Monday, September 29, 2008

New York Lyin' Times Distillation of Corporate Media talking-points re Bush's Catastrohpic Wall St. Failures Bailout -


QUOTES: "I didn't know you were Catholic."

Speaker of the Houe NANCY PELOSI, as quoted by TIME magazine this weekend, which gave us this solid gold nugget of attribution about Pelosi's above quote:
<< Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, referring to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, WHO REPORTEDLY GOT DOWN ON HIS KNEES to BEG Pelosi to help speed along the government bailout package. >>




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

Today's New York whore Times gets their 3rd sentence in this morning's article on the "miracle cure" Wall St. bailout bill correct:

<< The measure still faced stiff resistance from Republican and Democratic lawmakers who portrayed it as a rush to economic judgment and an undeserved aid package for high-flying financiers who chased big profits through reckless investments. >>

And the 1st, 2nd, and 4th sentences are not too terrible, either.

BUT the 5th, 6th, and 7th sentences in Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn's report are real stinkers:
<< ALL SIDES HAD TO SURRENDER SOMETHING. The administration had to accept limits on executive pay and tougher oversight; Democrats had to sacrifice a push to allow bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages; and Republicans fell short in their effort to require that the federal government insure, rather than buy, the bad debt.

Even so, lawmakers on all sides said the bill had been significantly improved from the Bush administration’s original proposal. >>

WHY, EXACTLY, did the 'Democrat' "Leadership" HAVE TO SURRENDER SOMETHING"??

According to TIME magazine, there are reports that Bush's Treasury Secretary, Mr. Henry Paulson, literally got on his knees beseeching Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi approve the $700 billion Wall St. BAILOUT bill - AT TAXPAYER expense.

Let's pretend for a moment that a kiss was also involved, it would be the most expensive kiss in all of human history!

THE MECHANICS of the Bush-Paulson-Pelosi WALL Street BAILOUT BILL are SIMPLY GROTESQUE: $700-billion dollars; SEVEN-HUNDRED-BILLION-DOLLARS;
$700,000,000,000.

Divide $700,000,000,000 by 3-hundred-million Americans, THAT WORKS OUT TO over $2,000 PER AMERICAN man, woman, and child.

Consider that with children, retirees, and people with disabilitees, only one in three Americans are working taxpayers, and the price of the PELOSI-PAULSON BAILOUT now zooms to over $6,000 per American worker.

WITH THAT KIND OF MONEY INVOLVED, why could not the US government have simply LET WALL STREET FAIL, and then stepped in as a lender on behalf of consumers and producers itself providing those loans guarantees of amounts up to several billions of dollars, to new lenders or loan consortiums?

THE NOTION that the Bush administration "HAD TO GIVE SOMETHING UP" by giving up INSANE amounts of EXECUTIVE PAY and compensaion is... well, simply INSANE.

This is the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall St. Journal's, and other corporate media favorite media meme: THAT NO MATTER HOW ABSURD or APPALLING the Bush administration (or big business) request, policy, legislation, bill, or agenda is, it has a miraculous "EQUIVALENCE" with Democratic policy requests, priorities, and bills, SIMPLY BECAUSE there must be "AN EQUIVALENCE" between the two political parties!

HOW would Mr. Hulse and Mr. Herszenhorn feel if a robber put a gun to their heads, and said "HAND OVER $6,000, or I'll ruin your ability to raise credit financing"?

THAT is the underlying theme of Major Media reporting on the Bush-Cheney-Paulson TAXPAYER BAILOUT of Wall St. - "IF you don't GIVE US MONEY, you will not be able to RAISE MONEY in the future"!

Well, for one trillion dollars (what it will cost us American taxpayers before this particular Bush-Rove-Cheney nightmare is over) we did BUY ONE GLORIOUS GIFT: the NOTION of GEORGE W. BUSH as a "TAX CUTTER" is OVER for ALL ETERNITY;
George W. Bush as TAX CUTTER is DEAD AND BURIED, because in fact Mr. Bush wants American TAXPAYERS to FORK OVER a MINIMUM of ONE-TRILLION-DOLLARS to save his crony Wall Street Robber Barons & Credit EXTORTIONISTS, and the REAL cost of this $.7-trillion bailout, on top of the EXISTING $11 TRILLION of pre-existing BUSH DEFICITS, will likely be two or three times the stated amount - just as, if you make purchases on your over-loaded credit card and only pay the minimum monthly payment, your REAL PRICE is THREE TIMES what you paid to purchase an item with that credit card..
THE REAL price of the Bush-Pelosi-Paulson BAILOUT, will cost American taxpayers somewhere between ONE TRILLION and TWO TRILLION+ DOLLARS - TAXPAYER dollars, i.e. TWO TRILLION DOLLARS in NEW TAXES by George Bush and Nancy Pelosi to BAIL OUT Wall St. fat-cats.
BUSH BESEECHES BILLIONS in NEW TAXES from Congress to BAIL OUT his WALL Street Credit Extortion Cronies & Robber Barons:


The AMERICAN WHORE MEDIA - SLAVES to their corporate bosses and owners - is INCAPABLE of saying what a Bailout Protester on Wall Street said in a ten word protest sign: That President Bush, his Republican Party, and the complicit Democrats (who wouldn't know how to use a FILIBUSTER it their lives depended on it) HAVE RUN UP ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS - $11,000,000,000,000 - of DEBT that American taxpayers will have to pay, the complete, diametrical OPPOSITE of the "TAX CUTS" Mr. Bush has been BRAGGING ABOUT for the last decade, a MASSIVE GOVERNMENT DEBT that INCREASES by almost TWO BILLION DOLLAR PER DAY, from the interest alone - and that was BEFORE Mr. Bush's NEWEST round of TAXES FOR BAILOUTS for BILLIONAIRE wannabees!

Friday, September 19, 2008

ONE Simple Question for America's Sychophant Media Whores: IF John McCain WOULD CHANGE policies in future, WHICH policies SHOULD Bush have Changed??

ONE simple question illustrates America's MEDIA morons:

IF John McCain WOULD CHANGE policies in a future McCain administration; then
#1. WHICH CURRENT Bush-Cheney administration policies SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHANGED, or never brought to pass; and,

B. WHY didn't 26-year Republican SENATOR JOHN McCAIN OPPOSE THOSE bad, wrong, or ill-informed POLICIES MORE ACTIVELY in the past 8 years?

