We hold these Truths as self-evident...
The US Senate Church Committee disclosed in 1975 that more than over 400 government propagandists had infiltrated American corporate media to manipulate public opinion on key policies, including war. CIA Director William Colby testified that Operation Mockingbird had been operational since the late 1940s to control what was reported through American television, newspapers, and magazines. President Ford fired Colby after his testimony and replaced him with George H. W. Bush. Bush Sr. ended the CIA’s testimony, stating that there were no other programs of concern to disclose and promised that the CIA would no longer influence the media (for Bush Sr.’s lies to initiate the first war with Iraq, click here).
Really?
Viacom (CBS), Disney (ABC), Rupert Murdoch (Fox), TimeWarner (CNN) are all big defense contractors? That would be news to their stockholders.
Only place that accusation has any merit is GE/NBC - and GE is about to sell off NBC.
Attacking comments because you have nothing to say about the article’s topic (as usual)? Welcome back to my policy: either make your comments pertinent to the article topic or I’ll delete your comments.
You lie by omission by ignoring Operation Mockingbird whereby the Church Senate Committee disclosed the Department of Defense was in collusion with corporate media to propagandize for war. So yes, corporate media and War Department (removing the disinformation title of Defense) are conflicted in their interests. They will not report this story and hammer it to make clear that the war in Iraq is obviously unlawful.
If you want your voice heard, defend 1441 as a justification for war as legitimate criticism to the article’s topic, or justify why corporate media shouldn’t report to the American public the information in this article, or justify our duopolistic political silence. Why don’t the corporations you list demand Obama and Republican leadership’s response to this news?
Did the major media organizations stump for war in Iraq? Pretty much, yes, with notable exceptions like Knight Ridder's national bureau.
But was it because they were owned by defense contractors? No.
First, as I pointed out, most are not owned by defense contractors. Second, they jumped on a national bandwagon and ratings chase, especially the TV folks who were seduced by the prospect of embedded live TV crews.
They also were neatly suckered by the Rumsfeld's retired expert analysts, one of the more effective Pentagon PR (propaganda) campaigns in decades.
But dismissing it all as 'defense contractor ownership" completely misses the real problem.
Even a quick search of US news sources finds extensive coverage of Blair's testimony and British reactions by ABC, CNN, NPR, PBS, Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and even the Voice of America.
So your claim is not supported by facts.
I’m in 2010 pointing out concentrated corporate domination of “news.” Readers should read the link in "Comments policy" to confirm the Pentagon propagandists you point to as “effective” rather than shills for unlawful wars who should have chosen their oath of enlistment to defend the US Constitution rather than Wars of Aggression. Ratings chase? You throw away history confirmed in 1975 with ongoing evidence of continuance of a designed propaganda program through corporate media.
You fail, as usual, to address the topic: all 27 UK Foreign Office lawyers agree for the simple reasons I show in the article that the war in Iraq is an unlawful War of Aggression. In this case, you intentionally try to confuse corporate propaganda of vaguely reporting “an inquiry” with real reporting of US/UK criminal wars. Conflicted-in-interest corporate media obfuscate rather than explain what the UN Charter demands for lawful war and the obviously false claim that 1441 is legal justification.
Try "clueless and confused."
What you see as conspiracy (and ignore 35 years of history), those who have any knowledge of the American media recognize as a really bad combination of ineptness, ignorance, and tunnel vision compounded by pressures to 'feed the beast' and 'get the scoop.'
Broadcast media have problems seeing beyond the next 'top of the hour;' print media is focused on slowing the red ink.
And most media pros know that they are doing a crappy job these days - but can't figure out how to fix it.
But when you begin your criticisms by accusing them of blatant evil intent, without a clue as to what their real problems are, don't expect them to beat a path to your door with false 'mea culpas.'
On the other hand, if they were half as controlled as you claim, they already would have destroyed you publicly.
On the other point, don't confuse characterization of "effective" as an expression of approval.
