The sad, ugly truth: The Jewish owned NEW YORK TIMES pimped the bombing, invasion & occupation of Iraq, in Joseph Goebbels' lying, propaganda fashion

Disgraceful. Despicable. Murderous. Liars. Naziesque propaganda.

Adolf Hitler's bellicose excuses to invade and occupy Poland, but coming instead from the Jewish owned New York Times urging the US invasion of Iraq.

Mr. Arthur Sulzberger, his family, and his editors and writers THE MOST INFLUENTIAL war-pimps in all of America - over and above Fox "news"; over the Rev. Moon owned Washington Times; more influential than the Wall St. Journal or any of the Scaife or Murdoch papers.... on the Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz-Feith-PNAC-JUDITH MILLER relentless, remorseless lead-up to the Iraq War, the editors of the NEW YORK TIMES were THE MOST INFLUENTIAL war-mongers and PROPAGANDA BROADCASTERS in all of America...

Mr. Sulzberger, the thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of wounded and traumatized Americans, and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, thank you for your appalling journey into journalistic infamy and relentless lies.

(Which are right there in black and white, in the archived pages of The Times, should anyone have the time and dedication to examine them.
But in writing "The Hunting of The President", Lyons and Conason's huge volume on the atrocious "Whitewater" reporting, a veritable bible of the Times and Post atrocious 'reporting' about the various fake scandals swirling around the Clinton White House, the authors compiled _25 pages_ of mostly single-line footnotes and well documented sources.)

========================================

Scott McClellan Mocks NYT -- On 4th Anniversary of Paper's Weak 'Mini-culpa' on the War

by Greg Mitchell
Posted May 27, 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/scott-mcclellan-mocks-nyt_b_103808.html

In a supreme irony, word leaked out about bombshell revelations in the upcoming Scott McClellan memoir -- including his unexpected charge that the "liberal media" fell for Bush "propaganda" on Iraq -- exactly four years from the day from The New York Times offered its famous "mini-culpa" on its role in helping to pave the way for war.

The Times, you remember, reluctantly published a short piece, admitting that a half dozen of its stories in the run-up to the war were fatally flawed, but didn't name any of the guilty scribes and buried the story on Page A10 - about where many of its articles that had raised doubts about Saddam's WMD had ended up.

Now here is McClellan in his book, What Happened, as quoted by Mike Allen of Politico.com, admitting that the Times and other media had been too easily hoodwinked by the White House. He calls them "enablers" in the march to war.

McClellan charges that Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the war. Allen summarizes: "He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war....McClellan repeatedly embraces the rhetoric of Bush's liberal critics."

In the book, McClellan charges: "If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. ... In this case, the 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."

Ouch.

E&P was one of the few "mainstream" publications to repeatedly raise serious questions about the case for war before the invasion. In the months after the attack, we often charged that the Times had been duped and questioned why it refused to come clean. Executive Editor Bill Keller mocked some of the critics (and later stood by Judith Miller through thick and thin).

Finally, on May 27, 2004, the paper ran an editors' note, copping to some of the charges. But the paper tried to shield the guilty parties, and I was first online to identify by name the authors of the six pieces in question, with Miller turning out to be most guilty, and Michael Gordon also having a hand in two stories.

The paper refused to penalize any reporters or editors for their failures. Jack Shafer of Slate memorably called the mea culpa a "mini-culpa."

Perhaps most embarrassing, the paper's reluctant review sparked some other papers that had carried the faulty Times accounts in 2002 and 2003 to run corrections of their own. Many of them placed their own apologies in far more prominent positions than did the Times.

And clearly Keller had been reluctant to own up to the misreporting at all, at least in that time frame. Consider that my assessment of the Times' report, carried the day it appeared, closed with this: "But Executive Editor Bill Keller continues to defend the editors' note, and blamed 'overwrought' critics for overreacting to the Times's WMD coverage. Asked why he finally published the editors' note, Keller (quoted in the Washington Post) replied: 'Mainly because it was a distraction. This buzz about our coverage had become a kind of conventional wisdom, much of it overwrought and misinformed.'

"With his managing editor, Jill Abramson, he penned a memo to staffers explaining that the critique in the paper was 'not an attempt to find a scapegoat or to blame reporters for not knowing then what we know now.'