.....ESPECIALLY given McCain's role as one of the Keating-5 senators in the KEATING-FIVE SCANDAL, which access scandal was at the CORE of the US-economy GUTTING SAVINGS & LOAN scandal, the financial scandal that led DIRECTLY to the BUSH-1 DEFICITS, which in turn led to the BUSH-1 RECESSION???

Note: The BUSH-2 DEFICITS, and Bush-Cheney RECESSION, is a CARBON COPY, EXACT REPEAT, of the Bush-1 Deficits and Bush-1 Recession, brought about by PHIL GRAMM"s SAVINGS & LOAN DEREGULATION and INSIDER LOOTING of MILLIONS out of the nation's Savings & Loan and bank vaults, with INFLATED APPRAISALS, INSIDER LOANS, OVERSTATED ASSETS; and KEATING-FIVE PROTECTION from agressive state and federal audits!

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, THANK YOU for illustrating how SUPERFICIAL, cowering, and PATHETIC the American DO NOTHING BUT LIE "major Media" has been, that they can NOT even ask a question YOU WOULD EXPECT of a 9'th Grade "COMPARE & CONTRAST" social studies class!

(Note: there are 1,000 ONE-THOUSAND Right-Wing radio outlets in America; and far less than 10%, LESS-THAN-TEN-PERCENT "liberal" talk outlets to compete.


Note #2: THE BOOK that PREDICTED the Bush-2 RECESSION, and current financial institutions COLLAPSE:
INSIDE JOB: The LOOTING of AMERICA's SAVINGS & LOANS
,
by Moulo, Fricker, and Pizzo, 1989.
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Job-Looting-Americas-Savings/dp/0070502307
As the title implies, the S&L debacle of the 1980s was not an "accident" of home buyers making mistakes purchasing their homes; it was a PREMEDITATED effort, on the part of INSIDER BUSINESSMEN and bank executives, CONNECTED with the top tiers of both the Republican AND Democratic Party, who set out to make millions of dollars from GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED LOANS, writing themselves and their friends loans that WOULD FAIL, knowing the government would insure the losses.

Hence the $500 BILLION, in 1980s money, S&L Bailout debacle and subsequent Bush-1 DEFICITS, the DEFICITS that Ross Perot spent $12 MILLION of his own money (worth well over $25 million in today's dollars) EDUCATING AMERICANS about with his charts and twangy Texas drawl.

ALL THROUGH the 1990s, Republicans, big-business, and their media allies PUSHED the S&L debacle OUT of the news & financial coverage, substituting instead the soap-opera drama of hapless JIM McDOUGALs' Madison Guarantee S&L, which losses federal prosecutors, Ken Starr, and the New York Times and Washington Post were never able to state as costing more than $22 million. By comparison, Keating's LINCOLN SAVINGS & Loan lost TWO BILLION DOLLARS in taxpayer guaranteed funds; and President Bush's son Neil Bush's SILVERADO Savings & Loan based in Colorado COST TAXPAYERS ONE BILLION DOLLARS.

for more on the INSIDER nature of the S&L financial crash, and how "insiders" included both Democrats and Republicans, see "The CIA, the Mafia, and George Bush" (Sr.), which builds on the foundation of "INSIDE JOB", and in the introduction spells out that had the Democratic Dukakis-Bentson campaign won election 1988, the title of the book would have been "The CIA, the Mafia, and Lloyd Benston"

So Much for "FREEDOM" of press: Texas Gov. Perry CENSORS media overflights of Hurricane Ike devastated beach areas...

Media Obstruction in Galveston
Press denied access in the wake of Hurricane Ike
By Curtis Brainard
Thu 18 Sep 2008
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/media_obstruction_in_galveston.php?page=2

ABC News affiliate in Houston carried a video of investigative reporter Wayne Dolcefino confronting Texas [REPUGLICAN] governor Rick Perry about temporary “no-fly” zones for TV helicopters over parts of the Bolivar peninsula and west Galveston, the hardest hit areas. Later in the video, Dolcefino tells the ABC anchors:


After Katrina, we were able to go to Waveland, Mississippi, and Gulfport, and Biloxi, and places that were devastated, where there were, sadly, bodies on the road. Now that’s a horrible thing to see and a horrible thing to show, but people who live there, who have friends there, who have relatives there, have a fundamental right to know that stuff. They have a fundamental right to know, not just from the words of a politician or public official, but from the news media, which are independent of government and have also the responsibility of trying to help the public evaluate response…
We couldn’t get crews back on Galveston last night and this morning until we complained on the air for about twenty hours. And it’s not because we want to sightsee, guys, it’s because we have the responsibility of telling people… I made it as clear to [Gov. Perry] off camera as I did on camera that this is not going to be tolerated. You know, we hear about disasters in other countries—what was it, Burma, Myanmar—where they won’t let people in to see and you know, this is the state of Texas; this America. And we’re not trying to interfere with rescue and search operations, nor did anyone suggest we would be."
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/media_obstruction_in_galveston.php?page=2

Friday, August 29, 2008

AP _DROPPED_ by more US papers! Keith Olbermann DEMOLISHES _LYING_ report by AP "reporter" Charles Babbington that sneered at Obama speech

A duo of fantastic news:


#1. US papers, seeing profits fall like a stone in the Bush-2 Recession, are DROPPING the right-wing propaganda 'news' wire feed from AP 'News'!
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003840644

#2. Within a day or two of the story that more US papers are dropping AP, we see a textbook example of why: "Countdown" news show anchor Keith Olbermann, hosting much of MSNBC's coverage at the Democratic Primary Convention in Denver this past week, bashed AP 'news' 'reporter' CHARLES BABBINGTON's article on Senator Obama's acceptance speech as bearing no resemblence to the speech that fully FORTY MILLION AMERICANS tuned in to watch, to see IF American has a hope of digging itself out from the Bush-2 Recession and national security morass Bush, Cheney, Kark Rove, and the incompetent PNAC "WAR FIRST!" crew have gotten us in to over the past decade.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003844063
August 29, 2008 12:20 AM ET, NEW YORK - In an unusually heated attack on a veteran political reporter by a cable news host, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann laced into the Associated Press's Charles Babington an hour after Barack Obama had concluded his speech in Denver on Thursday night.

