It may not be apparent to everyone, but several of our civil liberties seem to be under attack. Recent legislation threatens our rights to due process, fair trials and privacy and, indirectly, it may also impact on our freedom of association and assembly. These and other problems are largely the result of an unholy alliance that is strangling our nation.
And no civil liberty seems to be disappearing faster than that of free speech. By the time you finish this short article you will not only see how thoroughly the segment of free speech known as freedom of the press has been suppressed but also how that very process has been ongoing for decades. And you will find a strong clue as to why and how the alliance that is likely responsible has developed into such a destructive force.
Last week, two nonprofit journalism organizations released a study revealing that President Bush and top administration officials issued "at least 935 false statements" during the two years leading up to our invasion of Iraq. Further, at the times that the statements were made, the people making them had information that would have given them every reason to know that they were false. Also, this did not include the hundreds of lies that followed our invasion, the report said, just those that preceded it.
The real significance of this astounding news, which appeared in my metropolitan area as a small four-inch clip buried deep inside the LA Times, was far more subtle than the details themselves. However, fellow Gatherwriter "James C." nailed the true importance with his comment: "This should have been published before the 2004 election for the people to evaluate!"
Yes, that's it...that's the significance...it should have been published long ago by the mainstream media, but it wasn't. So, it ends up joining the growing list of subjects we don't hear about, such as the real extent of the dirty tricks in the last two presidential elections, the slowly developing confrontation with China in Africa over oil, the factual deficiencies relating to the 9/11 investigation, and any mention of the negative effects of the campaign finance system, to name but a few.
And then, further evidence materialized in an article here on Gather, dated 1/26/08, by "Richard T." entitled "The Politics of Fear - The Power of Nightmares."
Richard's article contained the links to a series aired by the BBC in late 2004 regarding the foreign policy of the United States. You are encouraged to read it as it is factual, is based largely on the statements of the key individuals involved, and is very revealing.
In particular, it zeroes in on the neoconservative movement in this country and its moderate influence on the Reagan administration, its minimal influence on the George H. W. Bush administration and its overwhelming influence on the George W. Bush administration.
The program describes how an obscure political philosopher at the University of Chicago named Leo Strauss became the shaping force behind the neoconservative movement. Strauss was not shy about telling his students and others that our political leaders should concoct "powerful and inspiring myths" to create the concept in the public's mind that the destiny of the United States was to battle the forces of evil around the world.
During the eighties, the lies and "myths" created by the neoconservatives were aimed primarily at the Soviet Union, according to the BBC, and eventually this exerted a degree of influence on the policies of the Reagan administration. And, during the nineties, their lies were primarily aimed at destabilizing President Clinton.
But the events of 9/11 really opened the door to their ascension into the halls of power in this country and the lies and "myths" they created, after that fateful day, are precisely those that have now been chronicled in last week's report by the nonprofit journalism organizations.
For those of you who might wish to read more of this, and particularly those who might want to feel more certain that the information is valid, I strongly suggest that you refer to Richard's article and the links therein.
The main purpose here, however, is to analyze the nature of the alliance, how it developed and why the mainstream media in this country was such a willing messenger for the myth makers. It is more than significant that it eventually took journalists who do not work for the mainstream media to finally shine a spotlight on the extent of the problem.
Frankly, it didn't take long to zero in on the likely "nature" as well as the "how" and the "why" of the situation. As I may have mentioned two or three (hundred) times in the past, I tend to believe that most major problems in this country stem from the uncomfortably close relationship that exists between our politicians and the very wealthy, a partnership that rises to the definition of being an unholy alliance.
Part, but not all, of this collaboration is caused by the insidious system that we innocuously called "campaign finance," the exchange of favorable legislation in return for "donations." It's not all based on money, however. Another element could well be the suppression of certain news by the media, on behalf of the government.
So, this is the path I followed and this is what it revealed.
The following paragraphs will show, first, the extent to which the information we receive from the mainstream media is controlled by just a handful of wealthy people, largely billionaires, who can be found on Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans. Secondly, it will show but one example of how the government rewards its partners in crime.
The largest newspaper publisher in America, by circulation, is the Gannett Company. This firm publishes 85 daily newspapers in the U.S., including USA TODAY, and nearly 1,000 non-daily publications. It also operates 23 television stations in the U.S. with a market reach of more than 20 million households.
Because it's a publicly traded company, it took a little research to track down the billionaire who might be pulling the strings there.
The list of large shareholders included several Wall Street investment firms, but the largest owner with a stake of over a billion dollars was a limited partnership by the name of Brandes Investment Partners. Not only did it have an unfamiliar name, but most of the information available on this entity referred to the principles only by their initials.
However, a little perseverance paid off and eventually up popped the name of someone called the "chairman." Yes, you guessed it, he is a billionaire and his name is Charles H. Brandes.
Also, no less than 17 newspapers, 15 TV stations and 79 radio stations are owned by Cox Enterprises which is owned by two other billionaires, Barbara Cox Anthony and Anne Cox Chambers.
The Wall Street Journal is owned by Dow Jones & Company which was recently purchased by News Corporation which also owns the New York Post and Fox Broadcasting. The largest shareholder of News Corp. is Keith Rupert Murdoch, a billionaire well known as an American-Australian media tycoon.