The problem of course was that certain reporters ignored, or only paid lip service to, evidence that "we know now' - but (as some Knight Ridder reporters showed) was often also available then."

But don't take my word for it. Ask Scott McClellan.

Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq. It features a preface by Bruce Springsteen and a foreword by Joe Galloway.

"Queen Furious Over Photo Deal!" stammers AOL 'news'. AOL barely concerned that GOP and Dem presidential candidates INVOKE MURDER of their opponent!

Queen Furious Over $1 Million Photo Deal" stammers one AOL headline....
Posted by AP on May 25, 2008
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/queen-furious-over-1-million-photo-deal/20080524145709990001?icid=1616058736x1203048523x1200306638

(May 24) - A British newspaper says the Canadian bride of the Queen's eldest grandson is being blamed for a controversial deal with celebrity magazine Hello! for exclusive photos of their wedding at Windsor Castle.

While the REAL news.... that BOTH Republican Arkansas Governor and presidential candidate MIKE HUCKABEE, AND New York Democrat Senator and presidential candidate HILLARY CLINTON, BOTH INVOKED the POTENTIAL MURDER of their presidential campaign opponent, Illinois Junior Sen tor Barak Obama, as (respectively) either a "good joke" or a "good reason" to stay in the Democratic primary race!

AOL, AP, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Fox 'news' and the entire chorus of the whore-iffic "major media" make the Queen's shouted protests about a $1 million wedding photo deal MORE IMPORTANT than both Democrat and Republican presidential candidates INVOKING THE SPECTER OF MURDER of a rival presidential candidate!

IT IS THIS ABILITY of the American "mainstream media" to DETERMINE WHAT MAKES THE HEADLINES, for example, the shouted, accusatory headlines against Senator Obama's links to Rev. Wright for a 20 second clip of an otherwise routine "hellfire and damnation" Sunday morning sermon for weeks on end; and what gets left on the cutting room floor, as in the case of Senator Clinton INVOKING MURDER as a GOOD reason to remain in the Democratic primary race!

Above is America OnLine's all important "news" that millions of Americans should know: that the Queen is furious that her grand-daughter, who does not have the resources of billions of taxpayer dollars like the British regent does, sold exclusive rights to her wedding photographs for one million dollars.

Below are Hillary Clinton's DISGRACEFUL, DISGUSTING, downright GHOULISH "good reasons" to stay in the Democratic primary race - her rival might just be MURDERED by some of those racist White, gun-loving voters that the Senator has been appealing to in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and throughout America these past 4 months!
Below that, Gov. Huckabee's "Senator Obama knocks over chair running away from a gunman aiming rifle" "JOKE" during his speech AT NRA (gun lovers) CONFERENCE!
And below that, "COUNTDOWN" news show host Keith Olbermann, the rare, non-obsequious, non-liar network news anchor, COMPILES SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON'S OTHER disgusting, low-class, race-baiting, SMEAR her opponent, DEMEAN the probable Democratic nominee comments....

The COWARDLY, CRAVEN, LYING, Neo-Con WAR-MONGERING PROPAGANDA New York Times outed... by the NY Times STUPIDITY Index!

There is a simple reason that the monstrous, economy-gutting BUSH BUDGET DEFICITS charts shown here are not on the front page of the New York Times two and three times a week:
BECAUSE THE WAR-MONGERING Neo-Con NY TIMES _SUPPORTS_ the Bush-Cheney agenda of EVER EXPANDING WARS of aggression and death-squad pro-US DICTATORSHIPS in the Middle East and Central Asia....

note: Independent confirmation that Mr. John Wilson's commentary, below, is correct, that ARTHUR SULZBERGER is a lying yellow-press media whore, and that his writers and editors are PAID PROFESSIONAL LIARS: this link highlights that Mr. Sulzberger's latest "proud" aquisition, NEO-CON "PNAC" Chairman BILL KRISTOL - is WRONG about _EVERYTHING_ that he writes about!
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/19/kristol-primaries/
(Note: Mr. Kristol is SO PROUD of his NewAmericanCentury.org think-tank... that he has STOPPED PAYING THE BILL for its web-hosting! Click the link to see for yourself.)

