Amidst All the Lies... A Hint of Truth...

Finally!

"The Lying Warmonger Times" (aka The New York Times) has published a tiny hint of truth, in which they "finally" expose a certain group of liars (while mostly absolving or feigning ignorance regarding the third -- and, by far, guiltiest -- party in the conspiracy). This group of liars has turned my stomach every time I've seen their smug faces on TV for the past five and a half years. Here is just a brief bit of that "tiny hint of truth":

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay... The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo...

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance... Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air... Collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants...

The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation. These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated...

Click here to read the rest.

Thankfully, Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com discusses the third guilty party to which I refer above (I've added the bold emphasis):

In 2002 and 2003, when Americans were relentlessly subjected to their commentary, news organizations were hardly unaware that these retired generals were mindlessly reciting the administration line on the war and related matters. To the contrary, that's precisely why our news organizations -- which themselves were devoted to selling the war both before and after the invasion by relentlessly featuring pro-war sources and all but excluding anti-war ones -- turned to them in the first place...

I could see from the very start (long before the war started) that the media was doing this. So why, then, were the majority of Americans unwilling and/or unable to see it? It was so blatantly obvious! Is it, in part, because they have been subjected for the past sixty years to too many blindly patriotic, mindless movies featuring such "kill-them-first-and-ask-questions-later" stars as John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and Steven Seagal? Is it because, in their blind rage, they wanted to get revenge on someone, anyone, no matter who the guilty parties involved really are? This is a question that has caused me no end of intense frustration for the past five and a half years.

In my opinion, the CORPORATE media (for what corporations wouldn't manipulate the output of what they consider to be their very own "PR departments"?) is, by far, the guiltiest of all three guilty parties.

Why are they the guiltiest?

Because if they had been doing their jobs for the past eight years (actually, the past 95 years), we wouldn't have this sort of government (which is quickly approaching fascist) and this nearly unfixable economic, diplomatic and military mess in which we are now mired. Nor would we have the small group of handpicked, corporate stooges that run for president every four years, thus ensuring that the bad guys are never replaced, and our criminal foreign policy is always seen as "just and decent."

Why again is the media the guiltiest of the three?

Because, due to their willful complicity in all of this unconstitutional mess, most Americans of the 21st century are not only uninformed and filled with incredibly stubborn, misplaced pride (and excessively hedonistic desires), but are also stupider than fence posts. We have the media to thank for our idiotically mindless -- and depressingly unconstitutional -- brand of patriotism more than we do the government or those traitorous retired generals.

P.S. Of course, our horribly federalized, completely shallow, politically and "patriotically" correct (to a fanatical degree), incompetent educational system has primed all of us to be completely receptive to the lies (and hedonistic pleasures) broadcast by the CORPORATE media. I worked in that federalized educational system for five years and saw it first hand!

P.P.S. And, no, I don't believe in religious-based local education either. That warps most people just as badly as does the federal education system.

A Setback for An Aggressor Nation & It's Ally

Here are just a few thoughts and enlightening links on Israel's recent invasion of Lebanon:

Israel did not "win," and the lie that Hezbullah was targeting only Israeli civilians is clearly shown by an Israeli journalist: From Mania to Depression, by Uri Avnery. Now compare that to the innocent civilians that the "good and decent" Israeli army purposely targeted in Lebanon.

The fact that Israel lost is shown even more clearly in this incredibly concise commentary: What Did and Didn't Happen in Lebanon; It Ain't Over, by Rachard Itani.

Hezbullah did not start this war: The Two Israeli Soldiers Were Captured in Lebanon. Even if they really did cross into Israel to kidnap the soldiers, it would still have been a criminal act, not a first strike in a major war. Israel, with full encouragement by their partner in crime, the United States, had just been waiting for an excuse to invade Lebanon, and this weak one was all they could come up with. Was Lebanon supposed to have become one of the future embarkation points for the invasion of Syria by U.S. troops? Will it still happen?

Israel's goal isn't survival. It's theft -- theft perpetrated while hiding behind every nation's fear of being labeled anti-Semitic if they complain: An Interview with Noam Chomsky on Lebanon.

A Jewish writer and teacher in Montreal, Canada, explains it very well: No Peace Without Justice, No Justice Without Truth; Pulling the Plug on Israel, by David Himmelstein.

"Demographic threat" is a new code phrase for racism. Guess who uttered it and who is enforcing it with extreme violence.

Who set the historical precedent for Hezbullah's supposed fighting methods? War Crimes in Lebanon.

The U.S. news outlets' incredibly biased reporting: The US Media's "Special Relationship" by Remi Kanazi.

Just one of the possible reasons we get distorted one-sided news in the U.S.: AIPAC Congratulates Itself on the Slaughter in Lebanon, by John Walsh.

I have saved the best editorial for last: How Israel Could Destroy Itself; Delusional Expectations, by John Chuckman. Here is a brief quote from it (the comment in brackets [ ] is my own addition):

"Israel began by moving into a bad neighborhood [in the late 1940s, without invitation, and simply took land that had never been theirs], and everyone involved understood this from the beginning, yet Israel behaves as though it should be normal to enjoy a pristine Disney-like suburb with white-picket fences. It reacts to activities in the bad neighborhood that disturb its fantasy with ferocious indignation. Israel's destructive behavior is explained largely by this delusional expectation.

"If Israel had spent half the resources it has spent on war over the last fifty years instead on helping its neighbors and building up their economies, the region would be a far better place today. And if Israel had been willing to make reasonable concessions to the needs of others in the region, there might well be lasting peace today."

My concluding thought (just in case I am misunderstood): Israel is a nation, not a religion. It is populated by people, not by saints, and is governed by a greedy, violent, self-righteous government with total disregard for human rights. Criticism of the actions of a nation is not equivalent to criticism of that nation's predominant religion. That is a defense behind which many crimes can be, and clearly are being, perpetrated with reckless abandon.

I naively supported that country's aggressive land grabs for most of my adult life because I thought they were the good guys. I have every right to change my mind, and I've done so.

I Smell A Rat

This is pretty simple math.

Israel has attacked Lebanon.

Israel seems to be threatening to attack Syria.

Iran's President Ahmadinejad has warned Israel not to attack Syria. This implies that he will send Iran's army to the aid of the Syrian army if Israel attacks it.

President Ahmadinejad is an extremely stupid person sometimes, almost as stupid as Usurper Bush. Usurper Bush's neocon handlers know this. Israel knows this. I'm willing to bet that both entities are taking full advantage of Ahmadinejad's stupidity, just as the final draft of their carefully written script requires. They are baiting the trap.

If -- When -- Iran's army comes to the aid of the Syrian army -- against "poor, innocent, practically defenseless" Israel (even though its army is larger than the armies of most of its neighbors combined; and even though it has nuclear weapons) -- Usurper Bush will insist to Congress that the United States must defend Israel at all costs. [There will be no explanation as to why we must defend Israel, since Israel has never -- in all of its history -- been of the slightest strategic or economic interest to the the United States, whatsoever. No oil exports, no food exports, no clothing exports, no U.S. military bases, nothing. Zilch.]

AIPAC (the staunchly pro-Israel lobbying group) will finally call in its markers and demand satisfaction from every member of the U.S. Congress, stating that it now expects repayment in full for the millions or billions of "campaign" dollars it has given them over the years. That satisfaction will naturally come in the form of Congress's approval of Usurper Bush's "purely altruistic" plan to invade Iran in order to "defend poor, innocent, practically defenseless" Israel.

The lapdog republican Congress then approves Usurper Bush's "purely altruistic" plan to invade Iran in order to "defend poor, innocent, practically defenseless" Israel.

Usurper Bush thus pulls an end run around all of his critics worldwide and finally gets a "legitimate" excuse to invade Iran after all. And Syria will even be thrown in as a bonus "enemy."

I smell a dirty, evil sewer rat -- or two. Is it possible that Israel's recent military overreaction was actually predesigned to ensure that the United States will get to attack Iran and Syria? Is it possible that that military overreaction is actually unrelated to a few dead or kidnapped Israeli soldiers?

It's too bad for the world that the United States is so short of troops these days. One can imagine the excessive slobber, from overactive salivary glands, that is even now dripping down the chins of Usurper Bush and his neocon handlers as visions of invasion and/or nuclear bombs explode in their heads.

[Update: 07-17-06: It appears that my theorizing above (from four days ago) may have been completely correct. Read this (making sure to note that the article continues below the video "screen"): Danny Schechter: The WWIII Meme.]

Truth and Laughter

I laughed out loud at when I read the name of a particular U.S. demographic group for the first time just moments ago. It is mentioned in Max Udargo's Blog. Below are just the first two paragraphs of that blog, which was written in early May but has not lost any of its impact on me:

"President Bush appears to be losing support among a key group of voters who had hitherto stood firmly with the president even as his poll numbers among other groups fell dramatically.

"A new Gallup poll shows that, for the first time, Bush’s approval rating has fallen below 50% among total fucking morons, and now stands at 44%. This represents a dramatic drop compared to a poll taken just last December, when 62% of total fucking morons expressed support for the president and his policies..." (Read the rest here.)