Billionaire Sumner Redstone owns CBS and other media outlets. Two billionaires named Newhouse own papers in Cleveland, Newark and New Orleans. Billionaire Haim Saban is purchasing Univision, the major Spanish language broadcaster. Billionaire Edmund Newton purchased an NBC station in Miami that he remade into a Fox station and an NBC station in Boston. Hearst Corporation, which owns the San Francisco Chronicle, as well as magazines, TV and radio stations, has five billionaires who own it or have derived their wealth from it.
As for other media giants, the New York Times Company, which also now includes the Boston Globe, has been owned for generations by the wealthy Sulzberger family. The history of this family was chronicled in the book The Trust: The Private and Powerful Family Behind The New York Times by Susan E. Tifft and Alex S. Jones.
The New York Times Company also shares ownership of the International Herald Tribune with the Washington Post Company, which itself also publishes Newsweek. The major owner of the Washington Post is Berkshire Hathaway, which is, of course, the corporate base of billionaire Warren Buffett and, incidentally, two other billionaires.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post Company reports an ownership interest in the LA Times. The LA Times is part of the Tribune Company which also owns the Chicago Tribune, Newsday and seven other newspapers in addition to broadcasting companies in 19 of the nation's biggest markets. The Tribune Company boasts that it reaches more than 80% of U.S. households.
The Tribune Company is owned by billionaire Sam Zell who made his fortune by buying rent controlled properties, evicting the tenants and then rerenting the units or converting them to condominiums. He proudly refers to himself as "the grave dancer."
Zell's purchase of the Tribune Company brings us to the last piece of the puzzle here. The sale was originally negotiated last May but it didn't close until just a few weeks ago.
The reason for the delay was that the sale required FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to hand our media billionaires a major blessing, which he did, by rendering a controversial decision that they can henceforth own broadcast stations and newspapers in the same areas, thus giving them their first opportunity in 32 years to monopolize the reporting of news in those markets.
Critics of the decision have said we can now expect a major buying spree in the local media markets by such giants as Gannett, News Corp., and the Tribune Company which will effectively push out the few remaining independent owners.
The unholy alliance between the government and the moneyed interests takes many forms and has many diverse, negative influences on this nation.
While there is admittedly no smoking gun here, the evidence strongly suggests that the alliance between the government and the billionaire owners of our mainstream media, which may have been growing stronger for decades now, and which transcends the simple passing of moneys, may well be the principle reason for the obvious deterioration of our freedom of the press.
Dave McGill, News Correspondent
Dave's column, "The Contrarian," generally published every Wednesday, to Gather Essentials: News will sometimes present a contrary view to various aspects of the news, or an alternate take on the conventional wisdom of the day, and will occasionally also appear on other days of the week
Dave has been a senior officer of a large eastern insurance company, involved in economic projections and investment strategy, president of a Midwestern mortgage banking company, and a financial consultant in Southern California, serving clients in the field of commercial real estate development
You can find all of Dave's "The Contrarian" columns at: http://gather.com/thecontrarian...... Keep up with Dave's other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network - just click here: http://atadaskew.gather.com........ You'll find Dave and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 141
1. The media is not giving us honest news
2. The government is manipulating the population. and taking away our rights.
Conclusion - Elect Ron Paul
Gee, great work davie boy.....
Great article, as always, David.
Spartan, THAT'S why I love Carlin's work!! It'd be even FUNNIER if I was sure it wasn't true. LOL
Great article, as usual! I've stated many times that the freedom of the press is absolutely essential for the people to do the job we need to, in order to run this country. Government by the people when the people don't have the facts is not democracy at all.
Someone mentioned that the president might have information that we do not. That is true but when his statement is contradictory to what accurate information we do have, it is still a lie.
> "at least 935 false statements"
First, this is the basis of indictment as far as I am concerned,
and this is where the free speech issue starts, if there are
no consequences for people abusing money and authority,
then we soon see these people buying up power and abusing
that.
I do not think people understand what the problem
is with the NeoConservatives, as you mention them in
this article, and who are caricatured in the documentaries
mentioned. One needs to separate the people from the
ideas. The Neocon ideas such as we need to take
advantage of the lack of an opposing superpower to
push a democratic agenda is fine.
It was also latched onto by what I would call the
corrupting moles in the NeoCon movement to hijack
this self-righeous agenda for the consolidation of
money and power.
At this current point I do not think people realize
how consolidated the country is under the power and
control, and financial ownership of this group of
people. There is no way to spread the word to
ask the question. Once the questions is asked, who
is going to do the research? Control and owership
of corporations and the sources of jobs, raw materials
and energy is being bought up by a group of people
who want to assert their control over whole
nations based on symbolic manipulations.
To attack the Neocons is like attacking religion,
or America or Apple Pie. Of course the Neocon
brand is destroyed, but it is essentially the same
thing. The Republican brand is close to being
destroyed as well, but the people behind it
have the money, power, influence, etc, I think,
to move and take over whatever brand has the
trust of people in order to manipulate them to
their ends.
THis attack of the Neocons I keep trying to say
is not the point. The point are the people and
their aims.
t'was ever thus.
Carlin is right, but David above is showing the crap stuck to ONE side of the same board.
send me this e-mail:
"You're lucky you are on the other side of that computer or I would be pounding your ass into the ground about now."
Typical bush chicken hawk.
You are the lucky one puke!
Your intellegence is astonding , and I think you should go there yourself , you seem to be an expert.
Or are you in love with george the fool?????