Olbermann was outraged that the AP's Babington had written, in his analysis of the speech, just off the wire, that Obama had tried nothing new and that his speech was lacking in specifics. He read the first few paragraphs on the air, lamented that it would be printed in hundred of newspapers on Friday, and concluded, "It is analysis that strikes me as having born no resemblance to the speech you and I just watched. None whatsoever. And for it to be distributed by the lone national news organization in terms of wire copy to newspapers around the country and web sites is a remarkable failure of that news organization.

"Charles Babington, find a new line of work."

Olberman even criticized the reporter on his time-keeping, noting that the article said the speech was 35 minutes long when it was, he said, actually 44 minutes long. A few minutes later, the AP copy showing up at news sites had been corrected to "44 minutes."

Even as Babington was hitting Obama for a lack of specifics, AP was transmitting a second piece by another reporter, Jim Drinkard, that offered a detailed look at seven specific policy proposals in the speech (and expressed doubts about all of them)


click here for E&P's original report on Keith Olbermann DEMOLISHING KNOCKING-OUT of Charles Babbington's misleading, outright LYING spin on the Democratic nominee's acceptance speech last night, including Babbington's misleading article in full - http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003844063

Saturday, August 16, 2008

AIPAC infested New York Times PROPAGANDA LIES re US military Insertion into Georgia war vs South Ossetia....

The New York Times / Joe Lieberman / AIPAC / Cheney / Bush Neo-Con WAR-MONGERING DICTATOR du jour cries... that AMERICA INSTIGATED HIM to ATTACK South Ossetia but did not back him up!








So much for the notion that America's Jewish community (much less Israel's right-wing imperialist Likudnik pro-wars hard-liners) supports peace, international cooperation, and democratic governments.

Here (reprinted bottom this post) Sean Madden examines the NEW YORK TIMES editorial agenda in WHITEWASHING America's role in INSTIGATING Georgia President Mikhel Saakashvili (a New York educated lawyer) to ATTACK SOUTH OSSETIA, in a Georgian military imperial attempt to assert control over a region it has had NO control for the past decade, because the ethnic Russians in South Ossetia REJECT Georgian dominance and rule.

Saakashvili WOULD NOT HAVE DREAMED of attacking South Ossetia - without CONSTANT and HIGH-LEVEL SUPPORT from the US government.

Saakashvili was practically crying, while standing next to US Secretary of Instigating-International-Wars Rice, that the US did NOT SUPPORT HIM as much as Rice and the Cheney-Bush administration had told him or led him to believe -

Even as Rice stood with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in a show of solidarity, he asked, "Who invited the trouble here? Who invited this arrogance here? Who invited these innocent deaths here?"

Shaky and near tears following a difficult, nearly five-hour meeting with her, Saakashvili answered his own question: "Not only those people who perpetrate them are responsible, but also those people who failed to stop it. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/15/georgia-signs-cease-fire_n_119174.html

This behind-the-scenes WAR-MONGERING by the Cheney-Bush administration has the OVERT SUPPORT of the Jewish-owned New York Times, which is LEADING the entire US national media/press corps, in LYING to the American people, in a constant PROPAGANDA DRUMBEAT towards ever expanding wars and US military operations overseas.


More links documenting the US government WAR MONGERING INSTIGATION of Saakashvili's dictatorial, skull-crushing government.... and the NAZI-esque NEW YORK TIMES WHITEWASHING of same....
#1. "Georgia REFORMS Judiciary" - sheer US propaganda-speak, for "American press/media SUPPORTS Saakashvili's CHARGES OF TREASON against opposition candidates, and CLOSED DOOR, secret, Soviet-esque trials for those in opposition to the regime that furthers America's war-mongering on Russia's doorstep...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0917/p07s02-woeu.html
(Note: this is a CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR _WHITEWASH_ of Saakashvili's SOVIET, KANGAROO, DICTATOR COURTS! (Masquerading as an article on "judicial reform"!)

#2. The Real Aggressor
Georgian invasion of South Ossetia sets the stage for a wider war
By AntiWar.com writer Justin Raimondo
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13285
#3. Raimondo repeats his "Georgia INVASION was UNPROVOKED" - specifically calling Saakashvili A WAR CRIMINAL - A politician's hubris causes untold human suffering
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13304

The Nazi-esque Times' LOVE for MURDEROURS, CORRUPT, but pro-American dictators is also suggested in this Harper's article on President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, which illustrates Bush administration glaring HYPOCRISY re corrupt, opposition killing dictators (and the Times' quiescent, tacit complicity in BushCo's Machiavellian Real-Politik.)
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/07/sb-a-corrupt-brutal-dictator-1152915051
Indeed, that former PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON personally befriended Nazarbayev, and negotiated a BILLION DOLLAR URANIUM CONTRACT for Clinton billionaire Canadian mining "donor" Frank Guistra - for which Clinton WAS PAID $31 MILLION
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html
as a DOWN-PAYMENT on a total $100 MILLION "donation" to Clinton's "charitable foundation" - is symptomatic of the inside-Washington DEMOCRAT's tendency towards BIG MONEY CORRUPTION.


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

All the Propaganda LIES That they Can Get Away with Printing:
The New York Times, Again, LIES THEIR WAR-MONGERING, ELECTION STEALING, TREASURY LOOTING Way to Journalistic INFAMY!

By Sean M. Madden
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20523.htm


The New York Times’ top story Thursday morning -- entitled "Bush, Sending Aid, Demands That Moscow Withdraw" -- leads with the following three propaganda-packed paragraphs:

President Bush sent American troops to Georgia on Wednesday to oversee a “vigorous and ongoing” humanitarian mission, in a direct challenge to Russia’s display of military dominance over the region. His action came after Russian soldiers moved into two strategic Georgian cities in what he and Georgian officials called a violation of the cease-fire Russia agreed to earlier in the day.

Mr. Bush demanded that Russia abide by the cease-fire and withdraw its forces or risk its place in “the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century.” It was his strongest warning yet of potential retaliation against Russia over the conflict.

