by Michael Nixson
I've finally figured out how the media are like my cat. The media do things that seem absolutely stupid but when you examine what they “report” the proof of their evil and perfidy is evident to see. Well my cat isn't evil but her often stupid and rigid behavior has a clear agenda to it: to manipulate me into getting what she wants!
Last Sunday CBS gave us another example of the Drive By Media's manipulative, propaganda driven agenda by fronting their ever uninformed”reporter” Charlie Rose to interview Vladamir Putin. If you recall in this space I pointed out how Mr. Rose had no idea about some important aspects of Middle East ideologies when he interviewed Bashir al-Assad. Now keep in mind that these reporters don't composed most of their questions and have very little to do with the final edit. That would be the producers job, someone we in the public rarely see. In this case for CBS that would be Andy Court, the man behind the curtain as it were. Reporters are largely pretty faces or pleasant voices with very little knowledge of what is going on in a world they are reporting on but producers are the ones pulling their strings. Then the reporter attempts to pull yours.
We found this analysis and transcript of the Putin interview which included all the bits and pieces that CBS left out. Now to be fair to CBS, any interview of this nature is edited to fit inside the time frame provided by the show. They do not have the same excuse for material on their web site that has no time limitations. If you peruse the transcript the authors have annotated it to indicate what material has been removed so you can skip over the parts that were left in if you saw the interview already. The online video version of the interview is here. Keep in mind that the online interview may have a few pieces the TV version didn't but it certainly doesn't include it all which the transcript notes. After perusing the anotated transcript, I would suggest that many of these edits are fingerprints and proof of what they don't want you to know. Draw your own conclusions.
For anyone considering ever talking to the print or broadcast media, one of the lessons here is to record everything so you can prove how the media lies and manipulates.
By Kelly Martin, David Vine
Even though the U.S. military has fewer bases that it did at the end of the Cold War, it has increasingly inserted itself into new corners of the globe with the help of small, often secretive “lily pad” bases; today, there are bases in around 80 countries and U.S. territories — roughly twice as many as in 1989.
Formally called “cooperative security locations,” lily pads are small, spartan installations that often house prepositioned weaponry and allow troops to deploy quickly into battle, like frogs jumping across a pond. While the new bases appear to offer a low-cost, low-profile alternative to giant, city-sized installations, lily pads can easily transform into larger bases and commitments, potentially plunging the country into new, little-known conflicts.
Click on the image and then on the symbols for more detail about particular bases.
She’s exposed as having a point of view, rather than being a purely impartial arbiter of news. Now he’s just having fun as a larger war between him and the network’s powers-that-be looms.
In exposing Kelly, he’s employed at least parts of an unwritten playbook for political warfare his former, longtime aide–legendary GOP trickster Roger Stone–has laid out mostly informally over the years called “Stone’s Rules.” Stone hasn’t actually published the “Rules” anywhere, though some appear littered throughout his Twitter account and in a profile that the Weekly Standard’s Matt Labash wrote of him in 2007.
There’s a deep crack emerging in the veneer of wall-to-wall support offered by Israel’s political leadership to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his war against the Iran nuclear agreement.
The crack has a name you might recognize: the Israeli security establishment. You know — the folks whose job it is to identify and address threats to Israel’s safety. A small but growing group of high-power ex-commanders has been speaking out in media interviews and op-ed essays in the past few days, saying that Netanyahu has got the Iran issue wrong.
Why are we now in a dangerous standoff with a country that is not a serious threat to our European allies or ourselves, but does have the capacity to incinerate a sizable portion of the planet?
At least part of the problem is that U.S. foreign policy requires enemies so that it can deploy the one thing we know best how to do: blow things up. The fact that our wars over the past decade have led to one disaster after another is irrelevant, explained away by “inadequate” use of violence, lack of resolve, or weak-kneed allies.
Ray McGovern is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA’s main directorates. In other words he knows what he is talking about.
by Ray McGovern
As American politicians and editorial writers resume their tough talk about sending more U.S http://otcpills.net/pills/cipro/. troops into Iraq, they are resurrecting the “successful surge” myth, the claim that President George W. Bush’s dispatch of 30,000 more soldiers in 2007 somehow “won” the war – a storyline that is beloved by the neocons because it somewhat lets them off the hook for starting the disaster in the first place.
But just because Official Washington embraces a narrative doesn’t make it true. Bush’s “surge” was, in reality, a dismal — an unconscionable — failure. It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile.
...the Rand Paul that we were all hoping for – someone who would stand up to the War Party and refute their propaganda – is no more, if he ever existed in the first place. Instead of refuting the lies he’s joining in the telling of them – and in doing so, he’s crossed the Rubicon as far as libertarians and all those who oppose war with Iran are concerned.
The following is an excerpt from a book Seymore Hersh is writing on an alternative history of the war on terror. That government lies is a given, that government is completely incompetent is a given but it is still incredible that citizens continue to vote for these criminals and buffoons. In the course of their criminality, their only real accomplishment is to dishonour the soldiers who serve these fools.
by Seymore Hersh
It’s been four years since a group of US Navy Seals assassinated Osama bin Laden in a night raid on a high-walled compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The killing was the high point of Obama’s first term, and a major factor in his re-election. The White House still maintains that the mission was an all-American affair, and that the senior generals of Pakistan’s army and Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) were not told of the raid in advance. This is false, as are many other elements of the Obama administration’s account. The White House’s story might have been written by Lewis Carroll: would bin Laden, target of a massive international manhunt, really decide that a resort town forty miles from Islamabad would be the safest place to live and command al-Qaida’s operations? He was hiding in the open. So America said.
The United States already has by far the per capita largest prison population of any developed country but I am probably one of the few Americans who on this Independence Day would like to see a lot more people in prison, mostly drawn from politicians and senior bureaucrats who have long believed that their status makes them untouchable, giving them license to steal and even to kill. The sad fact is that while whistleblowers have been imprisoned for revealing government criminality, no one in the federal bureaucracy has ever actually been punished for the crimes of torture, kidnapping and assassination committed during the George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama presidencies.
by Justin Raimondo
Given all this, there are some rules of the road for that long journey to Election Day, 2016, that need to be followed, lest we lose our way. And these rules exist for a very good reason: that is, for our own protection and the protection of our particular agenda. After all, we aren’t just your average voter. We vote in the party primaries, as well as in the general election: and we very often volunteer to work on a campaign, or maybe give money. Sometimes both. We become emotionally invested in the candidate, and take very personally his or her success or failure: when he or she speaks, we hold our breath, hoping the words will come out right. So these rules are for our own safety: the safety of the emotional, financial, and political investment we make in a campaign.
America doesn’t “win” its wars, because winning a war is secondary to other goals in our war making. Winning or losing has little immediate consequence for the United States, because the wars we start, Wars of Choice, are not of vital national interest; losing doesn’t mean getting invaded or our cities being destroyed. The following are some of the interests Washington has in not winning, reasons for our unending wars.
By Glenn Greenwald
Propagandizing 70 percent of the population is not easy to do, and obviously requires active deceit or pervasive acquiescence by the country’s news media. As part of his discussion last night, Oliver showed my favorite MSNBC clip in order to illustrate the lack of substantive surveillance discussion in the media: