Western propaganda is relentless. Media scoundrels regurgitate official misinformation and bald-faced lies. Truth and full disclosure are verboten. Judith Miller is back. In fact, she never went away. Earlier she fell from grace for shilling for George W. Bush’s Iraq war. She wrote daily propaganda pieces. She was a Pentagon press agent. She still is. […]
Western propaganda is relentless. Media scoundrels regurgitate official misinformation and bald-faced lies. Truth and full disclosure are verboten.
Judith Miller is back. In fact, she never went away. Earlier she fell from grace for shilling for George W. Bush’s Iraq war. She wrote daily propaganda pieces.
She was a Pentagon press agent. She still is. She’s not a legitimate journalist. After Syrian officials were killed last week, she called its defense apparatus “decapitated.”
In fact, those killed were quickly replaced. Syrian forces routed Western death squads in Damascus and elsewhere. It’s battling them in Aleppo. It’s the nation’s largest city and commercial hub. Expect a similar result there.
Assad’s government remains in control overall. Miller did what she does best. She lied and never says she’s sorry.
Recent Mossad-connected Debkafile reports stoked fear by claiming Syrian chemical weapons are being moved and may be used.
On July 22, it claimed, “Jordanian armies and U.S. Middle East forces have switched to preparedness mode … in case Syrian chemical weapons (head) toward Lebanon.”
U.S. and Israeli “military chiefs prefer to stop (them) before (they move) across the border.” It quoted Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak saying, “I’ve ordered the Israeli military to prepare for a situation where we would have to weigh the possibility of carrying out an attack against Syrian weapons arsenals.”
Syria’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi said Damascus will never use chemical or biological weapons internally. Moreover, they’re secured and closely monitored.
At the same time, he expressed concern about “tactical bombs or mines containing biological substances that would explode somewhere in a village and then accusing the Syrian forces of doing that.”
He urged countries claiming concern for Syrians to switch their “negative media campaigns” to supporting a political solution over violence.
Instead, unrelenting propaganda rages. Media scoundrels spread it. Headlines vilify Assad unfairly.
The good news is that trust in U.S. television news hit a new low. On July 10, Gallup reported that only 21 percent of adults expressed “a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in it.”
A year ago it was 27 percent. In 1993, when Gallup began tracking confidence it was 46 percent.
The polling group added that most people no longer feel “confident” about TV news. They also distrust major print media.
Gallup attributed negativity to similar views about “many other U.S. institutions and the direction of the country in general.”
Given the recent trend, poll numbers suggest a continued downward direction. Growing numbers of Americans know media scoundrels deliver managed news misinformation.
It rages on Syria. At times, separating fact from fiction is daunting. Not, however, when people wanting to know what’s going on turn exclusively to reliable alternative sources.
Perhaps Gallup one day will say no one watches TV news anymore. Sensible viewers long ago gave up on it.
Syria reporting is grossly inaccurate and one-sided. A propaganda war of words rages. Disinformation is official policy. Media scoundrels go along in lockstep.
Aggressive wars are called liberating ones. Public opinion is manipulated accordingly. Fabricated reality substitutes for events on the ground. Issues at stake are concealed. Fake ones are promoted. Intense campaigns try to convince people that black is white and vice versa.
Enemies face false charges. Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International (AI), the Human Rights Council (HRC) and broadcasters like BBC, CBC, PBS, NPR and Democracy Now (DN) support Western imperialism. So do quasi-progressive print publications like Nation magazine, Mother Jones and others.
CIA/CFR/Trilateral Commission-connected corporate foundations provide funding. Well-known ones include Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Soros and MacArthur. Money from these sources is tainted. It expects services rendered in return. Conflicts of interest are rife.
Sources viewers, listeners and readers believe are reliable operate often like their major media counterparts. They do it deceptively by delivering quasi-real reports on issues less important than war and peace and imperial dominance.
NGOs like HRW and AI are imperial agents. From its 1978 beginnings, HRW delivered pro-Western/anti-Soviet propaganda. It’s a reliable Western propaganda instrument.
Executive Director Kenneth Roth is a former federal prosecutor. Former HRW head Aryeh Neier hired him. He left to become president of Soros’ Open Society Institute.
Deputy Executive Director for External Relations Carrol Bogert served as Newsweek’s editor, correspondent and bureau chief. Other past and present members have ties to sources representing U.S. foreign policy interests.
AI operates the same way. According to Francis Boyle, “Amnesty International is primarily motivated not by human rights but by publicity. Second comes money. Third comes getting more members. Fourth, internal turf battles. And then finally, human rights, genuine human rights concerns.”
To be sure, if you are dealing with a human rights situation in a country that is at odds with the United States or Britain, it gets an awful lot of attention, resources, man and womanpower, publicity, you name it. They can throw whatever they want at that.”
“But if it’s dealing with violations of human rights by the United States, Britain, Israel, then it’s like pulling teeth to get them to really do something on the situation. They might, very reluctantly and after an enormous amount of internal fightings and battles and pressures, you name it. But you know, it’s not like the official enemies list.”
In 1990, AI spread Washington propaganda preceding the Gulf War. It supported the falsified report about throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators. It lied in return for funding.
During the Balkan wars, it performed similar services. It promoted false reports about Serbs committing mass rapes. In 1999, it supported “humanitarian bombing.” It said “AI is not an anti-war organization.”
In 2011, it spread unsubstantiated rumors and disinformation during NATO’s Libya war.
In May 2012, it participated in an Afghan war campaign. It featured the slogan, “NATO: Keep the Progress Going.”
In June, Ann Wright and Coleen Rowley wrote about “Amnesty’s Shilling for U.S. Wars,” saying that AI Executive Director Suzanne Nossel worked for Richard Holbrooke at the U.N. She also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations.
In addition, she held prominent positions at the Wall Street Journal and McKinsey & Co. It’s closely connected to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In other words, she’s an imperial insider.
She helped propagate humanitarian intervention and Responsibility to Protect (R2P) notions. In 2004, she coined the term “Smart Power.” It calls for military intervention. She said, “To advance from a nuanced dissent to a compelling vision, progressive policymakers should turn to the great mainstay of twentieth-century U.S. foreign policy: liberal internationalism, which posits that a global system of stable liberal democracies would be less prone to war.”
“Washington, the theory goes, should thus offer assertive leadership — diplomatic, economic and not least, military – to advance a broad array of goals: self-determination, human rights, free trade, the rule of law, economic development and the quarantine and elimination of dictators and weapons of mass destruction (WMD).”
AI, HRW, ICRC and other prominent organizations like them shill for power. They’re imperial tools. Their stock and trade is deception. They never apologize.
Their reports provide powerful propaganda weapons. Their imperial wars support sanitizes mass deaths and destruction. They’re well compensated for their services.
In 2009, allegations surfaced about HRW “trolling for dollars in Saudi Arabia.” It said doing so “compromised its integrity.” Its Middle East/North Africa division director, Sarah Leah Whitson, responded saying HRW “accepts funding from private individuals and foundations the world over, which we never allow to affect the independence of our work.”
She added that a “Saudi” serves on its Middle East Advisory Committee. “Believe it or not,” she said, “some Arabs believe in human rights too.”
On its web site, HRW says it “does not receive any government funding to keep its impartiality … ”
AI says it accepts donations from individuals, other NGOs, governments and international organizations like the EU. Like HRW, it claims donors don’t compromise its work.
Critics say otherwise for good reason. They shill for power and show it.