Regarding the press, when I was in journalism school ('82-83 - at Northwestern - Medill - Evanston -) investigative journalism was
still very much alive.
It has since died a quiet death.
There was an article in the Medill alumni magazine about 10 years ago on the absence of any true investigative journalism.
Short of 60 minutes, few news organizations take on this type of work - and I am including those other TV news magazine programs that do interesting features - Medical Miracles, Prime Time, Dateline, and so on.
I have long been absolutely disgusted.
While the formerly very liberal print reporters of the past were often pitted against their editors (who often were liberal and had come through the ranks themselves but who answered to their conservative, wealthy news organization owners) and this created friction - Halberstam and the Vietnam reporters are the prime example of this - they went in and were told to report on what a fine job we are doing - but this is not what they saw and they refused - but were scolded. Finally, they stopped listening to their editors - taking risks at doing this but reported what they saw (NOT a fine job, as we know) and the rest is history.
Halberstam told this story to us when he was a guest speaker in my class at Medill.
A senior newspaperman from Newsweek's Chicago bureau also spoke to us about investigative journalism - that it must NEVER die - and that we, as journalists must NEVER look at press releases without knowing what lurks behind them, otherwise - and the scene he and my profs painted was very similar to the scenario you have just so brilliantly and excellent highlighted for us here, Dave.
This is very, very sad.
I place the blame on the failure of society to create a nation of people, especially young people with a social conscience strong enough to look behind the scenes - to act, to become activists -.
I do know the Boston Globe has gone through numerous growing pains at the hands of the Big Boss. (too many very young people who are not experienced nor who are investigative journalists).
EXCELLENT Article Dave.
What so many people are not aware of is that these same controlling influences (the ownerships) also have purchased all of the major book publishing houses ... even the books that you read will, in that sense, be "promoted" on the media into best sellers WHEN they either will make the "owners" a lot of money OR fit "their" agenda of what they want the public to know about ... there will thus always be a voice of VETO from the editorial position IF the message happens to be TOO detrimental to those owners.
Another major reason that there is such a movement from "on high" to get more control of this here Internet. Because it is the last chance that we the people have to find out the truth about things that so affect us ... it is for damn sure our "Liberal Media" will not let us know what it is we really need ...
With the present head of the FCC also placed into that position to benefit the wealthy few at the top of the hierarchy of power and control, our freedoms are being ever more constrained also ... but you will never be made aware of any of these things via the media that you have always been told that you can trust them to protect your interests. Not so.
So thanks Dave, I have been hoping that someone would lay this out like you have just done ... I hope that others will pick up the ball and run with it.
Based upon a couple of the usual comments from the "detractors" of truth that blame all of the nations and worlds problems on "Liberals", any person with the slightest amount of intelligence can see how devoid these folks are of it ... let alone any decency or morality. If only they were just a little smarter they could see what pathetic fools they are and not make their stupid comments ... thankfully there are so few of them relatively.
For a complete treatment of how we could modify our money to make such concentrations of greedy power impossible read my novel "Invisible Hand" also published on Gather. It is also available without the ads at:
http://www.unc.edu/~mason/hand.html
I couldn't believe that we were withholding information from the public. The managing editor said if we printed the story, our newspaper would be shut down. I thought we should print THAT for the public. If it had been my newspaper we would have done that very thing.
Alas, this newspaper was part of a group of papers and somewhere at the head was one very rich owner of them all.
But to think that this is something new is another fairytale. It doesn't matter who is in office. The media is controlled by the same big bucks, and they will always minipulate news. That's what we need to remember.
And we are all fools if we think any government is going to share everything with the people.
Which is one way of saying that this type of activity has gone on in our country (and other countries) before.
Tycoons long ago comprehended the power of the printed word. Namely; that print adds credibility.
The real freedom and liberty killer in our country has historically been, and still is, money.
Consider that your civil liberties and freedoms are always left outside the door of your employer, even the right to be free of unwarranted search.
When you are on-the-job your life and body belongs to your employer.
The only answer I have to the troubling issues this article points at, is that reporters, as always, are the only ones who can stand-up to censoring and manipulation of truth. Sadly, most reporters are as chained by their paychecks to their employers wishes and dictates as the rest of us are.
Thanks for this article, David.
At the time I had a project shipping a decomissioned factory to Nicragua. A hurricane hit central America at the time and our press in Canada and USA was full of stories about El Salvador and how hard the people of that country had been hit by the storm. Major charitable efforts got underway to help the storm tossed people of El Salvador. It was a big story, dominated the news for weeks.
In all that coverage there was no mention of the effects the storm had on Nicaragua. None. Zip. Nothing. I know, because I had to know, I had ships due to deliver cargo to Nicaragua and had to know how the storm had impacted the region.
From our agent in Nicaragua we received local news reports, faxed photos showing that the entire Atlantic port which our ship was supposed to sail to, was destroyed by the storm. We actually had to reroute the ship through the Panama canal to call on a Pacific port instead.
No mention of it at all in our media. Why? Because Reagan did not want Americans feeling sorry for the victims of the storm in Nicaragua.
The press has not been free for a long, long time.
Yet, despite the ownership of most major media by billionaires, the myth of the "liberal press" continues. But why would corporatist billionaires publish left wing propaganda?
I've yet to hear any neo-con dissembler try to square that circle yet.
