Bolivia's army declares itself 'socialist'

Foreign Beat Comments Off

Nov 292010

Ah, what a world it would be if the Pentagon did the same


The commanding general of Bolivia's army has declared the Andean nation's forces "socialist," "anti-capitalist," and "anti-imperialist," positions that were immediately echoed by President Evo Morales, Bolivia's first indigenous president.
________
November 18, 2010 | [print_link]
     Gen. Antonio Cueto made the statements Sunday at a ceremony marking the army's 200th anniversary. Cueto said Bolivia's 2009 constitution allows the army to "emerge as a socialist, communitarian institution," according to the EFE news agency (links in Spanish).
     "We declare ourselves anti-imperialist because in Bolivia there can exist no external power imposing itself," Cueto said. "We also declare ourselves anti-capitalist because this system is destroying Mother Earth."
Morales, who attended the ceremony using crutches because of recent knee surgery, agreed, saying, "History proves that the army was born with an anti-imperialist position because it's been combating the European empire since 1810." (Link in Spanish.)
     Cueto also said Bolivia would never allow a foreign military to establish bases within its territory, making an indirect reference to a stalled plan in Colombia to allow the U.S. armed forces to use bases there. Cueto's words drew criticism and rebuke from former military leaders, reported La Razon, a daily in Bolivia (link in Spanish). One former commander and current opposition senator said the general was taking a partisan position, and therefore was in violation of the Constitution.
     The chief of Bolivia's national police, meanwhile, said this week that his agency would remain "apolitical," EFE reported.
-- Daniel Hernandez in Mexico City

Did you like this? Share it:

On Korea, Here We Go Again

ANNOTATED NEWS, CITIZEN TOOLS, Policies & Politicians, THE USA Comments Off

Nov 292010

By Robert Parry | November 24, 2010 | [print_link]

If American journalism should have learned one thing over the years, it is to be cautious and skeptical during the first days of a foreign confrontation like the one now playing out on the Korean Peninsula. Often the initial accounts from the “U.S. side” don’t turn out to be entirely accurate.


While you can delve back through history for plenty of examples, today’s U.S. journalists might remember events like the Gulf of Tonkin clash that opened the door to the disastrous Vietnam War and the misplaced certainty about Iraq’s WMD that led to a bloody U.S. invasion and occupation.
In both cases, contrary claims from the "enemy side" were discounted and mocked as U.S. journalists puffed out their chests and waved the flag.
BELOW: Defensive propaganda by North Korea, a nation almost universally vilified among those who follow Washington's lead. 
   Today's Korean crisis over an exchange of artillery fire between North Korea and South Korea is similar. Though the evidence is that South Korea fired first, you wouldn’t know that if you’ve been watching most U.S. news shows and reading the major newspapers, which have laid the blame squarely at the doorstep of North Korea.
   To get an inkling of the actual chronology, you'd have to read between the lines or carefully examine a graphic published in the New York Times. Along with a map of the conflict zone, the Times included this notation: “South Korea had been firing test shots from Baengnyeong Island, according to a South Korean official.”
   But you wouldn’t find much about that fact in the accompanying news articles. Instead, the Times, like other major U.S. news outlets, offered up ready-made narratives for the crisis – that North Korea was acting in an aggressive and provocative manner to shake down the international community for more aid, or to solidify the power of the ruling family, or some other self-serving reason.
BELOW RIGHT: Making fun of North Korean rulers is a long tradition in the West. Here Kim Jong Il rides Dr Strangelove's missile to ultimate doom.
   And, who knows? There might be some truth to that. However, it’s also possible, as the North Koreans have stated, that they were reacting to what they interpreted as an unprovoked barrage by the South Korean military from an island only a few miles off the North Korean coast.
In a backhanded way, the New York Times lead editorial does acknowledge this possibility, although the article mostly parrots the conventional wisdom about North Korean recklessness and the failure of China to rein in its dangerous neighbor.
   “On Tuesday,” the Times wrote, China “was still in denial. After the [North Korean] shelling [of a South Korean military base], China called only for a resumption of six-party nuclear talks.”
   However, the Times editorial then notes that  the North Korean “attack on Yeonpyeong Island occurred after South Korean forces on exercises fired test shots into waters near the North Korean coast. We hope South Korea’s president is asking who came up with that idea. But the North should have protested, rather than firing on a populated area.”
   So, at least the Times marginally acknowledges a competing narrative, that the ever-paranoid North Koreans interpreted a barrage against their shoreline as a provocation that merited a muscular response directed against a South Korean military base.
   Still, for the most prominent newspaper in the United States, a country that has repeatedly invaded and bombed other nations and killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of their inhabitants, isn't it a bit hypocritical to lecture a small country about how it should respond to an enemy firing at it?
Double Standards
But such is the never-ending disconnect between the U.S. news media’s righteous indignation about what adversarial countries do and what the United States and its allies do.
   The U.S. government, with its vast nuclear arsenal, leaves “all options on the table” when discussing how to confront fledgling nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran (which denies it even wants nuclear weapons). Meanwhile, Washington refuses to acknowledge that its ally, Israel, is a full-blown rogue nuclear state with a sophisticated and undeclared nuclear arsenal of its own.
   So, instead of anything approaching “objectivity,” the U.S. news media dishes out selective outrage. And those double standards were out in force regarding the latest Korean crisis.