The decision to send the American military, even on a humanitarian mission, deepened the United States’ commitment to Georgia and America’s allies in the former Soviet sphere, just as Russia has been determined to reassert its control in the area.
But the propaganda is already at work, before we even get to these lead paragraphs, within the headline itself, splashed as it is across the front page of America’s oft-called “newspaper of record,” along with the Gray Lady’s hundred-plus-year-old motto “All the News That’s Fit to Print”. The headline is accompanied, or vice versa, by a photograph of a “humanitarian aid” shipment being unloaded, we’re told, from a U.S. military cargo plane at an airport in Tbilisi, Georgia.

But to be sure that all concerned -- that is, we historical-fact-deprived Americans, you god-help-you Georgians, and the rest of “the free world” -- get the point at a glance, the U.S. State Department seal, apparently color-coordinated for the occasion, graces the side of the shipment.

As part of an all-out Western media campaign to bury the simple fact that Georgia invaded South Ossetia a week ago -- an act of aggression which led, subsequently, to Russia’s response -- Thursday’s NYT’s top headline helps to further instill the lie, at home and abroad, that Bush and the U.S government are truly concerned about the welfare of Georgians and human beings generally.

American and international readers are spoon-fed their daily dose of sanctioned thought within the very first sentence of the article. Bush, and by extension, the U.S. government and its military are not in Georgia to further U.S. (or the global elite’s) geopolitical interests.

Don‘t you dare think such a forbidden thought, the NYT goads its readers (of whom, on the whole, it can be said could do with a fair bit of goading to wake them from their psyop slumber).

Bush, the U.S. government and its military -- who, lest we forget, are guilty of murdering more than a million Iraqi civilians by way of their very own and very indisputable act of overt aggression, to say nothing of atrocities in Afghanistan or the ceaseless drumbeat toward a prefabricated war with Iran -- are in Georgia on a “humanitarian mission”.

A “vigorous and ongoing” one at that, should we have considered that it could be otherwise.

Gee whiz, what swell folk they are, off on a sticky humanitarian venture, risking life and limb for liberty and justice for all, when they could be vacationing during the final throes of summer. Worse yet, some of the American men and women deployed to Georgia may actually believe that they’re doing just that, risking life and limb (as they most certainly are) for liberty and justice for all.

Mike Whitney wrote the following in an article which headlined Wednesday’s Information Clearing House newsletter:

The attack was unprovoked and took place a full 24 hours before even ONE Russian soldier set foot in South Ossetia. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Americans still believe that the Russian army invaded Georgian territory first. The BBC, AP, NPR, the New York Times and the rest of the establishment media has consistently and deliberately misled its readers into believing that the violence in South Ossetia was initiated by the Kremlin. Let's be clear, it wasn't. In truth, there is NO dispute about the facts except among the people who rely the western press for their information. Despite its steady loss of credibility, the corporate media continues to operate as the propaganda-arm of the Pentagon.
Whitney’s article popped into my inbox at 1:35 BST (British Summer Time) Thursday morning. The New York Times daily headlines email arrived at 9:31, giving me time, first, to read, share and comment on (in correspondence) Whitney’s ICH article before coming upon the NYT’s daily dose.

But let’s return to those first three paragraphs and see if we can’t sift through the propaganda that the New York Times has the never-ending gall to heap upon its readers, despite or in continuation of its deep complicity in smoothing the way within the hearts and minds of the American people for the U.S. to wage its criminal war in Iraq, as it did in the lead up to the invasion of Afghanistan, as it has been doing with feverish abandon concerning Iran, and is doing now within the article at hand in order to provide pseudo-intellectual cover for U.S. aggression-by-proxy in the Caucasus.

President Bush sent American troops to Georgia on Wednesday to oversee a “vigorous and ongoing” humanitarian mission, in a direct challenge to Russia’s display of military dominance over the region.
The U.S. already had troops in Georgia, reportedly to train the Georgian military. Considered in this light, the first sentence of this NYT article is, at best, a half-truth, at worst, a lie of omission.

On July 15, Reuters reported (and MSNBC.com published, though the page has since “expired“) that “one thousand U.S. troops began a military training exercise in Georgia on Tuesday against a backdrop of growing friction between Georgia and neighbouring Russia.” The report continues: "The main purpose of these exercises is to increase the cooperation and partnership between U.S. and Georgian forces," Brigadier General William B. Garrett, commander of the U.S. military's Southern European Task Force, told reporters. This was reported on July 15, one month ago.

But this fact must be relegated to the memory hole. We are meant only to remember that U.S. forces are on a humanitarian mission and that Georgia was attacked, unprovoked, by Russia in a “display of military dominance over the region.” Never mind that U.S. forces did, in fact, invade and presently occupy both Iraq and Afghanistan in a display of military dominance. Russia, on the other hand, was meant to stand by as their citizens were being attacked and killed by Georgia military forces which General Garrett has told us were working in cooperation and partnership with U.S. forces in July.

Given this fine example of international cooperation and partnership, are even Americans and other gullible New York Times readers meant to swallow the obvious conclusion that Georgia would never have attacked South Ossetia without prior U.S. knowledge and approval?

His [Bush’s] action came after Russian soldiers moved into two strategic Georgian cities in what he and Georgian officials called a violation of the cease-fire Russia agreed to earlier in the day.
We’re meant to believe that Russian soldiers just decided, devoid of any cause whatsoever, to move into two Georgian cities. Russia, not Georgia, must be seen to be the aggressor. Not a hint of reality must be allowed to seep in and cause good ol’ American patriotic resolve to waver.

All must be black and white, even if what passes for black is, indeed, white or vice versa.

Mr. Bush demanded that Russia abide by the cease-fire and withdraw its forces or risk its place in “the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century.” It was his strongest warning yet of potential retaliation against Russia over the conflict.
Can even the New York Times, propaganda-arm-extraordinaire, print this with a straight face? Bush -- the million-plus-mass-murderer from Connecticut, I mean Crawford -- is pointing out to Russia that it is risking its place in the “the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century,” by which he can only mean the New World Order, the very nature of which the world’s citizens have observed throughout the Bush years (I and II) is nothing if not diabolical.

In closing, and in brief, let us take a look at the third paragraph in this New York Times piece:

The decision to send the American military, even on a humanitarian mission, deepened the United States’ commitment to Georgia and America’s allies in the former Soviet sphere, just as Russia has been determined to reassert its control in the area.

