Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Brit Hume's "no diplomatic options" comments are part of the American Psyops Program to get American Support for War with Iran.
Five Easy Pieces to Iran
A Warning from Reggie, Contributing Editor, TvNewsLIES.org
The Jigsaw to Armageddon
Yeah, folks, you can bet the ranch: we’re going in. I’ve heard all the arguments from the nay sayers, so let that go. We’re going in.
This is déjà vu time, for sure, as we look back on the months before Shock and Awe, when so many of us tried to warn the nation about the coming catastrophe in Iraq. But those of us who shouted went unheard and those of us who marched in protest went unseen. Yet in the end we were right on the mark.
And so, we’ll try again. This time, we’ll set out five easy pieces of a doomsday jigsaw puzzle that easily can be assembled if you take the time to do so. As in any such puzzle, the separate parts might be interesting, but not significant in themselves. But once assembled, the full picture emerges, where none could be seen before.
Each piece of this puzzle contains disturbing evidence that Bushco intends to unleash a massive, and possibly nuclear attack on Iran in the very near future. Examined separately, the pieces might seem unsettling but not calamitous. But when all of the pieces are viewed in correct perspective, when they interlock to form a complete picture, the final image is undeniable:
The puzzle we have pieced together reveals a very frightening picture: It is very plausible that in a very short time, most assuredly before the next presidential election, the murderous men in charge of US foreign policy may unleash Armageddon on us all.
Five Easy Pieces:
PIECE ONE: The Neocons.
• Between 1997 and 2000, the founders of the Project for a New American Century laid out their plans for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the need for US military domination of the Middle East.
• In a 1996 letter to President Bill Clinton, they wrote: The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
• In 2000, their treatise on Rebuilding America’s Defenses stated that… the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars…
• In a letter to President George W. Bush immediately after 9/11, they wrote:…even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power…
• And after the 2000 theft of office, more than a dozen members of PNAC, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others, assumed high level positions in the Bush administration. To this day, many of the PNAC neocons continue to be largely responsible for formulating American foreign policy.
PIECE TWO: The Warning
• On February 1st, 2007, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Iraq that attracted little public attention and that received hardly any mainstream media coverage. Testifying before the committee was Zbigniew Brzezinski, the prominent political scientist, geostrategist and statesman who had served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter
• A long time critic of the war in Iraq, Brzezinski referred to the Iraq invasion as “…a historic, strategic, and moral calamity…undertaken under false assumptions, [and] undermining America’s global legitimacy.” But far more important than this characterization of Bush’s ‘war of choice’ was his unmistakable warning about what was in the works.
• The official transcript of Brzezinski’s testimony includes this devastating warning:
If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Was anyone listening?
PIECE THREE: Getting Ready
• An ominous segment of the PNAC treatise states that….the preferred weapon for punitive raids is the cruise missile, supplemented by stealthy strike aircraft and longer-range Air Force strike aircraft. Carrier aircraft are most useful in sustaining a campaign begun with missiles and stealth strike aircraft, indicating that a surface action group capable of launching several hundred cruise missiles is the most valuable naval presence in the Gulf.
• On February 25th, 2007 a journalist for the British newspaper The Telegraph reported from on board the USS Eisenhower en route to the Persian Gulf. In an article entitled “American Armada Prepares to Take on Iran,” Damien McElroy described the carrier as “Four and a half acres of American power in the Arabian sea,”
• On June 13, 2007, news services reported that a fourth carrier had joined three other U.S. carrier groups in Gulf. The nuclear-powered USS Enterprise, which joined the USS Eisenhower, USS John C. Stennis and USS Nimitz carrier strike groups is the longest naval vessel in the world and carries 66 aircraft.
• And, for icing on the cake, - on September 10, 2007 the US announced it’s intentions to build a military base on the Iraq-Iran border. According to the report, “The push also includes construction of fortified checkpoints on the major highways leading from the Iranian border to Baghdad and the installation of X-ray machines and explosives-detecting sensors at the only formal border crossing between Iran and Iraq.”