- And here is Kristol's infamous SNEER at American school-children who might DIE of preventable diseases because, without health care coverage, they may go undiagnosed for a disease which could become malignant and kill that child before it is treated in timely fashion-


BILL KRISTOL's (and hence his new employer, the ARTHUR SULZBERGER NEW YORK TIMES) SCORN and CONTEMPT for American schoolchildren is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the SCORN and CONTEMPT that Nazi Concentration-Camp guards had for STARVING, EMACIATED death camp prisoners!

ALL THE MORE ATROCIOUS, because Kristol uses the sneer of "SOCIALISM!" to deride and pour scorn on health-care policies for AMERICAN children... WHILE he SUPPORTS AMERICAN taxpayers pouring BILLIONS of our tax-dollars overseas TO ISRAEL, where, in European "socialized" fashion, ALL _Israeli_ CITIZENS ARE ENTITLED TO HEALTH-CARE COVERAGE - AT AMERICAN TAXPAYER EXPENSE!

And, re posted: DOUGLAS FEITH, the Pentagon's "INVADE IRAQ NOW!" PNAC war-mongering Propaganda Minister in 2002, had the MEGAPHONE of the NEW YORK TIMES former NIXON speechwriter WILLIAM SAFIRE to shout and BROADCAST their lust-for-war across America:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/how-douglas-feith-and-wil_b_95740.html

The Neo-Confederate agenda of EXPANDING WARS, (defacto-slavery prison camps) POLICE-STATE POWERS, Tax-Cuts for the wealthy, and TREASURY GUTTING DEFICITS (see above graph) strongest, most vocal supporters in all of America: JOE LIEBERMAN, the AIPAC lobby, and the NEW YORK TIMES!




(note: While Mr. John K. Wilson's analysis of the Times' coverage focuses on their writing about the Hillary Clinton campaign, Mr. Wilson points out that the entire article on that campaign OMITS DISCUSSION of Senator Hillary Clinton's IRAQ WAR VOTE and her even more appalling KYLE-LIEBERMAN ("BOMB IRAN NOW!") vote - the Times' "reporter" can't even see the White Elephant or 800-pound gorrilla in the room!)

=======================================

The New York Times' Shoddy Strange Analysis Of The Clinton Loss
by John K. Wilson, Huffington Post
Posted May 19, 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/the-new-york-timess-shodd_b_102537.html


Adam Nagourney of the New York Times just posted his column from tomorrow analyzing "the factors and developments that undercut her candidacy, some self-inflicted, others inflicted upon her." It’s truly one of the dumbest pieces of political punditry I’ve seen in this election, and it takes a lot to say that. Amazingly, Nagourney explains Clinton’s loss without ever mentioning her vote on the war in Iraq, the incompetence of Mark Penn and her campaign staff, the strength of Obama’s candidacy, or the brilliance of the Obama’s campaign strategy.


To rate each reason Nagourney gives, I’ve created the NSI: the New York Times Stupidity Index, with a rating from 1 to 10 (10 being stupidest) of how dumb these reasons are.

Nagourney begins with the "timing of the Edwards endorsement" after Clinton’s West Virginia win. Considering that the election was over long before John Edwards figured out which way the wind was blowing, this is a bizarre reason to start off a column about Clinton’s loss.



NSI: 10 (out of 10)


Nagourney cites Michigan and Florida, claiming that Clinton’s likely (inevitable?) victories there would have given her a boost going into Super Tuesday if they had counted for half-delegates as the Republicans did. That’s not too persuasive: if Obama had competed in Michigan and Florida, he would have done better there, and remember that this is an expectations game above all else. Michigan and Florida also would have stretched Clinton’s weak financial position.
NSI: 2

The Drudge Report. According to Nagourney, "bad news about the Clinton campaign got extensive attention" on the Drudge Report, after an October NYTimes report on how the Clinton campaign was working with Drudge. This is nonsense. The Drudge Report is a playground for bad reporters, not a major influence on how people vote. Clinton got bad news on the website because her campaign was failing, not because of Drudge blowback.
NSI: 8

The Tipping Scandal. Nagourney blames a false NPR report that Clinton had stiffed a waiter on a tip for "feeding the image of Mrs. Clinton as entitled and imperious." Oh, please. Did anyone pay any attention to this piece of crap story?
NSI: 8

Immigrants Behind the Wheel. This may be the only real effect identified by Nagourney. When Clinton waffled on the question about Spitzer and immigrant driver’s licenses, she looked a lot like her husband. This was not very important in itself, but it mattered because the media finally realized that she might not be inevitable.
NSI: 1