The New York Times now asserts -- in case we missed it being gently shoved down our throats the first time -- that only in retrospect did the U.S. decide to deepen its “commitment to Georgia and America’s allies in the former Soviet sphere”. A bald-faced lie if ever there was one.

But, note, this isn’t a U.S. official lying to the American public via the New York Times. No, this is the New York Times, itself, lying directly to its readers, worldwide, as it does day in and day out.

And, finally, the spoonful of sugar, to either help it go down or to make you regurgitate the whole:

“Even on a humanitarian mission.”

Sunday, August 03, 2008

CBS publishes NRO screed praising Rush Limbaugh - a perfect distillation of Right-Wing media Lies & propaganda...

For centuries and millennia, the Right-Wing agenda has been a simple one: relentless, ruthless, remorseless CONCENTRATION of Wealth & Power in the hands of the few, at the expense of the many.

For much of history, the ages of ancient god-kings, empires, and the more modern state-based kings whose "Divine Right" rule was confronted by the Declaration of Independence, the argument could be made that what was good for the ruler was good for the people, for without a strong army, a people, tribe or nation would be swept into submission (or even annhilation) by maurading armies of stronger, conquering empires. But WWI showed up the folly of huge nation-states being led into ever more murderous wars by hereditary rulers (the Kaiser and Czar's awful leadership led to deaths of millions of their men-at-arms, and at least the wester world embraced the notions of democratically elected goverments.

Unfortunately, deliberative democracy in Germany after WWI fell victim to the rise of modern media techniques of demagogue propaganda, radio, newsreels, and state run media of the Nazi party.

But in America we held to the belief that democracy worked, and that the media's #1. job was to INFORM American citizens, by holding the powerful accountable, so citizens could perform their duties of oversight over the government.

This NRO article by Rush Limbaugh flunkie (Limbaugh's official show global warming denier) Roy Spencer is a textbook example of how the Right-Wing media sees itself.

The administration and policies Limbaugh have supported have resulted in enormous TRILLION DOLLAR US DEFICITS, but Spence glosses over all that glibly, claiming Limbaugh has... "generated much more in new wealth for us all"!



20 Years Of Rush Limbaugh
National Review: The Mainstream Media Still Doesn't Get His Appeal
Comments 151
By Roy Spencer
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.
Aug. 1, 2008
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/01/opinion/main4313723.shtml

Follow conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh's many battles.
Stories
The Insider: Rush Limbaugh To Get $38M A Year
Did Rush Limbaugh Tilt Indiana?


(National Review Online) This column was written by By Roy Spencer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rush Limbaugh’s 20 years of masterminding a wildly successful syndicated radio talk show proves many things about America that the mainstream media just doesn’t seem to get.

We don’t want a steady stream of bad news all the time. We don’t need a daily dose of new crises to wring our hands over. And in a country with abundant opportunities for success - where your creativity and ambition not only benefit you, but benefit everyone else - we sure don’t need our politicians telling us that we need them in order to be successful in life.

What Rush Limbaugh has provided this country far exceeds his lucrative income, the result of what Rush calls “confiscatory advertising rates.” For every dollar he has earned over the years, his encouragement to millions of loyal Dittoheads has surely generated much more in new wealth for us all.

And, yes, that even means more wealth for those humorless do-gooders who are so concerned about humanity’s unsolved problems that they generously throw as much of your money at those problems as they can get their hands on. While they try to give away your fish to others so that they might have purpose in life, Rush encourages everyone to learn to fish for themselves.

Rush’s on-air talents are numerous, combining to provide a wonderful vibe three hours a day, five days a week, that we will probably never again experience in talk radio. He articulates those underlying truths of life of which we are only dimly aware, bringing them out in the open and discussing them in the context of the news of the day.

Many of us remember the first time we heard Rush as the moment when we finally found someone who was able to express the things that we were thinking. His humor is subtle, devious, cutting, clever.

Despite 15 hours of material each week, Rush’s enemies still have trouble finding anything he’s said to damage him on the public stage. And then, they only do so at their peril. When Harry Reid and 41 Democrat senators sent a letter of complaint to Clear Channel last October lambasting Limbaugh’s use of the term “phony soldiers,” Rush auctioned the letter on eBay for $2.1 million, personally matched that amount, and then sent the proceeds to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.

Later, on the floor of the senate, Reid surrendered and offered that he would have gotten even more signatures if he had known the good cause the letter would be used for. Rush wins again. Trying to claim that Rush does not support our troops is a little like calling Al Gore a global warming denier.

Rush’s knowledge is encyclopedic. His memory is nothing short of amazing - the secret of which he once confided in me . . . but which I dare not disclose.

A dinner and house guest of presidents, honorary member of the House of Representatives, friend to countless celebrities and CEOs, and now a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, one would think Rush’s ego would have long ago outrun his good sense. And to be sure, those whose knowledge of Rush only comes from rumors consider him a pompous blowhard.

But a couple of weeks of listening to The Rush Limbaugh Show will reveal Rush to be a gracious host. If callers do not clearly express themselves, he takes the time to understand what they are trying to say.

He makes even the worst phone calls work to advance the show. That’s how good he is. Rush suffers the most irritating of callers, and seldom loses his temper even though thousands of impatient listeners are likely yelling and throwing their lunches at their radios and computer speakers.

As someone who occasionally provides Rush with “late arriving show prep” during commercial breaks, I have been amazed at how quickly Rush can assimilate new material. In a matter of seconds he can change gears and launch into an impromptu ten-minute dissertation on some issue he had not planned on addressing that day.

Some on the Left think Rush needs to be balanced by one or more voices on the other end of the political spectrum. A few politicians are even floating the idea of resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine. While conservatives consider most of the news media in America as decidedly liberal, those working in the media believe that they are the ones who really represent mainstream America, and they want equal time.

Does the mainstream media have a liberal bias? How can anyone determine the truth in such a matter of personal perception? The question is easily answered. In the free market of ideas, a widespread demand for views that have little or no supply will result in a huge market for anyone who steps up to meet that demand. Rush’s show remains popular partly because he meets a need that is not being met elsewhere.

When Air America Radio tried to counter Rush’s conservative views on-air, they failed simply because the market was already saturated with liberal views - from the mainstream media. When supply exceeds demand, the value of those views plummets. In stark contrast, Rush just signed a new $400 million contract. This is clear evidence of a continuing demand for something that still does not have a sufficient supply.