Do the math.
PIECE FOUR: Nuclear madness
• Background: The first of the three documents which made up the post 9/11 U.S. nuclear posture was delivered to the. Congress by the DOD in January, 2002. Titled the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the document authorized the potential use of nuclear weapons “…in various contingencies, including against non-nuclear weapons states and in response to conventional weapons.”
• In other words, this official declaration of US military policy states that the United States may use nuclear weapons as it would any other weapon.
• Reality check: On September 5th, 2007, six nuclear warheads on cruise missiles were “mistakenly” carried on a flight from North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. Please, please, for the sake of this nation and the world, try to understand the significance of this ‘accidental’ move. Larry Johnson raises a very vital question in his article at TMP CAFÉ. He explains that Barksdale AFB is not simply a landing field. Rather, it is a major jumping off point for US operations in the Middle East, and wonders whether this story might not have been leaked by military personnel concerned about plans for staging a nuclear attack against Iran.
• Johnson writes: What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. We need some tough questions and clear answers. What the hell is going on?
What the hell, for sure. Someone was willing to violate the long standing cold war treaty that prohibited the transporting of armed missiles by air.
Wonder why.
PIECE FIVE: The Hype
• We’ve all been there and done that. In 2002 we had the White House Iraq Group writing copy for the complicit corporate media to sell the war to a terrified and vulnerable public It worked then, and may well work again as a new campaign is under way to beat the drums for a new war.
• At TvNewsLIES.org we thought an attack against Iran would begin sooner, but apparently the thugs in Washington still have some glitches to work out. But it’s time to get the lap dogs in the media to soften up the public for a new adversary. Bush/Cheney/PNAC has run out of bogey men for the moment, and it’s getting too close to an election which might just take away their momentum.
• How about this: The August 23rd, 2007 issue of New Yorker Magazine ran a story saying that Dick Cheney has given orders for a “a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day.” The campaign purportedly will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, Murdoch’s new acquisitions - FOX and the Wall Street Journal - as well as the PNAC mouthpiece, Weekly Standard, and other media outlets. “It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves,” claims the reporter, and is “designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained.”
• The information came from Barnett Rubin, a well known and highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University who received corroboration concerning the accuracy of the piece from someone at a neocon think tank.
Watch for it and see where it goes this time around
Placing the Pieces
Let’s see, now. Is it possible to piece together these five puzzle pieces and end up with a lovely picture of peace and harmony in the world? Sure it is. On the other hand, is it not only possible, but far more probable that the image on the completed puzzle board will actually be one of horrific disaster?
At this moment, I don’t really care whether or not anyone out there has bought into the official story of 9/11 or not. I really don’t care if you are convinced that anyone in power in the United States could actually orchestrate an attack on his or her own people.
I do care, however, that someone with decades of experience in government and a first hand look at the inside machinations of foreign policy has publicly warned us that …a plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran.”
I do care that Presidential Directive 51, issued in May of 2007 gives George W. Bush full charge of every existing government agency in the event of any occurrence he personally deems ‘catastrophic.’
I do care that the Five Easy Pieces presented in this article include vital information that is factual and well documented and undisputed, yet are not considered newsworthy by our failed media.
I do care that the pieces appear to fit together easily, and that the image that is emerging scares me to death.
You might want to put the pieces together on your own and see what happens.
Peace and tranquility or Armageddon. You decide.
***
CATAPULTING THE PROPAGANDA - BRIT HUME PLAYS THE ROLE OF SOVIET STYLE "reporter."