What you lie about as “clueless” is Operation Mockingbird and the other disclosures from the link in the Comment policy section above. Why don’t you acknowledge this history, wow? You lie that professional journalists who wanted a “scoop” wouldn’t just headline: “Iraq War unlawful; new Nuremberg Trials?”
The laws of the UN Charter are so easy to understand, the “excuse” of 1441 so tragic-comic, this is propaganda for everyone to see, and you, wow, are in the serious position of determining what your life’s expression is going to advocate: paper-thin propaganda for mass-murder or a better-late-than-never “Scrooge conversion.”
“Approval”??? nobody cares about your opinion, wow. The topic of this article is the war is unlawful. Show us you’re not a propagandist, wow: either state the obvious that the Iraq war is unlawful, orders pertaining to it must be refused, and government must arrest then prosecute (or Truth and Reconciliation), OR explain how it's lawful.
Well...??
I also pointed out Rumsfeld's program of getting retired generals on air to promote his views. Of course, you ignore that it was that same "corporate media" that exposed the propaganda program.
As for the "laws" of the UN Charter, they have been repeatedly demonstrated as unenforceable - by your definition of "war of aggression," every one of the Permanent Members of the Security Council (the nations with veto power) have been in violation at one time or another. There's no one to Watch the Watchers.
Deal with reality: The US Government through self-deception got itself into a stupid, unnecessary war in Iraq and now has to find the best way out of the situation. It seems, finally, to be moving in that direction.
You confirm Operation Mockingbird and the Pentagon’s allowed disinformation for the Iraq war lies. You then can’t explain why corporate media don’t headline, “Iraq War unlawful” while trying to make today’s corporate media sound different from propaganda control. Because Americans used to believe in a free press, effective propaganda must include minor revelation of truth to give the appearance of freedom. Corporate media ratings’ are plummeting and they don’t expose the huge story of unlawful war that would propel them to media leadership. Hmm, is that because they’re the propaganda arm for this unlawful war? Nah, wow must be right that this time they’re not lying, just ineffective!
You lie that laws are unenforceable. They can be, and are not. More…
If you were in any position of authority with your propaganda, you would be in danger of arrest for conspiracy for Crimes Against Humanity, Crimes Against Peace, and treason.
We’ll see if people like me who advocate Truth and Reconciliation are the stronger voice than those who prefer full prosecution, If you were such an official propagandist, wow, I’d consider my “Scrooge conversion” invitation seriously.
As for the media not trumpeting your "unlawful war" claims, how about because in general they don't believe your legal logic?
The Iraq operation was authorized by Congress; for most Americans, including most journalists, that AT MOST means the US Government has rejected the positions of other members of the UN. For many, it simply means the USA remains a sovereign nation.
Since then, there has been a lot of reporting about the inaccurate claims of WMDs, links to al Qaeda, and assorted other justifications for invading Iraq - in general, questioning why. You refuse to acknowledge that.
We all realize that you believe anyone who disagrees with you in any way must therefore be a fascist propagandist - but in the real world, it is possible to disagree about legal interpretations. (See numerous 5-4 Supreme Court decisions for example.)
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you were admitting the UN Security Council permanent members in violation; I misread you.
Congress authorized discretionary use of force, but limited by the UN Charter, you liar. All reasons for going to war with Iraq are now known as lies AS THEY WERE TOLD, you liar. You try to confuse obfuscating corporate reporting with this clear fact. Interested readers can read the documentation at “Are US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well-intended mistakes? What we now know from the evidence”. More…
But regarding the mostly-unknown rules for lawful and unlawful war of the UN Charter, Americans’ faith in good government and honest media has been insidiously turned against them to manipulate their payment of taxes and enlistment to fight in wars that are as close to legal as our football example. More…
Leges Sine Moribus Vanae
Laws without morals are in vane. – Horace, Book III, ode 24
Finally, wow: explain how UNSC Resolution 1441 justifies war. Do so now, or yes, I’ll stand with my propagandist assumption of your identity and delete your further comments as distracting from the main topic of this article: lawful or unlawful war in Iraq.