The Return of Joe Trippi. Nagourney claims that under Trippi "the pitch of the Edwards campaign instantly turned more populist and tougher, and took aim at Mrs. Clinton." Edwards did become more populist, but Edwards never really went very negative, and he also took aim at Obama (especially on health care). Edwards’ populist ploy pushed progressive votes away from Obama, so I can’t see any real harm to Clinton here.
NSI: 4

Bill Clinton. According to Nagourney, "It seems hard to argue that Mr. Clinton was anything but a net negative for Mrs. Clinton overall." That’s utter nonsense. Virtually every poll has shown that voters were more likely to vote for Hillary because of Bill. The problem was that everyone expected Bill to be a huge positive for Hillary, and instead his flubs greatly reduced the positive value he provided.
NSI: 4

Planted Questions and False Rumors. Nagourney: "It is hard to exaggerate how much damage Mrs. Clinton suffered from two things that her supporters got busted for doing...." No, it’s not hard to exaggerate, because Nagourney does wildly exaggerate it. The story about planted questions lasted barely a day and disappeared, and nobody really blamed Clinton for a few supporters who pushed the bigoted emails about Obama that roam around the internet like mosquitos.
NSI: 5

Altogether, these eight reasons mark some of the most inexplicably trivial and stupid explanations of why Hillary Clinton lost. But most of all, they ignore the key reason: Obama is the better candidate. Unfortunately, if this is the kind of political analysis we have to look forward to from the mainstream press this year, it will require us to push the real truth told by alternative media. You couldn’t trust the New York Times when it was pretending that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so why you would trust the New York Times pretending that Clinton’s vote for war didn’t hurt her campaign?


Read more at John K Wilson's Daily Kos Diary. Crossposted at ObamaPolitic

Media CENSORS "Retired Military officers as Pentagon's WAR PROFITEERS PROPAGANDA NETWORK" story....

'Deafening' silence on analyst story
By MICHAEL CALDERONE & AVI ZENILMAN
May 10, 2008
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10204.html



Even with countless media outlets available these days, a Sunday New York Times cover story could always be counted on to send a jolt through the television news cycle.

But apparently that’s no longer the case. Indeed, reporter David Barstow’s 7,600-word investigation of the Pentagon’s military analyst program — whereby ex-military talking heads, often with direct ties to contractors, parroted Defense Department talking points on the air — has been noticeably absent from television airwaves since the story broke on April 20.

While bloggers have kept the story simmering, Democratic congressional leaders also are speaking out, calling for investigations that could provoke the networks to finally cover the Times story — and, in effect, themselves.

On Tuesday, Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.) sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin “urging an investigation of the Pentagon’s propaganda program” to determine if the networks or analysts violated federal law.

FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps, a Democrat, applauded their efforts. “President Eisenhower warned against the excesses of a military-industrial complex,” Copps said in a statement. “I’d like to think that hasn’t morphed into a military-industrial-media complex, but reports of spinning the news through a program of favored insiders don’t inspire a lot of confidence.”

DeLauro said by phone that the Pentagon’s program was “created in order to give military analysts access in exchange for positive coverage of the Iraq war.”

The FCC request follows DeLauro’s April 24 letters to five of the most powerful network executives: NBC News President Steve Capus, ABC News President David Westin, CBS News President Sean McManus, FOX News chief executive Roger Ailes and CNN News Group President Jim Walton.

Only ABC and CNN have responded so far, according to DeLauro, who is not the only member of Congress calling attention to the Times story.

Both Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) have written to the Government Accountability Office, seeking an investigation into whether the Pentagon aided in connecting military analysts with contractors.

“I decided to push this issue hard because ever since The New York Times exposé appeared, the silence has been deafening,” Kerry said in statement to Politico.

Kerry said there needs to be a “thorough investigation” into government contracts and “whether Americans’ tax dollars were being used to cultivate talking heads to sell the administration’s Iraq policy.”

Others involved include Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, who wrote to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), who told Think Progress he’s begun to “distrust the military,” and Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), who said on the House floor that the Times story reflects poorly on the Pentagon, analysts and media organizations.

Congressional outcries alone might not be enough, but if investigations yield any new discoveries or lead to high-profile hearings, the networks would be hard-pressed to continue their de facto blackout.

American media tries to UNDERMINE DEMOCRACY in Bolivia (and, indeed, everywhere in world)

1803- At the same time that the US Marines were "fighting for Right and Freedom...to the shores of Tripoli", against Barbary Coast slavers on the North Africa coastline, the American merchant fleet and US Navy would be EXPANDING the SLAVE TRADE of enslaved Africans from West African ports for three more decades, until the transatlantic slave trade was finally outlawed.
--------------------------------------

For all the bloody-flag waving of Bush administration supporters shouting that they support "FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY!", the ugly truth is that America does NOT support freedom or democracy, at least not in 'under-developed' third-world nations where, Manifest Destiny or conquistador style, American corporate barons think there are good profits to be made extorting the wealth - in natural resources or cheap production labor - out of the natives.
This is actually an ancient strand of the American national identity. At the very same time that US Marines were bragging about "Fighting for Right And Freedom" against the Barbary Pirates (Muslim warlords on North African coast, who were capturing and enslaving European and American sailors in the white-slave trade), the American Navy was riding shotgun for - the transatlantic SLAVE TRADE from West African ports! This "good vs. evil," "slavery vs. freedom" dichotomy (or dual nature) is of course ingrained in all humans across the world, but especially in the young American Republic, founded on ideals of "freedom and democracy," but from the Three-Fifths compromise on, SLAVERY was embedded in the US Constitution, and 13 of the first 15 US presidents were or had been SLAVE OWNERS, including of course Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and other 'statesmen' of whom we Americans today are so proud.

WELL, America is up to it again! For all of the Bush administration's "Freedom!" and "Democracy" rhetoric, they DESPISE the popular vote, whether in the United States (Al Gore's 500,000+ vote popular majority in the 2000 presidential election was negated by the vote-swiping efforts of the Republican presidential candidate's brother, Governor Jeb Bush in Florida) much less overseas in lands populated by despised "brown-skin" locals.

Case in point: BOLIVIA. The people of countries like Bolivia of course are disgusted at the ECONOMIC HIT MAN model of capitalism, indeed, the very term "Free Market Capitalism" is a PROPAGANDA INVERSION, a term which means not FREE markets, but CONTROLLED markets, markets where huge international corporations can buy up a nation's resources for pennies on the dollar, in rigged bids, by BRIBING the elite families of the targeted cities and countries, giving local citizens NO say in the outcome of RIGGED financial manipulations. (i.e., "freedom" = economic slavery)
(Author John Perkins own website) http://www.johnperkins.org/


IN a _text-book_ example right out of the Economic Hit Man model of international financial EXTORTIONS, the Bush administration is urging the wealthy community of Santa Cruz, Bolivia's wealthiest province, to stage a mini-palace coup against the more populist administration of Bolivia president Evo Morales.

Before you read the GlobalAlternatives.org summary of the Bush-Cheney administration's democracy-gutting attempts at financial EXTORTION in Santa Cruz and Bolivia, read as many excerpts as you can stand from the free on-line GoogleBooks preview of Confessions of an Economic Hitman.



United States Maneuvers to Carve Up Bolivia with Autonomy Vote
By Roger Burbach
May 5, 2008
http://globalalternatives.org/node/86

The illegal referendum held on Sunday to declare autonomy in Santa Cruz, Bolivia’s richest province, is backed by the Bush administration in an attempt to halt the leftward drift of South America. While the US embassy in La Paz blandly declares its support for “unity and democracy” in Bolivia, the government’s Interior Minister Alfredo Raba states what is widely known, that the United States “has an agenda more political than diplomatic in Bolivia, and this agenda is linked to opponents of the current government.” Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of the country, bluntly declares: “The imperialist project is to try to carve up Bolivia, and with that to carve up South America because it is the epicenter of great changes that are advancing on a world scale.”

Morales has aligned Bolivia with the nemesis of the United States, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Along with President Rafael Correa of Ecuador, who is closing down the largest US military base on the continent, the three presidents constitute what can be called a radical axis in South America.

All three countries have convened constituent assemblies to draft new constitutions and to “refound” their nations. It is Bolivia’s new constitution that is to be voted on in a national referendum that has sparked the separatist opposition of the wealthy oligarchs in Santa Cruz. It grants autonomous rights to Bolivia’s majority indigenous population, places the country’s abundant mineral, gas and petroleum resources under greater national control, and sets limits on the size of the large landed estates that are heavily concentrated in Santa Cruz.