When those at the very top of this hierarchical "heap" have those mindsets and the wealth to make things "happen" their way, the "stuff" roles down hill and they get ample "help" from subordinates who are paid extremely well to do "their jobs" as they never are allowed to even question much of what comes down to them as they are on a need to know only basis of knowledge about higher workings and intents ... it is all about corruption camouflaged in "nice sounding" words and phrases to mislead and appease any that night question.
The higher up in those "organizations" that people are, the more money they depend upon from those sources ... not to mention ego perks of relative fame ... or in many cases even, detailed records held over their heads of things that they have done which they would be completely ashamed of IF the general public were ever to come to know the details of ... (many of such "things" provided to them for "free" just for the purpose of being able to "blackmail" them if and when needed).
So YES ... the whole thing is VERY UN-Holy ... by all accounts (for those who believe in it) the actual WORK of EVIL !!!
And ... you could go so far as to include the MIS-leadings over the ages by our major religions also ... "their" Devil has been very involved right in the very midst of those "groups" also ...
IMnsHO.
The Democrats are making a big mistake by throwing
the baby, Neocon strategy, out with the bathwater,
the Bush administration.
The idea of using our military correctly or being aggressive
in the world, and leveraging international opportunities to advance
the best interests of Western economics, human rights, rule
of law and culture is not something Democrats want AGAIN
to be caught on the wrong side of in November - PERIOD!.
This the one issue that if navigated correctly by the Republicans
will leave them with a clear road to the White House and Democrats
wringing their hands and checking into mental institutions. This
very difficult distinction has got to be made forcefully and clearly
where Kerry and to a certain extent Gore failed.
Trying again, a bit louder. If Democrats cater to the factions
that can be pointed to as hate America first, or philosophically
weak on terrorism or security, it will mobilize Republicans to
the polls in even higher numbers than the gay marriage debacle
did in 2004.
During the Inquisition, there was "Christianity" the philosphy, and the "Church" who tortured, stole from, and killed people.
During the Russian Revolution there was "Communism" the philosophy, and the "Communists" who murdered and starved people to get political control.
Ideas are not the problem, it is useless to try to fight an idea, specific people in power are the problem.
Meet the new boss, he's he same as the old boss if you do not understand this!
There are plenty of liberal billionaires who can easily join together to create networks which report the truth but for some reason they refuse to do so.
And there is the Internet.
True, there is far too much suppression of the truth. But ignorance is largely volitional as there are still plenty of sources around which report the truth.
Why The Wealthy Need More Money
If consuming spending is the key to economy stimulation, then, logically, it would be better to promote spending by the millions of non-millionaires in the public. Put more money in their hands by creating jobs as we saw during the Clinton years and the economy grows. Indeed, that's what happened then and can happen now.
But note how the reich wing news media continues to promote war, the military industrial complex, and corporate welfare --- precisely what we don't need in our society.
"two nonprofit journalism organizations released a study revealing that President Bush and top administration officials issued "at least 935 false statements" during the two years leading up to our invasion of Iraq. " And the names of these organizations would be? Dave, you are really slipping.
"While there is admittedly no smoking gun here, the evidence strongly suggests that the alliance between the government and the billionaire owners of our mainstream media, which may have been growing stronger for decades now, and which transcends the simple passing of moneys, may well be the principle reason for the obvious deterioration of our freedom of the press." Dave, evidence of ownership is not evidence of influence. I own some News Corp. stock, but I certainly have no influence with the Wall Street Journal's independent editorial board. Maybe the reason the media is slipping is that the public isn't interested in a leftist media that reports opinions instead of facts. Dave, that one was a stretch.
There is no amount of alarm that rises within me in thinking about how manipulation of the media has always been a tool of ideological expansionism and manipulation of the masses in countries like the old USSR.
Media moguls throughout human history have always been guilty of colluding with government in order to shore up power and thus wealth for both sides. Our founding fathers sought to battle this tendency by guaranteeing that ALL presses could be free because they understood that the publishings of oppostions and dissenters can point out where malfeasance may be rearing its ugly head.
What is most scary here, is that we are not talking about government interfering with our presses; we are talking about individual private sector leaders colluding with certain politically entrenched ideological groups, to exercise monopolization of the major presses and squelch the free flow of ideas, information and viewpoints.
The danger here is not from government, it is from an invasive form of civilian tyranny; where a few certain people with dominate power (capitalist power) decide what "the people" should or should not hear.
Their imposition of specific ignorances upon us is fully life threatening to us.
The problem though is far vaster than you are willing to look at, far more intricate and complicated. Do you really believe that "your" simplistic representation of yourself as a stock holder has any relevant comparison to the vast amounts of wealth that the "controlling interests" of the major multi-national corporations, sums of money beyond your imagination, are not strategically INVESTED into other corporate conglomerations under control of very highly intelligent people interconnected to operate for their mutual interests ? That the voting boards of directors are not "colluding" at times and in ways that promote their "common" interests ?
Do you not believe that foundations (think tanks) are not continually figuring out how to maintain control and maximise that and it's profits ? Do you really think that it is just a dog eat dog competitive world of petty ego gratification between completely "separated" rich individuals ? How simplistic can you get ?
If you REALLY think that the most wealthy people at the top of the corporate hierarchy have NOT "gotten together" where it suits their mutual interests ... than you are just as misinformed as the average citizen who also never asks the hard questions beyond the surface presentation of their "masters" ... probably insisting that such "concepts" are just fringe loony "conspiracy theories" to be scoffed at ... just as you all have been "trained" to believe.