For that matter, you slanderous child of unmarried parents, I've never claimed invading Iraq was justified, period - something you repeatedly ignore in your lies and misrepresentations.
I'll state one final time: Any law that cannot be enforced is meaningless.
And nothing in the UN Charter is enforceable if any one of the Five Permanent Members exercises its veto. History has clearly demonstrated that the UN prohibition against war is toothless.
Now, demonstrate some intellectual honesty, integrity and courage and let this stand.
Or prove once again that you are a paranoid and delusional coward who cannot face anyone questioning your "expertise."
Then you have no legal justification for war, as war is unlawful unless authorized by the UNSC or a narrow definition of self-defense until the UNSC rules. You throw away the victory of WW2 that my father, uncle and father-in-law fought, the unfulfilled promise of WW1 as a “war to end all wars” that both my grandfathers fought, and stand with following the dictates of an American leader (Fuhrer) because you insultingly whine “law CANNOT be enforced.” This, after insinuating in your last comment its possible to interpret the war is legal and then withdraw from supporting that ridiculous propaganda that is the topic of this article. More…
You refuse to acknowledge the Iraq war is as unlawful as my football analogy. Instead you argue that the world’s law to end the scourge of war is “meaningless.” You stand against the US Constitution and the US-initiated treaty of the UN Charter’s elimination of war as a foreign policy option. And then you call those of us standing for these American values against tyrants and propagandists as bastards, paranoid, delusional, and a coward unable to face these questions.
Good luck with that future of yours, wow.
As a "professional educator," surely you can grasp the difference between advocating a position and describing one held by others.
I see political leaders who were already committed to a policy interpreting evidence in such a way as to support their positions, rather than basing positions on the evidence. So do most who study the run-up to war.
But you not only refuse to even consider whether that has merit, you immediately launch the very ad hominum attacks you claim to condemn.
The "legality" of the war in Iraq is a nice armchair debate - but those of us who are really interested in the welfare of this nation are more concerned with cleaning up the mess instead of pontificating. As would be your veteran ancestors, I suspect.
As for the insults, they were clearly directed solely at you; because, again, you lie about me.
Bush and Blair SAID they had a legal interpretation, which is very different from actually having one in the Orwellian extreme of the war in Iraq and our football analogy. You SAY you see interpretations favorable to policy preferences, rather than Orwellian lies and refuse to state the legal argument as its placement in writing reveals that it’s as close to legal as our football example.
I trust the readers to discern between a mass-murderous War of Aggression and your BS to obfuscate the simple legal question. I trust readers to choose when the choice is clear between the US Constitution and illegality of war versus your fascist bandwagon of what you allege “most who study” do in emulation of your complete failure to even speak for the rule of US law in its most important life-and-death application of war. more…
Thank you for your revealing comments, wow.
That pretty much sums it up. Glad we found something we can agree on.
One last try: I'd rather focus on fixing problems like marching off to war based on erroneous assumptions than rail on about legal issues that will never (and most likely can never) be ajudicated.
And while you rant your legal theories, good people are still dying and being maimed in Iraq.
So first, let's wrap up that mistake, get our people out of there and take care of the wounded. (There is, finally, a plan that appears rational.)
Then we go for systemic change that still recognizes the world as it exists.
You can march off to fix problems while rejecting the American rule of law for our government and military to honor their Oath and immediately refuse orders for unlawful war, arrest, and prosecute. You are a traitor to the laws of your country.
You can focus on “fixing” the most vicious paper-thin propaganda to unlawfully invade weak nations sitting on oil as “erroneous assumptions” and saying our most important laws can never be enforced. You enable Wars of Aggression and propagandize for others to be confused rather than clear about the most important law to understand before a soldier engages in combat.
You can pretend about the dead and wounded and back the “plan” of the criminals who engage in unlawful war to kill and maim more Americans and more of our Brothers and Sisters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and perhaps soon Iran.