The neoconservative Washington Post was back in full belligerency mode with a lead editorial urging a stern response against North Korea. Unlike the Times, which at least acknowledged the South Korean provocation, the Post saw only a black-and-white scenario, with South Korea wearing the white hat and the North the black hat.
   The Post’s editorial-page editors behaved much the same during the run-up to war with Iraq, stating as undisputed fact the existence of Iraq’s non-existent WMD programs. After the invasion – and the failure to find the WMD – Post’s editorial page editor Fred Hiatt noted in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review in 2004:
   “If you look at the editorials we write running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass destruction. If that’s not true, it would have been better not to say it.”
But Hiatt, who remains in the same job more than six years later, was back doing the same thing on Wednesday in connection with another country from George W. Bush’s “axis of evil.”
“North Korea’s artillery attack against a South Korean island Tuesday was the latest and arguably most reckless in a series of provocations by its Stalinist regime,” the Post editors wrote, also citing as flat fact that the North had “torpedoed a South Korean warship, killing 46 sailors” earlier this year,  a charge North Korea denies.
   The Post continued: “Now comes the shelling of an area populated by civilians as well as South Korean troops, two of whom were killed. This blatantly criminal act will have the probably intended effect of forcing the Obama administration to pay attention to a regime it has mostly ignored. But it should not lead to the economic and political bribes dictator Kim Jong Il has extracted in the past.
“It's hard to know what is motivating Pyongyang's behavior; experts offer varying explanations even while conceding they don't know much.
BELOW RIGHT: The supposed nuclear threat represented by North Korea continues to be a staple of US propaganda against the Pyongyang government.
 
   “Some say Mr. Kim is creating an atmosphere of crisis to help smooth a transition of power to his son. Others contend the regime is hoping to force the lifting of U.S. sanctions and the resumption of international aid, which has dwindled since Mr. Kim failed to fulfill a nuclear disarmament agreement.”
   The Post makes no reference to the possibility that North Korea simply overreacted to what it saw as an attack from the South. Nor has the Post ever acknowledged that President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq -- endorsed by the Post and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis -- was a "blatantly criminal act."
A Hard Line
While urging the Obama administration to take an especially hard line today, the Post criticized prior administrations for granting North Korea “political and economic concessions in exchange for promises of disarmament. In each case, Mr. Kim pocketed the benefits but refused either to fully disclose or to irreversibly dismantle his nuclear weapons and missiles.”
   The Post, however, has never been known to criticize Israel for pocketing billions of dollars in U.S. aid – and counting on unwavering U.S. political support – without ever disclosing or dismantling its array of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, which are far more sophisticated than North Korea’s.
BELOW: The people of North Korea have paid dearly for their independence from Washington's dictates. And the constant threat of war and invasion by the US/South Korea have forced a huge redeployment of this poor nation's resources to self-defense, a situation similar to Cuba's.
   Instead, the Post was again applying double standards, again beating the war drums. It called on the Obama administration to “make clear … that the United States is prepared to help South Korea defend itself from attack.”
   The Post also demanded more sanctions on North Korea and more pressure on China. “The United States and its allies should hold Beijing responsible for putting a stop to Mr. Kim's dangerous behavior,” the Post declared.
   However, before the war rhetoric gets completely out of control again – and creates another political dynamic that leads toward a bloody escalation – perhaps the U.S. news media should reflect for a moment on all the other times the American press corps has let itself and the country be stampeded into a dangerous misunderstanding of an international incident.
_______________________________
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.  
________
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/112410.html