Listen to audio clip of this Bushism
Tuesday September 11, 2007 07:10 EST
Fox and Brit Hume take propaganda to a new level
Just as George Bush and Dick Cheney have done on politically important occasions, Gen. David Petraeus (along with Ambassador Ryan Crocker) last night selected Fox News' Brit Hume as the "journalist" rewarded with an exclusive "interview." Whereas Hume, in the past, at least has pretended to play the role of journalist when interviewing high Bush officials -- doing things like asking (extremely respectful) questions about sensitive areas (with no follow up) -- he dispensed entirely with the pretense here. This "interview" took government propaganda to a whole new level, and really has to be seen to be believed (the full video is here).
The whole production was such transparent propaganda that one doubts that Pravda would have been shameless enough to present it. Even the title of the program was creepy. Fox did not even bother to call it an "interview," but rather hailed it as a "Briefing for America."
The model for the entire hour was not a journalist asking questions of government leaders, but instead, a direct examination at a trial, where a friendly lawyer gently leads his own witness to present claims in the most persuasive manner possible, with the lawyer interrupting only to clarify the witness' statements and to provide helpful suggestions as to how the witness can make his case even more effectively.
Amazingly, the first ten minutes or so of the program consisted of Petraeus unilaterally presenting his case, uninterrupted, as to all the ways in which we have made Great Progress in Iraq since the Surge began. Fox News set up a huge flat screen television next to Petraeus, and already plugged into that screen were all of the U.S. military's own charts and graphs designed to visually depict Iraq as becoming better and safer since the Surge began.
Like a professor lecturing his class, Petraeus held a pointer, and had notes in front of him indicating the sequence of the screens. When he was done explaining one happy Good News screen, the next one popped up, and he proceeded that way -- with no challenge whatsoever -- to present his "Briefing for America." Hume sat by quietly and reverently, opening his mouth only to add information to make Petraeus' point clearer. The "interview" was engineered and scripted by the U.S. military, with Hume playing the role of Master of Ceremonies.
The second segment was with Ambassador Crocker, and it proceeded exactly the same way. With virtually no interruption, Crocker delivered prepared remarks, hailing one exciting improvement after the next on the political and diplomatic front. Not only did Hume not challenge a single point, but he again spoke only in order to bolster the points Crocker was making.
The remainder of the interview was designed to elicit the points which both Fox and Petraeus are most eager to make, focusing particularly on the alleged acts of war Iran is directing against U.S. forces. At Hume's prodding, Petraeus strongly implied that it would soon be necessary to obtain authorization to take action against Iran within its borders, rather than only in Iraq. After Petreaus made sweeping accusations against Iran, this exchange ensued:
HUME: Do the rules of engagement that you're operating under allow you do to what you think you need to do to suppress this activity on the part of Iran, or perhaps do you need assistance from military not under your command to do this?The rest of the "interview" was filled with unbelievable exchanges like this one:PETRAEUS: They allow us to do what we need to do inside Iraq.
HUME:Is that enough in your view?
PETRAEUS: Well, that's what I'm responsible for, and again, when I have concerns about something beyond that, I take them to my boss . . . and in fact, we have shared our concerns with him and with the chain of command, and there is a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation.
HUME: That sounds pretty disturbing, Ambassador Crocker -- that we are confronting with Iran now a situation where it doesn't appear that we have any diplomatic possibilities to suppress this activity by Iran, or do we?
HUME: Would you say that we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today in terms of sectarian violence in Iraq generally had not Al Qaeda not been present and active there?Obviously, Fox News is free to say whatever it wants, and to give the government as much of a platform as it wants. But the fact that other journalists would sit meekly by and quietly accept the announcement that Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker would grant an "exclusive interview" to a propaganda network -- and that they all continue to pretend that Brit Hume is a "journalist" -- is inexcusable. I defy anyone to watch this hour-long program and identify anything at all that would be different if the interview had been conducted with a Soviet General by Pravda, or if the interview had been conducted by a U.S. military spokesman. There are no differences, except that -- with a Pravda interview or one conducted by one of Petraeus' subordinates -- the deceit would be less.PETRAEUS: That's correct.
HUME: Has this, in an ultimate sense, turned out to be, more than anything else, a war with Al Qaeda?
