, yet NOT ONE OF THOSE BUSH draft-age sons made ANY effort to join the war that their family "SUPPORTED" so vociferously!

This huge DOUBLE STANDARD by the press/media: a hypercritical scorn for the "liberal Democrat" president, a huge FREE-PASS for holding Right-Wing leaders and politicians to even close to those same standards - would become the DC press corps' insatiable appetite for ALL SCANDALS CLINTON, even when the WHORE press corps was reduced to CREATING SCANDALS out of THIN AIR, as for example the "LINCOLN BEDROOM SCANDAL!" and the even more vociferous "White House TRASHING scandal!"

The first was ABSURD: ANY president, including a Democratic proponent of Civil RIghts, has a RIGHT to invite friends and supporters to spend the night in the White House; the US press/media's propensity to GO ALONG WITH Republican ATTACK-SMEARS trying to make a scandal of the Clinton's overnight guest list smacks of "field slaves" being prohibited from entering the owner's mansion on a slave plantation. (And where is the press' insatiable appetite for learning how much time gay ex-Marine prostitute Jeff Ganon/Jim Guckert spent in the White House, or convicted bribery lobbyist Jack Abramoff???)

Worse, the WHORE New York Times and Washington Whore Post allowed themselves to trumpet the Bush 43 White House accusations "DEMOCRATIC STAFFERS TRASHED THE WEST WING OFFICES!" smear..... WITHOUT A SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH OF EVIDENCE!

This inherent propensity for the NEW YORK TIMES and WASHINGTON POST to LIE on behalf of Republican Right-Wing ATTACK politics, is how we now have a press/media TALKING UP AN ESCALATION of the US ground war in Iraq... despite the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS being AGAINST exactly such an escalation.

The publishers of the NEW YORK TIMES and WASHINGTON POST are WALLOWING in their ability to impart a lying, propaganda spin on EVERYTHING they set before the American public, whether calling the puppet government in Iraq a "Sovereign nation," (Saddam hanged in a US prison by an American dominated court to chants of "Long live Muqtada al Sadr!") or calling a marked escalation of the US war in Iraq a "temporary SURGE."

MEDIA WHORES, thy name is Washington Post, New York Times, and network 'news', and thy business is legitimizing the STOLEN ELECTIONS and GROSS CORRUPTION, INCOMPETENCE, dereliction of duty, and the sneering, hateful SCORN of the George W. Bush administration.

-------------------------------------------------

'Surge' Protectors
By Greg Mitchell
December 29, 2006
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003525778


Inside reports suggest President Bush has already decided on sending many more troops to Iraq starting next month. Until now, the media has bought into his labeling of this as a mere "surge." But the media needs to call it by its proper name: "escalation."

-- Sometimes one little word, especially in the press, means a lot. Take “surge.” Or, if you prefer (as many now do), an alternative: “escalation.” No, I'm not talking about the very disturbing rise in U.S. deaths in Iraq this month.

“Surge” is what President Bush and his war planners have called a plan – not yet announced but rumored to be favored – to send 20,000 or many more troops to Iraq in the next few months. Sometimes they add the word “temporary” as a kind of prefix, though this may not be necessary since surges (electrical or tidal or sexual or whatever) always come and go.


In any case, the media (including E&P from time to time) have largely bought into the “surge” descriptive from its unveiling several weeks ago. You might call them "surge" protectors. Just today, for example, Reuters did the White House the favor of referring to the idea as a "short-term troop 'surge' aimed at containing rampant violence."

There are several problems with this, of course. For one thing, who is to say, in advance, that this will actually prove to be a mere “surge” of troops versus a long-term buildup? What is the time limit for a “surge” to recede before it seems semi-permanent? A few months, as the White House has suggested? Or a year or more, as some of its outside backers demand, saying anything less would be futile?