And this is what most in the mainstream media do not get. Rush is America. Its ideals and aspirations, work ethic and patriotism. A people who would rather focus on all that is right with our country rather than complain about what is wrong.

And as long the old media continues to deny that reality, Rush will continue to rally the hearts and minds of the people who make this nation work.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He is author of the new book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor. He serves as official climatologist for The Rush Limbaugh Show.



By Roy Spencer
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Bill Kristol a one-man personification of 2,000+ years of 'anti-Semitism' -which is why the NY Times hired him to Pimp Neo-Con agenda & IRAN WAR...



HE'S AT IT AGAIN! Bill Kristol, the one-man walking personification of 2,000+ years of why there is anti-Semitism, suggests that, should Barak Obama win the election of 2008, President Bush would be MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BOMB IRAN, than if Republican John McCain were to win the election this November.

THE NOTION THAT CONGRESS, NOT the president, must determine if a state of war exists between the United States and another nation DOES NOT ENTER INTO Kristol's calculations.

That is, BILL KRISTOL, the ETERNALLY WRONG Jewish pro-war Fox "news" commentator, editor of the Weakly Standard, and founder and Chairman of the now-disgraced PNAC "NewAmericanCentury.org" think-tank, the think-tank that started advocating the bombing and invasion of Iraq way back in 1997 - that BILL KRISTOL EMBRACES THE NAZI GERMANY "FURHER" model of dictator government for the United States of America, with the President acting as Furher in time of war, with UNLIMITED POWERS TO EXPAND THOSE WARS, powers NOT bound or limited by the US Congress - and of course unlimited, no oversight POLICE STATE POWERS that are identical to those with which the GESTAPO (or KGB, or STAZI) grabbed "state enemies" and whisked them away to torture, indefinite detention, or execution.

Of course, BECAUSE Mr. Kristol is a walking poster-child for 2,000+ years of anti-Semitism, and BECAUSE he is WRONG about everything he has talked or written about in the past dozen years (besides getting George Bush and Dick Cheney to invade Iraq), and BECAUSE PNAC, NewAmericanCentury.org is such a disgraced organization that Mr. Kristol has stopped paying its web-hosting bill (click our link to see for yourself, how the once mighty PNAC site, with signatures from Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Donald Kagan, Norm Podhoretz and others, is now found only on the archive sites of other websites, as here.

- BECAUSE Mr. Kristol is chronically WRONG, because he is chronically ARROGANT, because he chronically DESPISES free and fair and verifiable elections in America, and because he supports an ever expanding, ever more MURDEROUS WAR MACHINE and police state powers - precisely BECAUSE of those awful reasons, ARTHUR SULZBERGER, the owner and publisher of the NEW YORK TIMES, has HIRED Mr. Kristol to write for the Times!

Far from a "liberal media" organization, the NEW YORK TIMES is a facist 'news' organization with NAZI-esque OVERTONES - the Jewish "heritage" of Mr. Sulzberger and the majority of his writers and editors not-withstanding, the Times is a decidedly PRO-WAR, pro-police-state-powers organization which not only apologizes for the Lies-to-war of the Bush administration, but acted as a willing participant and megaphone in broadcasting many of those lies in a run-up to the unilateral attack, invasion, and astonishingly corrupt US occupation of Iraq.

Oldie but baddie: Kristol suggests that if American children come down with illnesses, but do not have health insurance, they should JUST GO AHEAD and DIE already -

"WHENEVER I HEAR ABOUT A HEARTLESS ASSAULT ON AMERICA's SCHOOLCHILDREN, I TEND TO THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA" (chuckles)

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Even the Inveterate Liars at the New York Times report accurately - - if you wait patiently enough, and read carefully.

Even the lying NEW YORK TIMES must report accurately every so often. According to HuffPost contributor Robert Naiman, Mr. Bush's latest foray into international doublespeak is no more, and no less, than a fig leaf over the Bush administration's PLANS TO EXPAND THE US WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, with a NAVAL BLOCKADE of Iran.

<< Who is the audience for this "show" [President Bush's fake "generous offer" to Iran]? People who don't read the New York Times, apparently. These people will be told that "all efforts at dialogue" have been exhausted and there is no alternative to "other punitive moves against Iran that could be taken by a 'coalition of the willing' outside the United Nations":


[Mr. Naiman quotes the Times story directly:]
"Officials would not provide details, but analysts suggest those could include a naval embargo of the Persian Gulf or the refusal to supply Western-made technology required for Iran's oil industry, creating bottlenecks in Iran's oil production."


[Naiman continues:]
For those scoring at home, A NAVAL EMBARGO WOULD BE AN ACT OF WAR. If undertaken "outside the United Nations" -- i.e. without the authorization of the UN Security Council -- it would be a war crime. If you don't think Iran would retaliate for this act of war, or that it doesn't have effective means of doing so, then you are, as John McCain might say, "naïve and inexperienced."

Once again a FALSE CHOICE is placed before the world -- the FAKE DIPLOMACY of the Bush administration, or war. Are there no other alternatives? >>

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


NYT Exposes the Fraud of Bush "Generous Offer" to Iran
by Robert Naiman
17 June 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/nyt-exposes-fraud-of-gene_b_107569.html

Who says America doesn't have a free press?

Everything you know about the world will be reported by the New York Times -- eventually.

You just have to be very patient -- and read very carefully.

On Sunday, the New York Times reported that President Bush "accused" Iran of rejecting a new set of incentives to stop enriching uranium. "I am disappointed that the leaders rejected this generous offer out of hand," Bush said.

Of course, Iran didn't reject it "out of hand," as the article goes on to explain:

Tehran did not formally reject the offer... Mr. Mottaki [Iran's Foreign Minister] said that Iran's response would depend on how the West responded to Iran's May 13 proposal calling for international talks on all issues and improved international inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities.
Nor was it true that President Bush was disappointed:

The French and Americans presumed in advance that their new proposal of incentives ... would be brushed aside by Tehran, officials and diplomats said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
[Presumably, "sensitivity of the issue" means "because they are not supposed to be quoted on the record saying that the 'diplomatic' initiative is a charade."]

So, in the space of thirteen words, President Bush managed to lie (at least) twice.