Did you like this? Share it:

New WikiLeaks documents expose US foreign policy conspiracies

ANNOTATED NEWS, THE USA, US Foreign Policy Comments Off

Nov 292010


By David Walsh  29 November 2010 | [print_link]
______________________
The batch of 250,000 US classified documents released by WikiLeaks to several news outlets, some of whose content was made public Sunday, sheds new light on the sordid nature of American imperialist intrigue and conspiracy around the globe.
     The WSWS will analyze the documents more thoroughly in a subsequent article, but “highlights” published by the Guardian and the New York Times are revealing.
     The leaked material consists of classified cables from US embassies, some dispatched as recently as early 2010. The cables, most of which date from 2007-2010, contain US officials’ comments on foreign governments and leaders and speculation about the activities and maneuvers of the latter, as well as details about American foreign policy operations.
    In a revelation that should surprise no one, the US State Department and American diplomacy in general turn out to be a vast nest of spies.
    The Guardian explains that the WikiLeaks documents “reveal how the US uses its embassies as part of a global espionage network, with diplomats tasked to obtain not just information from the people they meet, but personal details, such as frequent flyer numbers, credit card details and even DNA material.
     “Classified ‘human intelligence directives’ issued in the name of Hillary Clinton or her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, instruct officials to gather information on military installations, weapons markings, vehicle details of political leaders as well as iris scans, fingerprints and DNA.”
     The British newspaper reports that Washington’s “most controversial target was the leadership of the United Nations.” One of the leaked directives requests “the specification of telecoms and IT systems used by top UN officials and their staff and details of ‘private VIP networks used for official communication, to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, personal encryption keys.’” In response, a UN spokesperson discreetly commented, “We are aware of the reports.”
     Among other revelations: Officials from numerous Arab regimes have repeatedly urged the US to bomb Iran and destroy its nuclear program. The Financial Times, based on the documents, reports: “The Saudi ambassador to Washington … spoke to General David Petraeus, then incoming central command chief, in April 2008 about King Abdullah’s ‘frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran.’”
     The reactionary Arab states “fear a nuclear-armed Iran would make it the undisputed superpower in the region, particularly at a time when the power of their own ally, the US, has receded.”
     Moreover, notes the Financial Times, “The leaks will reinforce suspicions that Israel is considering an attack on Iranian facilities. According to reports of the cables, Ehud Barak, the defence minister, warned in 2009 that the world had six to 18 months to deal with Iran’s nuclear programme.”
     The new WikiLeaks exposé also reveals that the US has been trying since 2007 “to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device.” (New York Times) For its part, the Pakistani regime is fearful that if the media were to get word of the fuel removal, they would portray it as the US taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
     The New York Times reports this gem as well: “When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of ‘Let’s Make a Deal.’ Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be ‘a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.’”
     US officials were thoroughly aware of the deep-going corruption of the Afghan government, the documents reveal. The Times reports that United Arab Emirates officials discovered that Afghan vice president Ahmed Zia Massoud was carrying $52 million in cash when he tried to enter that country last year. According to one of the cables, Massoud “was ultimately allowed to keep [the money] without revealing [its] origin or destination.”
     The US government is outraged that the world’s population is getting a glimpse into its dirty operations. In a deeply hypocritical statement, the White House issued a statement Sunday denouncing WikiLeaks for its “reckless and dangerous action.” The press release claimed that WikiLeaks had “put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals [named in the documents].”
     On the eve of the new release of documents, the US State Department wrote WikiLeaks a threatening letter, claiming that making the material publicly available was illegal and would “place at risk the lives of countless individuals.” The November 28 letter also asserted, without providing any proof, that the leaks would “place at risk on-going military operations,” and “place at risk on-going cooperation between countries.”