Until we the people begin to think out of our little boxes the media has constructed around us, we will never come to know the problem we must eventually confront to become free ... only the TRUTH will set us free.
Bruce, you made a good attempt with your analogy between ideas and actions ... but you, as did Randy, did NOT dig deep enough IMnsHO.
Ideas ARE A PRIORI to the actions which are a posteriori ... the ideas come from INTENTIONS and the words of con-men and liars are often just false promises used to implement their own ideas and intentions ... at the base of everything is philosophy which is the subject of ideas ... rather a "subjective" field of inquiry for an "objective" person like yourself and most others, but never the less MOST important.
Well said about the press! And that is why the anti-monopoly laws need to be revisited, reinforced and activated! A few major owners do not represent actual competition, more like collusion.
George W. - they say sometimes "that old dog won't hunt." Right now that expression is getting more and more applicable to the myth you mentioned, namely that there is a "liberal press." But Ron B., Spartan and Rory said it much better than I in their comments above.
Thanks for describing your very interesting experience in Nicaragua, Rory.
Thanks, Bernard, Judi, Luckky_. and Patrick C. for encouraging the reading of alternate sources both here and abroad and for providing suggestions. That is an interesting link, Luckky_. Shame on CNN. The trickle down theory was discredited 20 years ago.
I'm sorry to read about the situation in France, Patrick C. What happened there is an excellent example of how an electorate can be manipulated. The French had one of the best systems in the world for the people. Now they've dumped it into the greedy hands of the capitalists, and all because they thought of the election as a beauty contest. How sad. First the press will be restrained, the people's work week will lengthen, their vacations will shorten, their standard of living will drop as the capitalists take them globular and the quality of their medical care will fall as its cost mysteriously rises. And, oh yes, their longevity will shorten. They should have looked across the ocean.
Good point, Ruth MacGill....Where are the trust busters now?
Kathryn and Jim G. mentioned voter apathy and a lack of activism among the young. This is true and part of the reason may be that everyone's been living quite well, especially during the recent buying binge days financed by the orgy of mortgage borrowing. I mean, how could anyone find the time to get upset when they're out buying all those new homes, cars, boats, buggies and other assorted toys. A different era and perhaps a time of increasing activism may be just around the corner.
Thanks for mentioning the altering of the environmental report by the White House, Diana Raabe....And how completely ridiculous it was that the changes were made by a young attorney...
Randy, thanks for the chuckle....it's sort of like deja vu all over again....I remember responding to your same question on another recent article...so I'll pass this time.
Bruce K., my impression is that you are one of the most sincere and conscientous news and political writers on Gather, but I think it's a stretch to try and separate the neocon movement from its leaders. After all, they formed it. And also, you can take all their lies right out of the equation and you are still left with the fact that they were the architects of a wildly flawed foreign policy which, frighteningly is still with us for the balance of the year. I don't think the majority of Americans would feel at this point that we need to continue to be aggressive in the world. It sounds to me that Obama in particular senses the desire for a policy of detente and it may be a factor in his increasing popularity.
John P. warned us not to expect a change if a Democrat takes the White House. You are right, John, the unholy alliance infects both sides of the aisle and it has become so ingrained into our political system that it will either take some time, or a traumatic national event, to effect any significant change. I believe it's encouraging that we've heard the problem aired out by both John Edwards and Barack Obama during this cycle. Clinton hasn't said a lot on it, unfortunately. It is at least a start, however. Thanks John for pointing that out.
You make a key point in very few words, Lisa Bouzan. As the media continues to fail in its function of providing the news, blog sites like Gather will increasingly become the most sought after sources. If we're lucky, the government won't try to shut them down or restrict their freedoms in other ways.
And last but not least, I hope everyone read the comments of Jerry Kays and Bill's Spirit, who sincerely agonized over this problem and eloquently (to borrow your apt word, Jerry) expressed their views on it. Thanks very much adding so much to this thread....
A few samples ...
* The report entirely ignores the fact that, prior to the March, 2003, U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there was not a single country whose intelligence agency doubted that Saddam was in the process of developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and/or that he already possessed them.
* Prominent Democrats, including Hillary, Ted Kennedy, and Robert Byrd, were uniformly confident in that same assessment.
* Senator Jay Rockefeller (Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman) was among the most passionate of all believers: "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years…"
* The newly published "War Card" study that accuses the Bush administration of having "lied" about its pre-war intelligence on hundreds of occasions, was sponsored jointly by the Center for Public Integrity, which the New York Times identifies as "a research group that focuses on ethics in government and public policy," and the Fund for Independence in Journalism, which professes "to protect, defend and foster independent, high quality investigative journalism." It should strike you as strange that two organizations purportedly committed to "integrity" and "quality" would neglect, in such a highly publicized report, to point out that the Bush administration's pre-war intelligence squared perfectly with the beliefs not only of the aforementioned Democrats, but also of virtually every other major Democratic figure in the United States. Yet the present study contains not a single word referencing any Democrat's pre-invasion warnings about the threat posed by Saddam.
So, Dave, I understand why you didn't mention the name of the report on which your article was based or who provided the funding. But, now that the cat is out of the bag, I think you should apologize to Gather readers for your inaccurate and biased article.
"a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation's allies on their way to war."