Was it a "generous offer"? That of course is a matter of perspective. Iran is being offered a package of economic incentives to give up what Iranians -- not just the government, but Iranians generally -- regard as a fundamental right -- mastery of the technology to enrich uranium. As Iran's UN Ambassador told the Boston Globe on May 31, "This has become an issue of national pride." As the NYT notes, the same deal was offered in the past, and Iran rejected it.

Regardless of whether anyone in Washington agrees that Iran has the right to enrich uranium, it is an objective fact that Iranians generally, not just the government, believe that Iran has the right to enrich uranium.

In April, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland published a poll of Iranian public opinion. PIPA found that 81% of Iranians consider it "very important" for "Iran to have a full-fuel-cycle nuclear program" which would give Iran the capacity to produce nuclear fuel for energy production. Four out of five. Only 5% think Iran should not pursue a full-fuel-cycle program.

So, the United States and its allies made a proposal for Iran to give up something that four out of five Iranians consider to be "very important." The United States and its allies expected Iran to reject the "offer," as it has in the past.

Why the charade? The NYT explains:

But Mr. Bush and the Europeans who formally made the offer want to show that all efforts at dialogue are being taken.
So, "all efforts at dialogue" means restating a proposal that the government of Iran has already rejected -- and which Iran is expected, by those making the proposal, to reject again -- to give up something that four in five Iranians say is "very important."

Who is the audience for this "show"? People who don't read the New York Times, apparently. These people will be told that "all efforts at dialogue" have been exhausted and there is no alternative to "other punitive moves against Iran that could be taken by a 'coalition of the willing' outside the United Nations":

"Officials would not provide details, but analysts suggest those could include a naval embargo of the Persian Gulf or the refusal to supply Western-made technology required for Iran's oil industry, creating bottlenecks in Iran's oil production."
For those scoring at home, a naval embargo would be an act of war. If undertaken "outside the United Nations" -- i.e. without the authorization of the UN Security Council -- it would be a war crime. If you don't think Iran would retaliate for this act of war, or that it doesn't have effective means of doing so, then you are, as John McCain might say, "naïve and inexperienced."

Once again a false choice is placed before the world -- the fake diplomacy of the Bush administration or war. Are there no other alternatives?

The same PIPA poll found that 58% of Iranians support the idea of making a deal with the UN Security Council that would allow Iran to have a full-cycle nuclear program while giving the International Atomic Energy Agency "permanent and full access throughout Iran to ensure that its nuclear program is limited to energy production" and not producing nuclear weapons. PIPA notes that in a March 2008 poll for the BBC World Service 55% of Americans approved of such a deal.

Indeed, in its May 13 proposal -- which the NYT dismisses in a phrase by noting that it "does not mention the key Western demand -- that Iran stop enriching uranium," Iran proposed "international talks on all issues and improved international inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities."

Furthermore, as the Boston Globe reported May 31, Iran's UN Ambassador said Iran "would consider establishing an internationally owned consortium inside Iran that could produce nuclear fuel with Iranian participation."

As the Boston Globe noted on June 10, "Thomas Pickering, the US ambassador to the United Nations under President George H.W. Bush, endorsed the idea of such a consortium in a March article in the New York Review of Books." And the plan is "getting increased interest from senior members of both parties in Congress and nonproliferation specialists":

Senators Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, and Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, have said publicly that the plan should be explored.
Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat, went further, calling the plan "a creative, thoughtful, and productive potential solution."



And Joseph Cirincione, a "nonproliferation specialist who serves informally as an adviser to Obama's campaign," says the idea is "worth exploring."

So there is an alternative. But you wouldn't know it from the "show."

If you think Congress should be pressing for real diplomacy with Iran, you can ask them to do so here.


More in Media...

Sunday, June 15, 2008

The sleazly, traitorous, ChickenHawk Liars at FOX 'news" ENDANGER AMERICAN LIVES.....

Buzzflash.com Editor Mark Karlin "GETS IT RIGHT": FOX 'news', the right-wing PROPAGANDA MEGAPHONE for Australian tycoon RUPERT MURDOCH, is a DANGER to American democracy, and thus to America's national security and international security as well.

What should be remembered is, the Neo-Cons who Murdoch and his "news" division flunkie, Roger Ailes, hire and give so much broadcast time to - Chickenhawk liars such as BILL KRISTOL, SEAN HANNITY, and BILL O'REILLY - are CONTEMPTUOUS of international NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATIES, which is why the world has seen a RASH OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION since George W. Bush and Dick Cheney stole the White House, aided by Mr. Murdoch, who hired Bush cousin JOHN ELLIS to.. CALL THE FLORIDA vote, and thereby the 2000 election, for his cousin, GEORGE W. BUSH!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/nov/19/uselections2000.usa2


The TRAITORS at FOX 'news' believe INTIMIDATION and PROPAGANDA should at all times TRUMP FREE, FAIR, and VERIFIABLE ELECTIONS.... the original sin of the disaster for America that is the past 8 years of the Bush-Cheney administration.
===================================

How FOX News Endangers My Life!

by Mark Karlin Editor and Publisher
June 15, 2008
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/096


The FOX Propaganda Network endangers my life -- and yours.

How else can you explain that a White House adminsitration and Republican Party who have squandered hundreds of billions of dollars, countless lives, and a war longer than WW II -- and we haven't even caught Osama bin Laden?

The FOX Propaganda Network isn't set up to help save America from terrorists; it's the "Tokyo Rose" of television networks, set up to save the Republican plutocrats from the wrath of the voters who might otherwise realize the sheer and utter incompetence of Bush, Cheney and the GOP in dealing with terrorism.

Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin and the entire multi-million dollar compensated on-air talents are traitors because their job is to protect the back and flank of the GOP, not to protect America.

And that is what puts my life at risk -- and yours.

Sean Hannity is no patriot. He is an oleaginous, slicked up car salesman chickenhawk who has sold America and us down the river for his paycheck.

One of the charecteristics that we are most proud of about America is our ingenuity, our tenaciousness, our resilience.

Yet, the FOX Propaganda Network has spent the last years supporting moribund, stone headed, unwavering failure.

If you think being a chronic loser is patriotic, then FOX is the station for you, because that's what it backs. That's not patriotic; it's contrary to what made America great.

What made America great is competence and ingenuity, not slavish dedication to the architects of defeat.