     On Sunday afternoon, WikiLeaks reported that its web site had been compromised. “We are currently under a mass distributed denial of service attack,” WikiLeaks said on its Twitter page. A DDOS attack is an attempt to make a given web site unavailable to the public, usually by flooding it with requests for data.
     The State Department letter, signed by legal adviser Harold Hongju Koh, was addressed to WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange and the latter’s lawyer, Jennifer Robinson. Assange and Robinson had written to Louis B. Susman, US ambassador to the United Kingdom, asking which individuals would be put at risk by the new disclosures and apparently offering limited redactions.
     In his reply, Koh asserted that “We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials.” The State Department official’s letter has two indignant references to the “violation of U.S. law” involved in the documents being provided to WikiLeaks and that organization’s holding and publishing them.
     The analogy hardly does justice to the present situation, but Koh’s effort might be likened to a Mafia hit man writing to an eyewitness of a mob slaying and complaining bitterly about his or her upcoming testimony. The US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are criminal and murderous on a massive scale. WikiLeaks not only has the legal right, it has the moral obligation to do anything in its power to disrupt these bloody operations. It is to the everlasting shame of the mainstream media that it has not exerted any of its efforts along the same lines.
Washington attempted to weaken the impact of the WikiLeaks material by leaking its own story in regard to the material in the middle of last week. US officials and diplomats, including Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, have been scurrying about the past few days, attempting to alert and reassure some of the governments and leaders referred to in the documents.
    By video link from an undisclosed location on Sunday, Assange (right) told reporters that “The material that we are about to release covers essentially every major issue in every country.” The WikiLeaks founder faces trumped up sexual assault charges in Sweden.
     Among the apparent revelations not yet to appear in the Guardian or the Times, which are releasing the material piecemeal, is that the US has for years supported the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Turkey, an organization that both Washington and Ankara have placed on their lists of “terrorist” groups.
     Deborah Guido, spokeswoman for the US embassy in Ankara, told the media that the American government’s policy “has never been nor will ever be in support of the PKK. Anything that implies otherwise is nonsense.” Turkish commentators were more inclined to believe the report.
___________
MEHMET YEGIN, an expert at the Center for American Studies at the USAK research organization, suggested, according to the English-language version of the Turkish newspaperHurriyet, “that U.S. support for the PKK could have been a result of Turkey’s decision in 2003 not to allow the United States to enter Iraq through Turkish soil.”
Some of the more sensitive material yet to be published involves the US-UK relationship. The US diplomatic cables reportedly include scathing remarks about British operations in Afghanistan and Prime Minister David Cameron. The Daily Mail in Britain reports: “The documents include highly damaging and embarrassing communiques from U.S. embassies around the world, especially from London--revealing the truth behind the so-called ‘special relationship’ between the U.K. and the U.S.
     “The U.S. ambassador to London made an unprecedented personal visit to Downing Street [the British prime minister’s residence] to warn that whistleblower website WikiLeaks was about to publish secret assessments of what Washington really thinks of Britain.”
     The global diplomatic crisis triggered by the WikiLeaks documents speaks to the extremely volatile international situation and the number of flashpoints, which do not require much fuel to be ignited.
     Furthermore, that a small organization with a computer bank and sympathizers within the US military and intelligence apparatus can wreak such havoc is testimony to the decline of American imperialism and the chaos and disorientation that characterize its daily activities. The US foreign policy establishment lurches from one improvised and violent plan to the next, resentful and fearful of foes and “friends” alike.
DAVID WALSH is a senior political and cultural analyst with the World Socialist Web Site.
Copyright © 1998-2010 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved
__________________
BONUS FEATURE
What the criminal Empire and its minions would want (and may do soon enough)—
SOURCE: The scumbag rightwing site NEWSMAX, which specializes in presenting the truth upside down.

