Thursday, May 14, 2009

Tortured Logic; Tortured Results

By William Loren Katz
May 14, 2009

Each day the evidence piles up - highlighted by the unconvincing (and self-incriminating) rants of Dick Cheney.

Read on.

1 comment:

CitizenPaine said...

Isn't it amazing that while the MSM, all-a-slathered-up from the top to the bottom with angry white guys shouting at the press (the thing they work for and do all the shouting on) dirty names like "Liberal" the press have presently managed to frame the torture debate into what Nancy Pelosi knew and when she knew it. As though the torture thing was her idea in the first place and she needs to be blamed for it. Meanwhile, you will not hear obvious questions like those posed in the editorial that the media should rightly be asking or more appropriately demanding be investigated. But they won't and I have some evidence to back up my prediction.

You see, our government and our MSM are not suddenly being derelict in their duties to report the truth or ask the obvious questions about how we got into this war.

Here is a list of wars we have fought where the evidence now shows that the MSM and or our government either made it all up or did nothing to stop the initial provocation.

Spanish American War: Historians agree that the Boiler not the Spanish sunk the USS Maine but the press led by Murdochian William Randolph Hearst whooped us into a war
World War I: Controversial in that not only did the government knowingly load weapons on the Lusitania but made it no secret either thus guaranteeing the pretext for war
World War II: Controversy over what we knew about the attack and when we knew it but the verdict is out
Viet Nam: Historians agree there is little or no evidence for an attack in the Bay of Tonken and we pretty much just made it up
The War on "Terror" (where is that again?): There is evidence evidence that the government knew about the attack and did nothing to stop it for the purposes of creating a pretext. The need for a pretext is spelled out in detail on the PNAC website-o-former administration name fame.
Cheney said in his plans for future military operations that it was unlikely the American People would support a war unless there was a "A New Pearl Harbor". Kind of makes you wonder if we just let that first one happen too?

One could conclude that there is a basic formula that governments use to justify waging war with the support of their populus. They need a way to create the sense in the general population whether based on fact or fiction that they are under attack by a named adversary. Here at home, where we have never been attacked invasion style, the government does its bit by creating an incident, making one up or just allowing an attack to happen to serve as the provocation and pretext and then the press does it's bit to whoop us into support for war.

It also seems true of the Main Stream Media that they're not going to talk about it. Ever.