PETRAEUS: Well, it is Al Qaeda and associated movements, I think, or affiliates, if you would.
Yet our media class continues to treat Fox News, and especially Brit Hume, as though they are some type of legitimate journalists. That says more about the state of our political press and the true role it plays than it does about Fox and Hume. Here, for instance, is just part of a worshipful profile written last year by Howard Kurtz, "media critic" for The Washington Post, in which he and several other "journalists" praised Hume for his superb journalistic integrity:
There is a formal bearing about Hume that transcends his suspenders and American flag lapel pin. He speaks deliberately, unhurriedly, making his points with logic rather than passion. On a network filled with flamboyant personalities, he gave his nightly program the bland title "Special Report." . . .Even before this obscene propaganda show last night, the very idea that Hume could be considered a "journalist," and that there is nothing deemed improper about Gen. Petraeus choosing him for an exclusive interview, speaks volumes about the broken and corrupt state of our media. Hume is an outspoken proponent of the war, having called Jack Murtha senile for advocating withdrawal and proclaiming the Democrats untrustworthy on national security for opposing the war.Hume is no partisan brawler in the mold of some of Fox's high-decibel hosts. By virtue of his investigative background, his understated style and his management role, he represents a hybrid strain: conservatives who believe in news, not bloviation, but news that passes through a different lens, filtered through a different set of assumptions. . . .
"He has a wonderful style which makes you want to hear what Brit has to say, in an age when so many people are in your face," [Charlie] Gibson says.
A country with a functioning political press would never pretend that the pro-war, Bush-worshipping Hume could conduct an actual interview with Petraeus, let alone be the only journalist allowed to do so. And a government subject even to minimal levels of accountability would be too embarrassed, or at least deterred, from decreeing that its top general, burdened by a dubious record and making highly precarious claims about an ongoing war, would sit for a television interview with only one "journalist," and that journalist would be Brit Hume.
Yet not only does all of that happen with not a word of protest from our media, but they proceed to produce the most astonishingly transparent propaganda spectacle one can imagine, knowing that there is no cost to doing so. What a sad commentary on the state of our country's political culture.
When David Halberstam died earlier this year, all of our media stars solemnly paid homage to this "true journalist." But as I have noted many times, Halberstam -- in a speech to the Columbia School of Journalism shortly before he died -- recounted the proudest moment of his career: When he was a young reporter in Saigon, already disliked by the U.S. military for his adversarial reporting, he stood up in a military press briefing and demanded that he be allowed access to the battlefield so that he could see for himself what was happening and not have to rely blindly on the Generals' claims:
And in the back, and outside, some 40 military officers, all of them big time brass. It was clearly an attempt to intimidate us.Now, our "journalists" conduct "interviews" with Generals from their knees, allow them to script the entire program in advance, and -- with some isolated and noble exceptions -- see their role as giving a platform to and uncritically amplifying every assertion made by the U.S. military. Last night's perfectly scripted Fox pageant demonstrates that they don't even bother to pretend otherwise anymore. That hour-long "interview" last night with Petraeus and Crocker would fit quite comfortably on North Korean state television. It also now fits quite comfortably within the American media landscape.General Stilwell tried to take the intimidation a step further. He began by saying that Neil and I had bothered General Harkins and Ambassador Lodge and other VIPs, and we were not to do it again. Period.
And I stood up, my heart beating wildly -- and told him that we were not his corporals or privates, that we worked for The New York Times and UP and AP and Newsweek, not for the Department of Defense.
I said that we knew that 30 American helicopters and perhaps 150 American soldiers had gone into battle, and the American people had a right to know what happened. I went on to say that we would continue to press to go on missions and call Ambassador Lodge and General Harkins, but he could, if he chose, write to our editors telling them that we were being too aggressive, and were pushing much too hard to go into battle. That was certainly his right.
Labels: Brit Hume, Dr. Robert Stadler, traitor
