Sunday, March 15, 2009

WPost Is a Neocon Propaganda Sheet

By Robert Parry
March 15, 2009

For Americans who hear the name Washington Post and still think of “All the President’s Men” – brave journalists and editors facing down a corrupt President – today’s version of the newspaper would be a sad disappointment, a betrayal of a noble past.

Read on.

9 comments:

zuzuz said...

Great read.

The WP's and NYT's inability to tell the truth is the sole reason I have stopped subscribing to them, stopped buying them. They like to pretend their decline in readership is because of bloggers and the new media--but no. It's because of what Mr. Parry's excellent list signifies about their trustability.

Thanks.

flingleding said...

I have come to the suspicion that all of these so-called media leaders have been for years and are now being blackmailed to toe the line that is desired by the military and shadow government. The uniformity of reportage (or not reporting, like Sibel Edmonds, Avian Flu virus "accident," chemtrails, stolen 2004 election, 911 truth, etc) is so extreme that they are either directly controlled willingly, or are in fear of their lives or exposure of some human failing that would ruin them. This rather obvious possibility is never brought up in the many articles I see bemoaning the pitiful state of our news. Then again, the Nation (et al.) may be no exception...

Anonymous said...

WPost is a wonderful news source which is more informative with less crucifing allegations regarding our former President. Parry is the ONLY so-called news reporter who reports his own liberal personal convictions (as with all LIBERALS) crucifing former President Bush, but with NO proof EVER of your allegations, LIES and derogatory comments. Parry should be convicted of false allegations and personal attacks on the character of our former President. But then, President Bush is far more decent than reduce himself to liberal standards.

With the LIES you LIBERALS profess against our former President, you have YET to prove just ONE.

Parry, please prove just ONE of your allegations. But you can't, can you?

kclaf said...

I think we all pretty much understand that the right wingers are going to go to any lengths to undermine President Obama. They will use any means to do this, they really do want this president to fail, therefore, they want our country to fail. Telling the truth is something they will never accomodate. They want their power at any and all costs.

racom said...

I see the single support of the right wing rag WP was too gutless to actually leave a name or identity other than anonymous. Probably one of the WP editors or some other flunky. Robert nails them on this character assassination of Charles Freeman as well as anyone could. What I don't understand is where is the Obama administration, how can they allow this to go down? Rahm should renounce his Israel citizenship or resign. Freeman is a better man than emanuel or schumer, both make me question their real loyalties.

meremark said...

racom says, "What I don't understand is where is the Obama administration, how can they allow this to go down?"

First and most important: Know that you can understand. Events entail motives which are logical, reasonable, rational, and you understand these as 'human nature,' and you have felt these motives and you have used these motives yourself. That's how and why you can validly recognize them and so you are worthy and qualified to make judgment yourself.

(Ever notice that 'How' and 'Why' -- taught in journalism among the 5 W's & How belonging in every news report -- have gone missing in 'modern' (read: broadcasting) News reporting? ... and a new 2 W's get added: Will and Would (or Won't, Wouldn't), which are future speculation words with NO proper place in reporting an event which happened past tense.)

flingleding says, "the suspicion that all ... are now being blackmailed" ... coerced, extorted, bodily threatened, etc.

So I ask: Is it understandable that Obama betrays his promises, pledges, and very oath because he is blackmailed (coerced, extorted, threatened, etc.)?

Yes, in that consideration his errant or erratic (mis)behavior IS logically, reasonably, rationally understandable.

More's the point: Since his words contradict his acts without explanation of motive, is coercion thereby 'proved' (to be forcing him, unseen) as the only understood, and understandable, Why? and How?

Yes. We all can understand that and that is all we need to understand.

Boomer Girl said...

I actually think that the problem is more pernicious than a media dislike for Democrats and preference for Republicans. I suspect the real issue is the media preference for friction, the need for fresh meat to feed it’s hungry maw. As one media host said to me, the media likes conflict. How disgusting! It's not personal, it's just the never ending quest for more conflict to themselves and all of us entertained. Never mind that it presents a distorted view of reality.

Think of the latest flap on earmarks, for example, with all the overblown rhetoric about the BLOATED BUDGET with a HUGE number of earmarks. We watched the media types play gotcha with all the folks who “larded” the budget bill with all that pork, dramatically displaying the scrolling list of Democrats and Republicans alike who had earmarks in the bill. All this endlessly repeated all day long in breathless tones by the newsreaders on the television media outlets.

Somewhere buried at the bottom of that pile of crap is the largely ignored fact that earmarks represented approximately 2% of the budget, TWO PERCENT! I guess some could say any amount is excessive, but during this economic crisis, that amount is virtually negligible and simply not worthy of the amount of attention focused on it.

All this while the major portion of the bill that provided sorely needed funding languished in the senate, awaiting the end of the game-playing. The sexy story for the media was “Obama is wishy-washy, his plan lacks clarity and he’s going back on his campaign promise and the Republicans are posturing for political advantage. Blah, blah, blah.

How fortunate for the media, how sad for the country. We never did really have a serious discussion of the merits of the issues. Not really interesting enough for our media that is hungry for the sexy stories.

Chet and David, where are you????

Anonymous said...

Robert, I believe that many of the news media outlets have been so embedded with CIA, and other intelligence agencies tied to the military, that they are afraid of the truth becoming public information. Under the Bush administration these agencies spent more than 200 billion dollars paying reporters, authors, academics, think tanks and radical conservative organizations to circulate propaganda of various types. Once this information is vetted, the Fourth Estate will take a big hit, mostly in the pocketbook. So, under the threat of blackmail (exposure), they continued to pitch lies to protect Bush and paint Obama as a danger to the American Republic. Robert, exposure of these well-paid mercenary partnerships is the Neocon's Achilles Heel you should aim for in your future pieces. I am convinced expose of these partnerships could be the number one news story of this decade.