The Podemos (We Are Able) Party, which is strongest in Santa Cruz, first tried to use its control of just over one third of the votes in the constituent assembly to block its actions by insisting that a majority vote was not sufficient to approve statutes to the new constitution. When that failed, it resorted to helping stir up violence against assembly members, targeting its indigenous members and its woman president, Silvia Lazarte Flores. At the turn of the year, Evo Morales, backed by popular mobilizations in the streets of La Paz, compelled the existent Congress to approve the call for a national referendum to vote on the new constitution. It was then that the Santa Cruz elite launched its referendum for autonomy, which the country’s National Electoral Court has declared unconstitutional. The referendum voted for on Sunday grants the provincial government the power to tax and collect revenues, to set up its own police force and to block any efforts by the national government to carry out agrarian reform.

The US ambassador, Philip Goldberg, who was appointed by the Bush administration in September 2006, has maneuvered behind the scenes to support the political forces opposed to Morales and his governing party, the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS). It is notable that Goldberg came to Bolivia from Pristina, Kosovo, where as the US Chief of Mission, he played a central role in orchestrating Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, which it had been a province of for centuries.

Last year Goldberg was photographed in Santa Cruz with a leading right-wing business magnate and a well-known Colombian narco-trafficker who had been detained by the local police. Then in late January of this year, the Embassy was caught giving aid to a special intelligence unit of the Bolivian police force. The embassy rationalized its aid by saying “the US government has a long history of helping the National Police of Bolivia in diverse programs.” US-Bolivian relations were next roiled in February when it was revealed that Peace Corps volunteers and a Fulbright scholar had been pressured by an Embassy official to keep tabs on “Venezuelans and Cubans” in the country. Since Morales took office over two years ago, more than $4 million has been provided by the US Agency for International Development to the political opposition.

Bolivia’s neighbors are strongly opposed to the separatist movement and its destabilizing impact on the region. Brazil and Argentina are both dependent on natural gas from Bolivia and fear that an internal conflict would interrupt their supplies. Argentinean David Caputo came to Bolivia as head of a mission of the Organization of American States to try set up a dialogue between the government and the opposition. He found the government willing to engage in discussions, but the opposition vehemently opposed. The United States has provided no support to these regional diplomatic efforts to avoid civil strife in Bolivia.




© 2007 CENSA: Center for the Study of the Americas
2288 Fulton St., Suite 103, Berkeley,

New York Times MICHAEL GORDON takes up where JUDITH MILLER left off: PIMPING Goebbels' NAZI PROPAGANDA for MORE WARS, banging the drum of ANONYMOUS U

The shameless, soulless, war-mongering, tax-cuts-for-rich-in-time-of-war Neo-Con New York Times takes up where Joseph Goebbels left of.... EVER MORE WARS, EVER MORE EXPANDING WARS, in defense of the "good American volk" and in the interest of "state security uber alles", of course.
In particular, here Times reporter MICHAEL GORDON takes up where JUDITH MILLER had to leave off (because the LIES of her DISGRACEFUL reporting were so egregious and obvious, that even the Times was reluctantly forced to fire her) - PROMOTING ANONYMOUS Bush-Cheney administration "government sources" and statements as JUSTIFYING, demading an immediate attack on and BOMBING of Iran.

========================================

The Times' Michael Gordon: A "Message Force Multiplier?"
Posted May 5, 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/the-times-michael-gordon_b_100182.html

A few months back the United States' top 16 intelligence agencies produced a "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iran that exposed almost everything the Bush administration had been saying for years about the threatening nature of Iran's nuclear program as an elaborate web of lies. So embarrassing to the administration was the Iran NIE, which brought to mind the "smoking guns" and "mushroom clouds" that proved to be total fabrications leading up to the Iraq invasion, that even President George W. Bush found himself on the defensive and had to backtrack. Before the NIE threw dirt in the gears of the Bush war machine Michael Gordon had been a loud and prominent mouthpiece at The New York Times providing endless stenography for Bush and Cheney's most fear-inducing claims about Iran's nuclear capacity.