Yes, this is your last try. I'll delete any comment other than addressing the topic of the article: the legal status of the Iraq war.
And you, Mr. Herman, are guilty of advocating that US military personnel violate their oath of office and effectively mutiny against their lawful orders.
If this government was one-tenth the fascist enterprise you claim, it already would have thrown your posterior into a black hole.
Fortunately, most members of the military have more integrity, honor and honesty than you do.
You are so convinced you are right? Go down to a recruiter, enlist, then refuse to serve in an 'illegal war' and take it to court.
Surprise everyone and demonstrate a little courage of your convictions.
You lie. The applicable law authorizing discretionary use of force is explicitly limited by the UN Charter. You further lie about “several” court cases; there is one I know of that didn’t rule on the legality of war under the UN Charter but on the issue whether Congress can authorize presidential discretion for use of force.
I trust the military, government, and readers to determine for themselves the obvious illegality of the war and your loveless propaganda for more death, destruction, and misery in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and I’m sure you’ll also shill for Iranian deaths. More…
If it’s so legal, as you claim, you should be able to explain it. You haven’t done so after repeated requests. So we have my detailed and self-evident explanation why the war is illegal in Orwellian degree that’s as easy to understand as our football example versus your naked statement that it must be legal because the Fuhrer said so. Explain the legality, wow, if you dare put the inane reasoning into print for all to see.
You need to do a little more research into those court cases - but you won't, because you suffer from the same disease that affected the Bush administration: you decide, then look for evidence to support your decisions.
As for rest - others have dissected your flawed analogies, although few have escaped the delete key. You rely on an interpretation of UN resolutions being superior to US law that has never been upheld in court; the only relevant court cases to date have found to the contrary, in fact.
You are, in the end, worse than a distraction - you give aid and comfort to the warmongers by presenting an opposition that can be dismissed as conspiracy kooks, Israel haters and nutjobs who consider terrorist murderers to be more credible than their own government.
- Understand the laws of war. These were legislated after WW2 and are crystal-clear that only self-defense, in a narrow legal meaning, can justify war. The current US wars are not even close to being lawful. Those involved with US military, government, and law enforcement have an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution, not “always place the mission first.” To fulfill their oath they must immediately refuse and end all orders associated with unlawful wars and military-related constant violation of treaties.
- End the transfer of trillions of American taxpayer money to banksters and admitted as “lost” by our military. End poverty through global cooperation to achieve the UN Millennium Goals by developed countries investing 0.7% of their income. Support global security through cooperation, dignity, justice, and freedom. Create a US Department of Peace to help.
- Communicate. Trust your unique, beautiful, and powerful self-expression to share as you feel appropriate. Understand that while many people are ready to embrace difficult facts, many are not. Anticipate that you will be attacked and prepare your virtuous response in the spirit of competition, just as you do in other fields.
- Prosecute the war leaders for obvious violation of the letter and spirit of US war laws. Because the crimes are so broad and deep, I recommend Truth and Reconciliation (T&R) to exchange full truth and return of stolen US assets for non-prosecution. This is the most expeditious way to understand and end all unlawful and harmful acts. Those who reject T&R are subject to prosecution.
Comments
Dear commenters,
Our PSYOPS Brothers and Sisters are likely to respond predictably with: denying Operation Mockingbird could be active in the present and certainly not in an operation against articles challenging the war, agreeing with wow without ever ever ever addressing the premise of what the UN Charter means with unlawful war and how UNSC Res. 1441 could possibly justify war, Orwellian arguments such as wow’s above that laws are not laws or some form of Americans have no other option other than submission to the dictates of our war tyrants, repeating wow’s non-arguments above, and/or some other distracting comment.
Please read my Comments policy above for more info.
Pretty wild claims, since I've repeatedly made clear I opposed the war in Iraq since before it began.
Your inability to accept that honest people can have a different opinion from yours strongly suggests you have some psychological issues of your own.
Then again, I wouldn't rule out they YOU are the real PYSOPS plant, doing your best to make opponents of the war in Iraq look like nutjobs.