King: WikiLeaks Should Be Declared Terrorists


 

Monday, 29 Nov 2010

WikiLeaks, the group that released the sensitive documents on U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic policy, may end up causing the deaths of Americans and our allies through its actions. So it stands to reason that the government must do something to punish the organization. Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee calls for a strong response, The Hill reports. 






 


 


 


 


 


 
"I am calling on the attorney general and supporting his efforts to fully prosecute WikiLeaks and its founder for violating the Espionage Act. And I'm also calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare WikiLeaks a foreign terrorist organization," King told 1010 WINS radio in New York. "By doing that, we will be able to seize their funds and go after anyone who provides them help or contributions or assistance whatsoever," King explains. "To me, they are a clear and present danger to America."

Did you like this? Share it:

Dr. J.'s BF Commentary No. 158: Airbrushing Bush, and Why

COLUMNS, Steven Jonas 1 Response »

Nov 292010

BY STEVEN JONAS | [print_link]


While President, Ronald Reagan did the following:
•	Firmly established racism as the center of the modern Republican electoral strategy, confirming that the Nixon "Southern Strategy" of 1968 would be permanently ensconced there;
•	Firmly established anti-choice as the Republican position of choice in the matter of belief as to when life begins;
•	Introduced ahistoricity into American politics for good;
•	Created the myth that tax-cuts can lead to prosperity and reduce federal deficits;
•	Permanently ensconced, in the number one position in the GOP political playbook, the electoral strategy built upon the success of the "anti-tax" Proposition 13 in California in 1978;
•	Established the modern Republican approach to federal spending: cutting it on everything they possibly can except the military, prisons, corporate farming, the extractive industries and favors for wealthy contributors, while reducing tax revenues to the greatest extent possible with tax cuts for the rich, leading to the creation of massive federal deficits that only got much worse under George W. Bush;
•	Established mean-ness, every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost, as an acceptable attribute;
•	Established the precedent that (Republican) Presidents can break federal law and get away with it with the Iran/Contra scheme that directly violated a piece of federal legislation called the "Boland Amendment," which prohibited such actions;
•	Canceled, to the extent he could, all federal government contracts for the development of energy sources alternative to fossil fuels;
•	Showed that a not-very-smart, mildly educated, and generally ignorant man can become an acting President if he is a right-winger who can command big campaign contributions from corporate special interests, is telegenic, speaks well from cue cards, and has the right agents, managers, and promoters (sound familiar?); and
•	Showed that a man with a serious mental illness can be maintained in the Presidency if he is a Republican and has the right agents, managers, and promoters.
.
Listening to the mainstream media, any prominent GOP and many prominent Democratic politicians, and any representative of the Propaganda Channel (Fox "News") like Sean "What Would Reagan Do?" Hannity, none of this appears.  He is "The Great Communicator" (the cue cards are never mentioned), the "Morning in America Man" (whose fiscal, tax, and monetary policies have led directly to our present state of national decline), the man who told Gen. Sec. Gorbachev to "tear down that wall" (even though it was not his to tear down), and the winner of what will someday be called "The 75 Years War (1918-1993) Against the Soviet Union by Western Capitalism."
     And so it is fascinating to watch the same process start for George W. Bush, on the occasion of the publication of his book, Decision Points.
     So far at least, the "un-friendliest" interview has been with NBC's Matt Lauer (which in fact wasn't all that unfriendly but did push Bush a bit here and there, as on the use of torture.  To my knowledge, Lauer did neglect to mention that the use of torture violates international treaty obligations and thus is unconstitutional under Article VI.)  The rest of the list of interviewers is dominated by the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity, the Heritage Foundation's "A Team."  At least part of the latter interview took place in an SUV (nice symbolism there, huh?) with Bush driving and doing most of the talking as well.  (Well at least he wasn't texting while driving.)  You know, the message is, he's just "regular folks" (even though he attended both Yale and Harvard).  Yes there is indeed the "aw shucks" thing.
   In this context, it's fascinating to see the comment of Uwe-Karsten Heye, the spokesman for German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder at the time of the invasion of Iraq: "We noticed that the intellectual reach of the president of the most important nation at the time was exceptionally low. For this reason, it was difficult to communicate with him. He had no idea what was happening in the world. He was so fixated on being a Texan. I think he knew every longhorn in Texas."  But boy, that "fixated on being a Texan" thing sure got him votes.