Michael Gordon shifted gears after the administration's new "mushroom cloud" stories failed to generate much buzz, and he then began flogging another anti-Iran story that the Bush administration and General David Petraeus wanted disseminated: the scary-sounding "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) coming from Iran into Iraq and doing harm to American soldiers. But after the EFP stories didn't do the trick to provoke an already war-weary American public into calling for US military action against Iran, Gordon is at it again, dutifully turning to his official sources -- the only ones he knows or cares about -- to generate more alarmist claims that just happen to serve perfectly the Bush administration's calls for some kind of an attack on Iran.

And what is the new pretext for war against Iran that US officials and their underlings inside the Iraqi government are now spoon-feeding Michael Gordon so he can splash it on the front page of The New York Times? Gordon's below-the-fold story in today's Times is entitled: "Hezbollah Trains Iraqi Militants In Iran, American Officials Say."

Now sometimes I'll bother to go in and dissect Gordon's articles and point out that he always quotes from official sources with no apparent effort at all on his part to place their claims in context -- especially the context of the fact that these same kinds of official sources lied to him about Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction." Gordon keeps flogging the attack Iran story for the Bush administration.

We recently found out the extent of the Pentagon's control of an elaborate propaganda network that sent dozens of retired military officers onto the public's television airwaves equipped with talking points so they could perform their duty as "message force multipliers." They told us that there was "no doubt" that Saddam had WMD, aluminum tubes to be used as nuclear centrifuges, flying drones that could gas an American city, that we'd be greeted as liberators, etc.

Gordon was the co-author with the infamous Judith Miller on a front-page article on Sunday, September 8, 2002 that probably did more to further the Bush administration's calls for war against Iraq than any other article published by anyone anywhere (mainly because Dick Cheney and other officials pointed to the Gordon-Miller article on the Sunday political talk shows giving their bogus claims legitimacy in the establishment "liberal" press).

We have become accustomed to having the views of people who were so wrong about Iraq thrown in our faces without accountability or even an acknowledgment that maybe we shouldn't listen to these people anymore. Yesterday's Times had short opinion pieces on what the US should do in Iraq from Frederick Kagan, Richard Perle, and Kenneth Pollack. Today's paper has Gordon's shrill stenography on the front page and William Kristol's sage views in the opinion section. These people never lose their high perches no matter how many of their past lies are exposed so they can tell us over and over again that this time they really can be trusted to interpret world.

I find it curious, and so should Michael Gordon, that every single time he gets an exclusive "scoop" from his official sources they invariably lead him to report events or issues that lead to greater tension between the US and Iran, and more importantly, they fit perfectly into the Bush Administration's goal of massaging public opinion into accepting the wisdom of a military strike against that country. Gordon knows that if the US did not invade and occupy Iraq and overthrow the Sunni government in Baghdad -- all actions his reporting helped facilitate -- the Shia would not be empowered in Iraq and Lebanon's Hezbollah, which has its hands full dealing with Israel, would be only a marginal player in Iraq if at all. But Gordon wants us to forget that history as if it is just a "back story" and become alarmed about Iran's role in Iraq and stiffen our spines for yet another war, which is exactly what the Bush administration wants. Thanks Again Mike!

America's WHORE, DEMAGOGUE, LYING media.. GIVES Republicans a FREE PASS for Rev Sung Yung Moon's HATE AMERICA preaching....

AS THE CORRUPT, WHORE, TREACHEROUS American media machine tries to make a 24-7-365 video-clip audio loop of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's 20 second misbegotten sermon clip, the Whore Media has to... work hard, to NOT report on the far more systematic, condemnatory, damning rhetoric of REVEREND SUNG YUNG MOON, notorious sponsor of mass weddings, self-anointed god on earth, self-anointed king of the World... and PAYMASTER of Bush Sr. speaking appearances, as well as owner and paymaster of the Washington DC right-wing propaganda 'news' paper, the WASHINGTON TIMES.

AMERICA'S TRAITOROUS, TREACHEROUS MEDIA WHORES will devote FAR MORE TIME to a TWENTY SECOND SOUND-CLIP from Reverend Wright, than they will to the PERVASIVE influence, and BILLIONS of dollars spent CORRUPTING the US political process - by the "Reverend" Sung Yung Moon.

FOREIGN DICTATORS - the SAUDI and Arab OIL KINGS, and the Rev. Sung Yung Moon - have FAR MORE IMPACT on the AMERICAN POLITICAL PROCESS, than millions and millions of Americans do!