Anonymous said...

Chas Freeman: It's not over yet
By Lawrence W. White, FLAME Hotline, March 11, 2009

Charles Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, is the diplomat chosen several weeks ago by the administration to chair the National Intelligence Council.

Problems immediately arose. Freeman was in the paid service of Saudi Arabia, had repeatedly blasted Israel, had defended China including its actions in the Tiananmen Square massacre, and had numerous conflicts of interest. Prior to the appointment he had not been fully vetted, and any examination of his finances had not occurred. As a result, the selection became controversial as soon as Freeman's name became public.

As a result of these issues, opposition to his nomination arose among several members of Congress, as well as parts of the media and ordinary citizens. This led to his withdrawing his nomination after several weeks of controversy. Whether he withdrew or was pushed is not clear at this time.

Opposition to Freeman was initially attributed to his many statements blaming Israel for the current crisis and absence of peace in the Middle East. However, what led to his demise were not primarily considerations related to Israel but rather the exposure of Freeman's many statements apologizing for Saudi and Chinese behavior as well as a whole panoply of foreign policy conflicts.

These included his 12-year chairmanship of the Middle East Policy Council which was a Saudi-funded front group, and his chairmanship of Projects International, a group that represented U.S. business interests in Saudi Arabia and China. Freeman fully supported the repressive government of China. He criticized a Tibet protest against China as a "race riot", and stated that China should have intervened earlier in the Tiananmen Square protests. But the major feature of his support for China was his paid role on the board of a Chinese government-owned oil company that had dealings in Iran. This same Chinese oil company also purchased oil from Sudan while its leaders were overseeing genocide in Darfur. There were no objections from Freeman about any of this

Following the withdrawal, a collective sigh of relief was uttered by those who opposed him. However, it is not yet time to uncork the champagne. For those of us in opposition, we should not expect this problem to disappear. The fact that a group of citizens along with members of Congress mobilized to put pressure on the administration to halt the nomination clearly represents an age-old use of the democratic right to petition government. However, it also opens the door to new charges of pressure from the Israel lobby.

We have heard this before, from Jimmy Carter, Stephen Walt, and John Mearsheimer, from the likes of such hateful demagogues as Norman Finkelstein, and even from Jewish groups such as J Street, who falsely label themselves as pro-Israel. This time, joining the cries of criticism of the so-called "Israel lobby" are many new and surprising names, including Andrew Sullivan, and M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum.

Certain historical events become symbols. The USS Liberty tragic friendly fire incident in 1967 became the casus belli for the anti-Israel zealots and has been so for over 40 years. Now the Freeman case is about to become the poster child for those who preach against the "Israel lobby".

Freeman himself has initiated the process. In a note to Foreign Policy, ABC News has reported that Freeman attacked the Israel lobby, claiming that the destruction of his career "will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues."

Here are Freeman's words:

"The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors."

The inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States."

Now what is going on here? Congress, the media, good government organizations, and various special interest groups, have always evaluated candidates for high government office with great scrutiny. In this case as in others, the candidates own words were examined in full context. But as Jake Tapper of ABC News has pointed out, "only in Freeman's case does the nominee make an allegation that a foreign power was lurking nefariously somehow behind it all."

For Freeman, this represents a different and more lucrative kind of career move than the one he had originally expected. He is now following in the footsteps of Jimmy Carter, Ramsey Clark, Charles Lindbergh, and others who have made a profitable career out of travelling the lecture circuit blaming Jews and peddling tales of conspiracy. This is what Richard Hofstadter labeled "the paranoid style in American politics", and it has great appeal for angry minds.

Most Jewish and pro-Israel organizations took no public stance on the nomination, and there was apparently little lobbying of Congress. Nonetheless, Freeman's son, Charles Freeman Jr., a former assistant U.S. Trade Representative for China Affairs., referred to his father's critics as "Israel first-ers" and stated that his father's "appointment is being challenged these days by a small cabal of folks that believe first and foremost in the importance of allegiance to Israel as a core U.S. priority."

An irony in all this is that according to several members of Congress, the concerns about his anti-Israel positions did not and would not stop his official appointment to chair the NIC. Rather, it was Freeman's comments on China and Tibet, and his connections to the Chinese oil company, that finally did him in.

None of Freeman's critics claimed that he was not entitled to hold these opinions on Israel, China and the Middle East. Rather, they claimed he was not entitled to hold these judgments and allegiances and at the same time make official analyses and reach conclusions for the US government on critical intelligence matters.

This raises an age-old question for American Jews. Is it useful to try to prevent this sort of appointment, or will it, as M.J. Rosenberg claims, be dangerous in that it feeds resentment of Jews in official circles? We had a different experience during World War II, when the Roosevelt administration was supported by most of the Jewish community. Opposition to Roosevelt's policies regarding restrictions on intake of the doomed European Jews was virtually non-existent. At that time, the roles of Jimmy Carter, Stephen Walt, and John Mearsheimer, were taken by Charles Lindberg, Henry Ford, and Father Coughlin.

In the 1930s and 1940s Jews were primarily motivated by the fear of creating an anti-Semitic backlash. The prevailing view of the Jewish community was to maintain a low profile and do nothing that might annoy the powers in Washington, (This is the position of M.J. Rosenberg today).

At present, the Jewish community can see the results of a more aggressive posture. We now know the benefits of publicly speaking out, of lobbying, and using our rights as citizens. All indications are that this is a far healthier stance. However, this behavior is about to be tested.