The biggest mistake that Bush admitted to was that during the Katrina Disaster he just did a fly-over instead of landing at Baton Rouge (the state capitol).  Of course it did happen that the then-governor was a Democrat and Bush didn't do working-with-Democrats too well.  Remember "you're either with us or against us?"  No?  Well neither do much of the mainstream media even while they are telling President Obama, who has already given away the store, that he's just got to work better with the Republicans.  As to the much larger Katrina-related question of what the federal response should have been and wasn't, Bush doesn't seem to waste too much time.
    As for decision-making, consider the "WMD thing."  Bush tells us that "everybody" thought there were WMDs in Iraq (The Progress Report, Nov. 9, 2010).  
     And the talking heads just nod.  No one mentions that the most experienced WMD inspector, the UN's Hans Blix, who had his boots on the ground and had said that he was fully satisfied with the level of cooperation being provided to him by Saddam Hussein, kept saying "no, none yet."  He also said that if the CIA had any additional information they should please share it with him.  Apparently that email got lost somewhere in the CIA's email in-box.  As Richard Clarke, the National Security Council official responsible for al-Qaeda when Bush took office, told us, it was obvious at the very first meeting of the NSC under Bush that he had already decided upon attacking Iraq.  He was just looking for an excuse.  Not mentioned.  And so on and so forth.  We just don't hear about this stuff, at least not yet.
     The image being presented is of a sunny, happy, regular fellow, who made no serious mistakes himself.  Any mistakes that did occur were the fault of his staff, who repeatedly "blindsided" him.
     At the end of his Presidency, Bush was the last popular holder of the office in the modern era.  As is well-known, he got the U.S. into two very long wars, expanded the national debt by several orders of magnitude, plunged us into what seems to be a state of permanent deficit spending (with the military and interest payments being the two largest elements of the federal budget), created the legislative basis for the establishment of a dictatorship (the Patriot Act, still on the books), presided over the massive widening of the gap  in both wealth and annual income between the ultra-rich (famously described at a fund-raising dinner by Bush himself as "my base"), and everyone else, decimated financial and environmental regulation leading to well-known outcomes, and so on and so forth.
     Air-brushed out.  Of course the air-brushers are helped by the fact that the man appears to take no responsibility for the perilous state of our great nation to which his policies have so monumentally contributed.  He is either completely unaware or has conveniently forgotten that under his leadership virtually nothing went right for the United States.
     Now why the air-brushing, so soon.  After all, except for Reagan hagiographers like Peggy Noonan, it took a while for the present glowing image of the man to appear.  I think that it comes down to three letters: "J.E.B."  Apparently, "Jeb" Bush, generally acknowledged as the "smart one" of this generation of Bushes, was going to bide his time, and let time soften the Bush image created by GWB, until 2016 before making his run for the Presidency.  That was also assuming of course, that Barack Obama would win a second term.  First, that eventuality seems increasingly unlikely as Obama increasingly plays right into the GOP playbook for getting rid of him (staying on in Afghanistan to satisfy the generals and giving in on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy).                 Second, the GOP establishment has made it abundantly clear that there are two words that scare the living daylights out of them: Sarah Palin.
     With the present field of potential candidates, she will win the GOP nomination for she can turn 'em out in the primaries. The problem is that she is already an odds-on favorite to lose, big, in the general election, even against Obama.  But just consider her present opposition for the GOP nomination: Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, the Christian Reconstructionist (and yes that would come out) Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and what have you.              
     Not what you would call real exciting for the GOP/Tea-Party faithful who will show up in droves in the primaries. Palin and her troops would just blow them out of the water.  Just look at what they did in the 2010 GOP Senate primaries in Colorado, Nevada, Alaska, and Delaware.  But Jeb Bush?  For the GOP, Right and Far-Right, the name is magic, Palin to the contrary notwithstanding.  Karl Rove will be getting on board very quickly.  If he could make GWB President, through the primaries in 2000 and then two general elections, just imagine what he can do with a Bush who, far-rightist though he is (remember Terry Schiavo), at least has some brains inside his skull.
____________________
Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author/co-author/editor of 30 books. In addition to being a columnist for Truthout/BuzzFlash (http://www.truth-out.org/, http://www.buzzflash.com), Dr. Jonas is also Managing Editor and a Contributing Author for TPJmagazine; a Featured Writer for Dandelion Salad; a Senior Columnist for The Greanville Post (http://www.greanvillepost.com/; a Contributor to Op-Ed News.com (http://www.opednews.com/), a Contributor to TheHarderStuff newsletter; and a Contributor to The Planetary Movement.