And no, I'm not Yail - but you won't believe that either, I'm sure.
Carl:
For an interesting perspective on just how Operation Mockingbird is still in play, please go to www.ConversationswiththeCrow.com and take a look at the excerpts. In it you can see that Operation Mockingbird is still in play on the Net and through the wire services.
As I talk to people out in the "real world" it is clear that their primary source of "news" is truely propaganda. It is very sad that so few think for themselves. Even many internet sites are infiltrated. Are we heading for disaster?
Looks to me that "wow" needs to get himself/herself their own blog. If you can't finish your argument in a handful of comments then do us all a favor and start your own blog and link back. This is what the internet is for, not for hijacking someone else's pages.
As an interested reader I must make some observations. Politically and philosophically(?) I agree mostly with Carl's point of view. But, Carl, you never do acknowledge when "Wow" makes a point, even if it is valid. It's OK to point out errors but even when he agrees with you on a point, you slam him(or her). He/she is obviously intelligent and a worthy adversary. Kill him with facts, not insults. When he calls you a "slanderous child of unwed parents", while humorous, it shows his lack of ability to respond to you. The give and take is great but by giving 'wow" his due on some points, you would make yourself seem more objective. THANKS!
LR, if you follow it all, you'll see I only used such epithets after repeatedly seeing Herman lie about what I said and call me a fascist, propagandist, etc. - as you see he does here.
This latest round began with me point out a a claim that was grossly inaccurate and untrue - and that misses the real problem in journalism today.
You'll notice my argument is never addressed.
Actually Carl, you're right on. Just last night i 'outed' several ostensibly 'paid' mercenary trolls on the Media Matters for America facebook blog. Some had set up multiple accounts for the express purpose of attacking that site (they had no other activity on their profile page other than that of sending hate-mail to MMA). A couple of others combined this also w/ attacks on Al Gore's & Barney Frank's pages. Very interestingly, after i outed them, at least one (who posed as 3 separate people) quickly deleted all of his fb accounts.
I have noticed similar activity on the Amnesty International & Greenpeace pages. And all having been initiated just within the last two months or so.
It's funny i had an old musician friend in the bay area who was getting paid to do the same thing (his only noticeable source of income) but would never reveal his employer(s) & would quickly mollify the subject whenever it came up.
If you'd like i can send you a couple links.
Keep up the Good Work
WOW - "Time Warner Telecom received a $12 million contract for OC-192 service among military locations in Hawaii, the company announced today." Google cache. The news item seems to have been scrubbed from the main site. Hope the shareholders were told.
Separate entity, TT:
"tw telecom was founded as Time Warner Communications in 1993 as a joint venture between U S West and Time Warner Cable. Time Warner Telecom rapidly evolved into a business provider specializing in fiber-based last mile solutions.
In July 1998, Time Warner Communications became a separate entity and was reorganized into Time Warner Telecom LLC. In May 1999, the company had an initial public offering. Since 1997, the company has delivered communications services to medium and large business customers, including carriers and governmental entities. It also expanded its offerings from dedicated services into Internet, data and voice services. On July 1, 2008, the company changed its name to tw telecom."
No longer a part of Time Warner; tw telecom Board of Directors is separate as well.
Wow:
Yeah I address your argument; at least twice. You say journalists are somehow missing the mark. I say the UN Charter is crystal clear: no wars of choice, and corporate media could easily address it rather than obfuscate a law designed to prevent war as somehow allowing it in Orwell-speak. But our comments tell enough of this story to repeat more here.
So you simply dismiss out of hand the possibility that most journalists do not accept your argument as realistic, especially since most of the 'subject matter experts' hold contrary views?
Wow:
You’re pointing to Operation Mockingbird’s “subject-matter experts” propaganda in corporate media as evidence.
And yes, I’m saying the facts are self-evident and invite readers to understand them, as well as our military and government.