As Paul Volcker said in 2003 of this philanthropist and activist who strongly believes in the protection of civil liberties everywhere: "The bulk of his enormous winnings is now devoted to encouraging transitional and emerging nations to become 'open societies,' open not only in the sense of freedom of commerce but - more important - tolerant of new ideas and different modes of thinking and behavior."
Thus Soros is against the base interests of those peoples higher up that spread their agendas via the likes of FOX Networks ... and the radio talk shows of that ilk who see Soros as a real threat to their ideology ...
Yes Soros is liberal, relative to the conservatives ... thank God for the little he offers ($$$$$$) in comparison ... still a very long way from the BALANCE needed ... at least he cares and is doing his very best.
"Ideas are not the problem, it is useless to try to fight an idea, specific people in power are the problem."
And the example he gives is most useful to illustrate his point. We all know that millions of human beings have been directly aided by "Christians" in all sorts of ways, which came to pass because of the ideas Jesus imparted to them. But, we also know that even a fine idea can be twisted or misunderstood, and become the basis for irrational, or even violent behaviour.
I personally think the "neocon" concepts of global hegemony and a universal economic/political "solution" to the worlds many problems is unrealistic, and based on false premises. However, that is not to say the ideas themselves are a problem, for they are really just concepts, which provide various ways of looking at the world and potential policies, which might in fact help one to grasp a number of intricate situations more comprehensively.
It is when actual living persons move from the realms of ideas, into the realms of actions, that trouble may come of such concepts. Few would protest if by global hegemony one meant a fair and inclusive approach to international affairs, shared by all societies, and honestly enforced with the aid of American resources and might. I do not oppose the idea itself, but rather don't believe it corresponds with the actual options we have available.
In a similar sense, this article is not actually bemoaning a problem involving a lack of "freedom of the press", but rather, an excess of such "freedom". Of course the wealthy few ought to have the right to express their views, and champion their causes, but the question is; Ought they be allowed to dominate the "press", because they can buy up all the "presses"? In that sense, we are really talking about limiting freedom of the press, and whether, as in many other areas of rights and responsibilities, we as a nation, might do well to take steps to insure that freedom of speech, does not become freedom to yell so loud that no one else can be heard.
I think we ought to, I think we must, if we are to remain free people.
The future always gets the unwary, battles were lost
by marching people in front of machines guns because
people were not able to adjust and react to the future.
The tactical "machine gun" in use now is the at-the-
speed-of-light transformation of economic force brought
to bear against Democracy, and submerged like a
submarine from citizen and popular view.
There is so much money and influence out there brought
to bear against the right people in charge, against the
right media corporations, to the right pundits, to the
right publishers, to the right candidates, right down to
your bosses at work, and some of that goes to picking
up a "brand" like the neocons, working it, and throwing
it away while the people argue bewildered about why
this keeps happening and developing psychic problems
over it ... and I'm not joking.
Why are so many people on presrcioptions drugs. I
honestly think that ordinarry people are being
more of less lobotomoized for their behavior and
labor on so many fronts it is unanameavble, but
it shows up in anti-depressants, ADHD, crime,
inappropriate emotions, inablity to think or learn
how to think, all kinds of things, behind all of
which is money directed for maximum profit and
control not towards human development and
progress.
To turn this around, sadly, taking control
back on money is the thing that will do it, and
that has its own problems as well.
However, my list of people to arduously and avidly avoid (in order to maintain a liveable blood pressure) has now grown to include Langhorn W., John P, George W, jJack Midknight, (Knight in shining stupor) and Randy W. Please don't change your icons. I want to know when to skip your comments. It will save me from shouting at my innocent monitor...and also save me the time for reading real news on Truthout.org.
Wilka
> Few would protest if by global hegemony one meant
> a fair and inclusive approach to international affairs,
> shared by all societies, and honestly enforced with
> the aid of American resources and might. I do not
> oppose the idea itself, but rather don't believe it
> corresponds with the actual options we have available.
This is what is up to the American people.
Few can deny that when people lie around whining
and not pushing to fine tune government policies and
just blanketly complain or tune out that it increases
the likelihood that forces that can benefit will steer
things in their favor.
Look at the 1700s ... it was an era of European
World Hegemony and empire, as it was modelled
back then. Was it bad, what is good, was it both.
It was unavoidable, and it was history. We are
more conscious and more able to influence history
nowadays .... but there is still an arc to events
and it is still a Western arc, with both good and
bad.
"This is what is up to the American people."
Not so. At least not according to what you and I and David suggest. The "American people" are simply not in a position to determine how a policy or strategy is implemented, nor even know with any reliability what is really going on in the world. One tends to forget that realizing one is not getting the truth, does not mean one then has the truth. We can imagine whatever we wish, but if we are not in fact the beneficiaries of a free and competent "press", we are uninformed.
That fact does not rationally justify simply assuming what one supposes to be a realistic view of the world, or the nation, or it's leadership or capabilities is valid. Quite the opposite, one can rest fairly well assured that we have many things just plain wrong. If we lend our support in ignorance, we will most likely be supporting a fallacy or deception.
We are victims too.
> to determine how a policy or strategy is implemented,
But they are, only in a very general way. Democracy
and majority rule does not allow people to earmark
their tax dollars for example, but they can express a
general and sometimes specific intent.
Again, we cannot find the truth ourselves either,
but we can realize when things don't add up and
express our unease.