Did you like this? Share it:

The New York Times: What Passes for Journalism in the Newspaper of Record

COLUMNS, MEDIA SCUM Comments Off

Nov 292010

OVERALL, AMERICA’S MAJOR MEDIA FAILS THE TEST. It’s biased, shameless, and irresponsible with “everything to sell and nothing to tell” as a noted US media critic once said. It delivers a daily diet of “managed news” (propaganda), infotainment, and “junk food news,” a worthless mix, treating people like mushrooms – well-watered, in the dark, and uninformed about what matters most. No wonder greater numbers opt out, consuming less broadcast “news” and print media, the kind no one should waste time or money on.

________________

By Stephen Lendman [print_link]

________________


No paper has more clout than The New York Times. Media critic Norman Solomon once called its front page "the most valuable square inches of media real estate in the USA" - in fact, anywhere because its reports circulate globally.
   In his April 1998 article titled, "All the News Fit to Print (Part I): Structure and Background of the New York Times," Edward Herman called The Times "an establishment newspaper," serving wealth and power interests, a record dating from 1896 when the Ochs-Sulzberger family took control.
LEFT: The New York Times' current publisher, 
Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr
Its agenda "persist(s) to this day" as two earlier articles explained, accessed through the following links:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2007/06/record-of-newspaper-of-record.html
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2009/11/paid-lying-what-passes-for-major-media.html
   For many decades The Times has had the lead role distorting, censoring, and suppressing truth, a shameful record:
-- supporting the powerful; 
-- backing corporate interests; 
-- endorsing imperial wars; 
-- ducking major issues like government and corporate lawlessness and corruption, sham elections, democracy for the select few alone, an unprecedented wealth gap, and eroding civil liberties and social benefits; and
-- supporting Pentagon and CIA efforts to topple elected governments, assassinate independent leaders, prop up friendly dictators, secretly fund and train paramilitary death squads, practice sophisticated forms of torture, and menace democratic freedoms at home and abroad. 
.
Journalism, New York Times Style
Predictably, The Times endorsed Obamacare, a March 21 editorial praising it, titled "Health Care Reform, at Last," saying:
"The process was wrenching....Barack Obama put his presidency on the line for an accomplishment of historic proportions." The editorial called the law "a triumph for countless Americans who have been victimized or neglected by their dysfunctional health care system."
.
   In fact, Obamacare is a shameless rationing scheme to enrich insurers, drug giants, and large hospital chains. It imposes marketplace solutions, not vitally needed equitable reform assuring universal coverage, free from predatory insurers that overcharge and profit by denying care. No matter. The Times cynically called it "another stone firmly laid in the foundation of the American Dream....reforms (that) could ultimately rival Social Security and Medicare in historic importance." So much for truth.
   A July 15 editorial praised financial reform titled, "Congress Passes Financial Reform," saying:
It was another great "victory for Mr. Obama, who has had to fight for every inch of progress," calling the "new consumer financial protection bureau established in the bill....a milestone, not only for its intent and power to rectify lending abuses, but because it will institutionalize the insight that the safety and soundness of banks cannot - and should not - be measured by profitability alone, but by the impact that bank practices ultimately may have on consumers."