The Washington Press corps: GROUND ZERO for press/media BUZZARDS to SELL OUT AMERICA, and SELL AMERICAN DEMOCRACY down the river, by relentlessly DEMAGOGIC REPETITION of minor issues, while AVOIDING THE FAR MORE IMPORTANT ONES.

It is indeed ironic, that as the Washington press corps vultures promote the notions of "patriotism" and defending America, they become ever more subservient to foreign dictators and demagogues like Rev. Moon.

===================================================
The Right-Wing's America-Hating Preacher 0 Rev. Sung Yung Moon
By Robert Parry (A Special Report)
May 2, 2008
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/050108.html


<< While Sen. Obama has to explain what he knew and when he knew it about Wright’s angry sermons, the Bush Family floats above its financial and political associations with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a South Korean theocrat who had denounced the United States as “Satan’s harvest” and likened American women to “prostitutes.”

In his angry sermons, Moon has gone further than saying “God-damn America” – as Wright did – to vowing to sweep aside American democracy and individualism as he builds a one-world state.

Once his plan to “swallow entire America” is complete, Moon told his followers in one sermon, there will be “some individuals who complain inside your stomach. However, they will be digested.”

But Moon’s hatred of America is not deemed news, in part, because Moon has financed the Washington Times since 1982 to the tune of more than $3 billion, according to former newspaper insider George Archibald.

Moon also has lavished many millions of dollars more to pay for conservative conferences and to bail out key right-wing figures when they have found themselves in financial distress, including Republican direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie and the late Jerry Falwell.

Plus, Moon has paid large speaking fees to former President George H.W. Bush – estimated in the millions of dollars – and has feted President George W. Bush’s brother Neil at recent events for the Moon-sponsored Universal Peace Federation.

In 2004, thankful Republicans even gave Moon use of a room in the Senate Dirksen Office Building so he could be crowned the “King of Peace” in a ceremony that Moon’s followers hailed as proof the U.S. government was bowing down to this new Messiah. [See John Gorenfeld’s Bad Moon Rising.]

Yet, even though Moon has gained influence by funneling huge sums of mysterious money into the U.S. political process – and to the Bush Family – he has avoided the intense scrutiny that has fallen on Rev. Wright, who until recently was a little-known black preacher from Chicago’s South Side. >>

Mo Dowd - the "Shallow and Tawdry" Maureen Dowd, entitled hack columnist for New York Times - taken to woodshed for her trashy sourcing....

MoDowd’s Dubious Sourcing Standards
Who is her “Hillary Democrat” and why does he/she get to bash Obama with impunity?
By Zachary Roth
Wed 30 Apr 2008
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/modowds_dubious_sourcing_stand_1.php?page=all

A few years ago, The New York Times made an admirable move to cut down on its use of anonymous sources. A memo by assistant managing editor Allan Siegal asked newsroom staffers: “Can we…squeeze more anonymous sources out of our pages? Can we make our attributions (even the anonymous ones) less murky?”

Since then, when the Times has used anonymous sources, it’s been noticeably more conscientious about explaining why it was doing so. But judging by this passage from her column today, Maureen Dowd didn’t get Siegal’s memo:

For some, Obama didn’t offer enough outrage. “He talks about Reverend Wright violating his core beliefs as if he is detailing why he doesn’t like cheesecake or cream cheese,” said one Hillary Democrat. “He’s more passionate about basketball.”
Sure, columnists operate according to slightly different rules than regular news reporters. But is there any possible reason why granting anonymity to this “Hillary Democrat” to go after Obama is justifiable in any format? The source could be anyone, meaning there’s no way to assess his or her credibility, or to know whether he or she represents a more widespread response.

Would the Times allow an anonymous Obama or Clinton supporter to be quoted saying: “John McCain talks about people who’ve lost their homes to the mortgage crisis as if they ordered mustard on their sandwich and got mayo”? Let’s hope not.

We’ll wrap this post up with some crack reporting, Dowd-style:

For some, Maureen Dowd’s use of a “Hillary Democrat” to attack Obama is shallow and tawdry. “Attacking one candidate by quoting unnamed supporters of their opponent is the cheapest form of journalism imaginable, and it tells readers nothing,” said one Obama Democrat. “If Obama didn’t offer enough outrage for her, why doesn’t she so say in her own words?”