> If we lend our support in ignorance, we will most
> likely be supporting a fallacy or deception.
I agree, but the only way we can hear what is
ignorance is to discuss things and ask tough
questions. Both sides have been guilty of
cutting off debate, and not listening.
My point was that the onward march of Western
civilization is a good thing, because anything
competing with it in the world right now is only
going to negatively sidetrack the world into
problems. We move forward, by expanding
and evolving and fixing the West, not by ignoring
dangers, or blaming ourselves to the point of
attack or paralysis.
I think you almost see what I am saying, and I realize it's not a pleasant or desirable thing to see, but facts, is facts.
"My point was that the onward march of Western
civilization is a good thing"
And my point was that marching around blind, is unwise.
And I believe the matter we herein discuss MUST be seen as an indication that "western civilization" is not proving itself all that special. There are aspects to the way we operate our "civilization", which may in fact render it fatally flawed. It may even result in cataclysmic upheaval and destruction on a scale heretofore unknown, in the history of all civilizations. We caught a glimpse of such a strange potential for "greatness" on some levels, and profound toxicity on others, in instances like Nazi Germany, where "Western civilization", turned into nightmarish barbarism, in a most eerily familiar way.
I certainly understand and agree that there are some indispensable truths and "visions" which we have come to cherish, but there are also some rather retrograde aspects to how we order society, and approach justice and morality, which may be far more toxic than we might now realize.
It is not "paralysis" to cease struggling when one realizes the pain they feel is not due to something attacking us, but rather due to our having gotten tangled in a thorn bush. (excuse the pun, I'm only human) If we are indeed "blind" as a society, in the sense that our ability to see the world has been for some time seriously compromised, then wisdom suggests we get our eyes fixed, and revisit such things as creating a brave new world after a few years, at least.
It has long been my fear that the increasing buyouts and consolidation of the media decrease the likelihood that the public is fully informed on the issues. During the Watergate scandals, two newspaper reporters unravelled an entire administration by exposing its lies. In the runup to the present war in Iraq, the administration used a method whereby a "highly-placed official" would leak the information they wanted disseminated, then after the paper printed the story, they'd quote the paper as a source. The Washington post, in 30 years, went from being a watchdog to being an accessory.
The "Leftist media" is a fairytale. Those who believe the media are liberal probably also think William F. Buckley is a Commie pinko. The media are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the billionaire elite.
Jeannie ... that is such a lie ... the press if only 87.3431% billionaire elite controlled! ;-)
I just think billionaires have so much money and power that they have nothing to do but figure out ways to increase it or use it. Some of this is even productive and beneficial.
Maybe we should need a subset of the government that is made up of really hugely rich billionaires, and then them have to publically submit their ideas to the government for approval/legislation, because I don't think I see any good way of reversing this, the no-brainer is that it should be more public and more transparent. A wall between politicians and private interests that is visible whether the mainstream press wants to point it out to us or not.
Kathy W., another way of looking at it which could be less disturbing, might be to consider that an alternate point of view, regardless of how it is expressed is perhaps an opportunity to influence someone's thinking, and that someone could even be a third party. I did get a chuckle out of your comment though...
Jeannie, thanks for reminding us of how the leaked stories became "confirmation" for the falsehoods. If this was obvious to anyone at the time, it should have been the media itself. This administration will go down in history for the extent of its manipulation of public opinion through its control of the media.
Thanks for that additional information, Patrick. I remember when Bush was on his recent trip there was a mention in the Guardian, I believe, of the increasing coziness between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but I hadn't heard about Egypt or Ahmadinejad's planned trip to Baghdad. Obama, who continues to impress me with his foreign policy statements called it properly when he said that the inevitability of Iran's rise in the Middle East was guaranteed the minute we destabilized the Iraqi government. I've mentioned several times that Nixon, a great foreign policy president, would never have done that, if only for that very reason.
Thanks also for your comment, Cheri, and jJack, is it really "fear" we are living in or is it increasing awareness (or is it, in fact, both?)?
Please allow me to explain how the "divide and conquer" concept works ... it works best when it is NOT believed to be a factor ... best when only a rejected "theory" (such as in dumb conspiracy thingies) ... best when the divided do NOT really see it for what it is.
Envision a drawing of a triangle, commonly used to denote a hierarchy chain of command such as in a military command arrangement ... top dog (our president/CIC ?) on the very top at the "apex" ... various subordinates then below widening in numbers at the very base with the troops as a whole.
Such a "pyramid" of command is quite common in this world, it is what most civilized governments arrange themselves under ... it works great in Democracies where there is transparency (meaning that all IS visible) and all are honest and cooperating for the greater good of the whole.
All major business structures are constructed on variations of this principle ... I will not go into it here (it is in my book), but the relationship between God and Mankind is also based upon such a concept, a full, true, and complete version.
But when fear, greed, and "other" less moralistic concepts grow in the minds of some ... and they have the wealth and power ... they take and use that very "pyramid" concept in a "scheming" way ...
They set themselves up as the "leader" at the apex ... use their wealth and power to buy up (or coerce) "helpers" below them serving on a "need to know only" basis of understanding of what is going on above them on the "chain of command" ... all are "paid" very well and the continuation of the "perks" depends upon "playing their designated part" ...
Somewhere down the line, the "leaders" infiltrate the system of governments, media, (even religions) ... especially a system like ours where we have two established political parties ...