   Rubbish about business-friendly legislation that solidified Wall Street's dictatorship, institutionalized casino capitalism, let financial giants operate freely, gave the privately owned Fed greater powers, and established a toothless Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with little power to help anyone. Its head, Elizabeth Warren, is, in fact, a "watchdog" in name only, chosen because she supports Obama's policies and will follow them obediently in office.
ABOVE: Bill Keller, the NYT's Executive Editor.
   More recently, The Times downplayed the initial WikiLeaks "Afgan War Diaries" release, then collaborated with White House officials to sanitize it, clearing what they published in advance, letting official Washington decide what to print.
   Later, The Times public editor, Arthur Brisbane, answered his critics, saying the paper had a journalistic and civic duty to review the material before publishing. In other words, print only what White House officials judged appropriate, not journalists. Moreover, he vilified Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, calling his character "sketchy," then adding:
   "Whether or not Julian Assange is a rogue with a political agenda (implying he is), what matters most is that The Times authenticates the information."
   False! What matters most is supporting state and corporate power, including imperial wars for profit and global dominance, the real Times agenda.
   A Times November 10 editorial titled, "Some Fiscal Reality," endorsed Obama team's deficit cutting proposal, a scheme to shift more wealth to the rich, at the same time foreclosing on working Americans with higher taxes and fewer benefits, saying:
   "The draft proposal by the chairmen of President Obama's deficit-reduction commission was a welcome antidote to the low-minded debate that dominated the midterm elections," offering "no credible plans."
   "It lays out sensible principles....It puts everything on the table, including tax reform" and spending cuts. "At a time when good ideas are depressingly scarce in the political and economic debate, and bipartisan agreement even scarcer, this is a commendable start."
   It ended saying:
"We (hope) Republicans (will) pause long enough in their gleeful planning of President Obama's final defeat, and the Democrats would stop wringing their hands, long enough to read this important document - and then act on it."
   On November 26, The Times ran two shameless articles, among others, both by Randal Archibold, one titled, "Russian TV Kowtows to Kremlin, Critic Says," saying:
Leonid G. Parfyonov, a Russian TV and print journalist, "used the occasion of an awards ceremony to deliver a blistering critique of Russian television, saying its journalists had bent so completely to the will of the government that they were 'not journalists at all but bureaucrats, following the logic of service and submission."
   Regardless of whether it's true, the hypocrisy is glaring, a clear pot (The Times) calling the kettle (Russian television) black example, and a personal note. 
   In summer 2008, I was interviewed on Russian television for 30 commercial free minutes, discussing America's Eastern European policies. In fairness, it was Russian friendly, but I was allowed to speak, uninterrupted, as freely as I write and air on my radio program, the Progressive Radio New Hour. Because of my writing, I'm interviewed often, never on corporate radio or TV for a reason. Truth there is banned the same as on Times pages.
   Archibold's second article, titled "Death and Dancing Coexist on Haiti's Tense Streets," acknowledged the cholera crisis, then shifted gears saying:
   "Back in the city (Port-au-Prince), the bustle of life presses on."  Without mentioning desperate conditions for around 1.5 million homeless Haitians, living exposed on streets with practically no aid, he continued:
"The place is pregnant with anxiety and sporadic political violence just a few days from 'selecting' of a new president." Perhaps a Freudian slip, because Sunday's first round legislative and presidential "elections" are bogus enough to make a despot blush. An earlier article explained, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/11/haitis-sham-elections-solidifying.html
   Archibold then focused on campaign rallies, ignoring the exclusion of 15 political parties including by far the most popular, Aristide's Fanmi Lavalas. He also downplayed  friction between UN Blue Helmets (a paramilitary occupying force Haitians hate and want out), and conveyed the appearance of normality, when, in fact, conditions are appalling and desperate. As a result, most Haitians will boycott an election they know is a sham.
   Dancing in the streets? Perhaps by Haiti's elites, knowing chosen officials will benefit them at the expense of ordinary people valued only to exploit. So much for truth and what passes for "fit to print" journalism.
______________
Senior Editor STEPHEN LENDMAN writes passionately  about important issues, without sacrificing truth.   He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Did you like this? Share it:

November 2010
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Oct				Dec »
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

Things to consider—

Ah, what a world it would be if the Pentagon did the same