America was designed for the public to manage the main policy issues through our representatives in government. I’m inviting Americans to reclaim that position of authority and do the little homework required to read the rules of lawful war themselves, see that what we have now is a middle linebacker kicking the center in the head and calling it a fumble, and understand for themselves and determine what they should do. I have my policy recommendations above for their thoughtful consideration.
No, I'm pointing to journalists interviewing politicians, diplomats, academics and so on.
I know you don't believe it, but there's no giant conspiracy clearinghouse where journalists log in every day to find out the approved propaganda de jour.
The overwhelming majority are honest, hard-working folks trying to make some sense out of a world that frequently makes no sense.
But let me put it another way: Since you start from the assumption that they are all dishonest, corporate-fascist controlled propagandists - why should they give any respect to your opinions at all?
THEY know you are wrong in your fundamental assumption about them - so you have little to no credibility on anything else.
Wow:
You propagandize by claiming to speak for “THEY” and telling readers to believe what pre-chosen politicians and academics say rather than what I suggest: read the laws of war and see for themselves. You then strawman the documented evidence of 400 CIA assets in major media to lie that I assume all journalists as dishonest, etc.
You live in the world of manipulating opinions, wow. I invite people to examine what rules mean, just as in football, and draw their own conclusions.
You and I have enough exchange in this. I will delete further comments you post for this article. When you lie to readers that I insult all journalists, your comments pollute honest and serious consideration of the topic.
Check out the one star book review for "The Jungle" on amazon.com and then look at his other reviews...
Interesting.
The obvious non-reporting and shilling by the tv/radio media on the Iraq war is a fact. How can we explain the lack of truth that was exposed to elderly and middle aged citizens that rely on this type of media for news?
Firstcasualty:
As an educator, I recommend pulling back the curtain by whatever is easiest for the recipient to grasp. They have expertise in areas that might allow their first step because it’s comparable to what they already understand. Verifying that Ahmadinejad never threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” is easy by reading a few paragraphs of his speech.
My older brother is a psychologist; he says the cognitive dissonance is too strong to overcome for most in this group. My wife, an engineer, says most people don’t have the mental and social level of evolution to grasp such large ideas. And both say there’s nothing apparently better to do in life than go for human attainment of civil relationships for the first time in our known history.
I don’t bring these ideas up with people unless the subject arises naturally. I simply be of service with a sense of humor. I trust Life and work in good faith effort for humanity’s breakthrough to realize the ideal of unalienable rights.
Afraid of the truth?
www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/
"The inflammatory "wiped off the map" quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote..."
Iran later claimed it was a bad translation - but IRAN released the quote.
At least be honest about that.
I have a perfect example of what I believe the point is you HAVE made. The Tea Party movement (not tea party express)on the 4th of July across the county there were MILLIONS of protesters, yet the media barely showed anything, in the thousands.
Cont: This is another great example of a loveless and criminal war-monger who salivates for blood from our soldiers and their families. The good news is that Huh’s lie is so paper-thin, perhaps this single point of entry to discover “leading” Reps and Dems are aligned to push this lie will be their downfall. The good news is that people like Huh might have the insight of Scrooge and choose “mankind is our business” rather than viciously controlled war.
Huh: explain what the context and content of that paragraph in Ahmadinejad’s October 2005 speech means; summarize the paragraph. Do you dare? An elementary school student could do so and all who look would see. Your propaganda playbook and training demands that you change the subject to avoid the facts at the heart of your lie, but do anything other than summarize the paragraph you bring up and I’ll delete your further distractions.
Huh:
You lie by omission. The stakes are another war like Iraq, that killed thousands of Americans and over a million Iraqis (extrapolated from the only peer-reviewed study), and you lie regarding a speech that is clear in context and content when the speech is read. I challenge all responsible citizens to crush Huh?’s propaganda by following the link above to read the speech, and in five minutes discover the facts of what was said. People like Huh? who live in the world of disinformation also won’t point to the obvious question of interest: was there an agent inside Iran who got to the script to place that phrase? More…
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!