FOX is a traitor in our midst. Yes, they have their First Amendment rights, and no one is going to deny Sean Hannity his $40,000 plus speaking fees and private jet transportation.

But they should be shunned for the risk they help to create to all our lives by endlessly championing dolts, proven liars, and leaders who turn gold into cow dung.

All FOX proves in its propaganda angle is that a few thousand hearty potential terrorists, at most, have held the world's strongest power at bay for years, while ruining our economy with onerous and ineffectual war expenses, helping to weaken the dollar, drive up the price of oil, and, in turn, helping to cause a world food crisis and more.

It used to be the American way that if you couldn't do the job, you got out of the way or got fired.

But the fat paycheck propagandists at FOX now tell us that mediocrity and failure define the new American patriotism -- that and an American flag lapel pin made in China.

God have mercy on their souls -- and let's hope that we can survive the glorification that FOX gives to losers who imperil our lives.

We need an America that proves itself by getting the job done; not by relying on Roger Ailes GOP propaganda talking points to divert the masses from people who have utterly failed them.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

US corporate media reprises its Goebbelsesque Lies-to-War abject corruption: 58 PERMANENT BASES IN IRAQ story given NO media coverage










The US media is now in full JOSEPH GOEBBELS mode: "We CONQUERED POLAND fair and square, and there is no way in 10,000 years that it will not become a permanent part of the Greater American Reich."

As to the thousands of Iraqis who are not too happy to have this American neo-colonialism shoved down their throats by Blackwater bullets and USAF/Navy bombs, well, the Washington Cowardly Post and the New York Lying Sulzberger-owned Times have an answer for them: "YOU DON'T COUNT, your miserable hides are worth no more of our concern than some _______ victim being marched off to oblivion."

"Don't forget... what we did to Fallujah we would LOVE to do to every other city and town in Iraq!"

(Oldie but baddie: ARTHUR SULZBERGER's NEW YORK lying TIMES publishes house columnist WILLIAM SAFIRE's calls for - - - "PACIFICATION" of Fallujah, (Warsaw ghetto fashion?), April 7, 2007
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E6DD1738F934A35757C0A9629C8B63

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

US Wants 58 Bases In Iraq, Shiite Lawmakers Say

June 9, 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/40372.html

McClatchy reports the U.S. is demanding 58 military bases in Iraq as part of a "status of forces" agreement that would allow American troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely:

Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."



The proposed "status of forces" agreement could lead to an uprising in Iraq, according to a leading Iraqi cleric:

A leading Iraqi Shiite cleric said Monday the status of forces agreement between Washington and Baghdad could lead to an uprising in Iraq.

"It is not to the benefit of the U.S. as a major power to lessen the sovereignty of Iraq. This treaty is humiliating to the Iraqi people, and might cause an uprising against it and those who support it," Grand Ayatollah Mohammad al-Modarresi told the Iranian state-run English-language service, Press TV.

Modarresi said the strategic framework between Iraq and the United States needs a full understanding of the situation in Iraq before negotiations on the arrangement proceed. "It will surely fail if kept as it is," he said.

Saturday, June 07, 2008

Even the "major" corporate media forced to acknowledge: America taken to war in Iraq on a chorus of lies....

Even American 'major media' and Congress forced to admit: The US invasion and occupation of Iraq was brought about by a premeditated chorus of LIES from the Bush-Cheney-Rove-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Libby White House and Dept. of Defense....
by Dave Lindorff
Fri, 06/06/2008
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/lindorff/107


The last couple of weeks have brought confirmation -- as if it were needed -- even in the corporate media that President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the gang of thugs and sycophants around them in the White House, engaged in a massive conspiracy to lie the country into a war in Iraq.

The release of a confessional book by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan and the subsequent release of a long blocked report by the Senate Intelligence Committee make it clear that Bush, Cheney, & Company deliberately lied to Congress and the American public back in 2002 and early 2003 about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein (there was none). McClellan also states that Bush and Cheney conspired to "out" CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame Wilson, as part of a campaign to prevent her husband from exposing a major part of that campaign of lies: the claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking to build nuclear weapons.

It would be hard to overstate the extent of or the damage caused by these crimes that are now exposed to the light of day.

Beginning in 2001, making the most cynical use of the tragic killing of nearly 3,000 Americans in the 9-11 attacks, Bush and Cheney moved to aggrandize as much power as possible in the executive branch, and then to consolidate that power grab, engineered a full-scale war against Iraq, enabling them to claim that any opponent of their dictatorial usurpation of power was a traitor to the nation.

It was all a lie.

Saddam Hussein had no links to Al Qaeda, and he had no nuclear program. He had no weapons of mass destruction. His country was broken, thanks to years of international sanctions and war.

As a result of these lies, we have a country that no longer even remotely resembles what the Founders had intended. The Congress has been shorn of its once exclusive authority to legislate, and even its Constitutional power to investigate the executive branch has been successfully defied. It is now an atrophied relic. The federal judiciary, right up to the Supreme Court, has been packed with administration sycophants and Federalist Society advocates of unfettered executive power.

We also have been saddled with an unwinnable war in the Middle East that has claimed the lives of 4,500 Americans, destroyed the lives of another 30,000 -- or perhaps several hundred thousand, if we add in all those suffering psychological damage, or genetic damage from exposure to depleted uranium weapons. That war has also killed over 1 million innocent Iraqis, including countless children, destroyed their country, bankrupted this nation, and made the U.S. a pariah and a rogue state in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Most Americans long since came to the conclusion that the Bush Administration was a gang of idiots. Just watching their handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster unfold was enough to make that clear. But the new reports from McClellan and from the Senate Intelligence Committee should make it clear that this was not just stupidity. The disasters that have befallen this nation, or that it has brought on the rest of the world, over the past eight years have been the result of deliberate lying and deceit and of the conspiratorial policies of a cabal of leaders whose goal from day one was undoing the Constitution and establishing the presidency as a kind of dictatorship.

Most of the corporate media have been unable to bring themselves to state this clearly. They edge around the issue by talking about the White House having been "misleading" or "untruthful." And little is said about the lasting damage that has been done to the Republic and the Constitution, or about what is to be done about a still bloody war that never should have been fought in the first place.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

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.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

"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....




Tuesday, May 20, 2008

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