Via the secretive control of the media that most of us use to inform ourselves of so much of what is going on, "they" interject the idea for us to believe that it is free and above board (freedom of the press)(really an outdated concept now) ... or more, that ONE NETWORK is OBVIOUSLY very Right-Wing ... FOX ... who tells their folks that they are truthful, fair and balanced, and go to some measure make things "appear" that way for those that "want" to believe so ...
At the same time the "other" networks are intentionally made to "appear" Liberal and Left-Wing ... mainly only in comparison to FOX ... but the "leaders", the "owners" at the apex area, are really NOT politically loyal to a party ... only to their intentions of maintaining power and control and the associated wealth that goes with it and buys more of it ...
Thus "those" leaders go to great lengths to stay rather "hidden" from the bulk of the people below them, especially from John Q Public who they have DIVIDED in order to control.
JQP relates to one or the other ideology of conservative or liberal, votes accordingly and argues with his opposite here on Gather and other places ... believing that there are NO "organized" leadership structures "above" as described here ... that there are only a few unorganised rich people who contribute to election campaigns in order to move things slightly in their way of preference ... JQP then only "sees" about as far as his elected political government ... the most gullible and naive believing that their president is really the top of the pyramid and has the most power in the nation ... just as they are meant to think.
The great and potentially honest pyramid that should be whole and visible, has been corrupted into pieces and parts, with interlinking SECRET relationships for the benefit of controlling cabals nefariously operating for their own selfish greedy interests and benefit ... AT OUR EXPENSE !!!
Of course our "free and honest" MEDIA would have us believe just what those (we are not supposed to suspect even exist), INTEND for us to believe ... how can anyone with an open mind in this day and age NOT see the truth of this when explained to them ???
Please don't tell me that I am only imagining this ... that all I need to do is create the better reality by "positive thinking" ... but then again ... to each their own.
That "gap" down here on "our" base reality that has been created and maintained for our DIVISION, could and should be BRIDGED with the Spirit of our real commonality intrinsic to our divine truth of Spirituality that is GENERIC, as opposed to BRANDED religious and secular DIVISIONS.
The REAL TRUTH (+=-) has no gaps or voids to deceive the folks, it is the fullness of the Spiritual Creation that sets each and all FREE !
We cannot get there (freedom) until we acknowledge and confront that which binds us in servitude ... the pyramid SCHEMES of which our media is the most compromised by.
textual diarrhea again seems to have no
goal but to interject nonsense and stop all
conversation. I wonder if Gather had you
in mind when they added the approve
comments capability.
"Last week, two nonprofit journalism organizations released a study revealing that President Bush and top administration officials issued "at least 935 false statements" during the two years leading up to our invasion of Iraq."
The answer is : in late 2002 and early 2003, we didn't know the false statements were, in fact, false. Their veracity only became evident AFTER we invaded Iraq.
The gentlemen who raised these questions were also investigated and found to be Left Wing idealogues............not simple Independent researchers, like they advertised. Lying about your credentials usually gets you banned from news coverage, as these posers found out.
Now you're catching on.
If by the "we" you mean us, you're right. However, Bret, the BBC and other news organizations have reported ad nauseum that our intel did not agree with the statements being made and agents have numerously been quoted as making statements such as "Where are they getting this stuff?"
The nuclear issue was the most effective lie in scaring the public. Bush's mention of it in his state-of-the-union speech is the classic lie of all the lies they told because it has been proven that he knew it was a lie ten ways to Sunday. You are familiar with the "yellowcake caper" aren't you?
Jeannie, above mentioned their strategy of planting stories and then using those same stories, once published as their sources. They also used known fraudulent documents as "reliable sources," not only with respect to the African yellowcake matter but also regarding other MWD's in Iraq. And the thugs didn't like being called down for their nefarious practices as witnessed by the outing of Wilson's wife.
The honest appraisal on the Iran situation by our intelligence services served notice on the administration that they will no longer be a willing tool in the ongoing program of spreading lies which, at that point were being aimed at Iran in preparation for a preemptive attack on that country.
We will all breathe a collective sigh of relief on 1/20/09 as this gang of lying thugs exits the White House, provided that they have not created another national emergency between now and then.
We owe a major debt of gratitude to our intelligence services and we can only imagine the vindictive countermeasures the thugs are now imposing on them as their punishment.
Just think Al Capone . . . with nukes.
Lots of nukes.
Saddam seems to have not liked his sons much, saying you cannot chose your children.
Saddam invaded Kuwait because he had asked the Emir of Kuwait to stop stealing Iraqi oil by slant drilling under Iraq. The Emir responded that he would not stop until Iraq was broke and all Iraq women where whores in the street. Apparently it was pride and anger.
All the WMD had been destroyed, but Saddam was afraid to appear weak to his neighbors, and also did not believe the US would attack.
He did say that he planned to reconstitute all of his programs if he could do in the future.
This was a very eye-opening interview, of course who knows what was left out or distorted.
There is no question that President Bush and his Top Advisors had decided to invade Iraq, and that this invasion was uncalled for, and that the execution of that invastion was a total incompetant mess.
The arbitrariness, the magnitude of the error, the crime, and the cost, justifies an investigation and trial in my mind if only to set history right and motivate a protocol to handle the next such occurence of this kind of rule of man instead of rule of law then next time it comes up, ie. the next time we see a Republican get elected.
I so totally agree with you, bruce.