 |
|
Add to My Group
|
February 5, 2008 at 07:36:23
Our corporate-controlled (Orwellian) mass media by Richard Clark Page 1 of 2 page(s) 
|
|
 
|
CBS Falsifies Iraq War History by Robert Parry In a world of objective reality, a reporter would simply say that the United States launched an unprovoked invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003 under the false pretense that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- and did this even after UN inspectors, completely unopposed by Saddam, had failed to find any WMD. On Dec. 7, 2002, Iraq even sent to the United Nations a 12,000-page declaration explaining how its WMD stockpiles had been eliminated. Plus, in the fall 2002, Hussein's government allowed teams of U.N. inspectors into Iraq and gave them free rein to examine any site of their choosing.
Those inspections only ended in March 2003 when President George W. Bush decided to press ahead with war -- despite the U.N. Security Council's refusal to authorize the invasion, and despite its desire to give the U.N. inspectors time to finish their work.
But none of this reality is part of the Orwellian history that Americans are supposed to believe. The officially sanctioned and Orwellian U.S. account, as embraced by Bush in speech after speech (and now embraced by Mitt Romney as well), is that Saddam Hussein "chose war" by defying the U.N. over the WMD issue.
In line with Bush's version of history, "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley asked FBI interrogator George Piro why Hussein kept pretending that he had WMD even as U.S. troops massed on Iraq's borders, when a simple announcement that the WMD was gone would have prevented the war.
"For a man who drew America into two wars and countless military engagements, we never knew what Saddam Hussein was thinking," Pelley said in introducing the segment on the interrogation of Hussein about his WMD stockpiles. "Why did he choose war with the United States?"
Pelly never mentions the fact that Hussein's government did in fact disclose that it had eliminated its WMD. Instead Pelley presses Piro on the irrelevant question of why Hussein was hiding the fact that he had no WMD.
In asking such a question, Pelley and other prominent U.S. news correspondents diligently dodge the well-established facts of the run-up to war and loyally follow the made-up story first presented by Bush four months after he forced the U.N. inspectors out, when he began claiming that Hussein had never let them in.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/012808.html
=========================================================
Pointing out some of the same things, Thom Hartmann gave the following (paraphrased here) report during a recent radio broadcast:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 required the vote of the Security Council in order for the invasion of Iraq to begin. That vote never took place. Therefore, the invasion of Iraq was illegal. However, six months after the invasion, the Security Council passed another resolution, at the urging of the United States, essentially forgiving the United States for breaking international law by invading Iraq -- for we had indeed violated resolution 1441. All this is a matter of public record.
Furthermore, the Senate resolution that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were condemned for voting to support, clearly stated that the only way Bush could use force against Iraq is if he, Bush, certified in writing to the Senate, within 60 days of commencement of hostilities, that there was CLEAR EVIDENCE that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to the events of 9/11. And in fact, about 40 or 50 days after the invasion, George Bush did write a letter to the Senate saying that "I certify and I swear that Saddam Hussein was involved in the events of 9/11." A copy of this letter is available at www.whitehouse.gov
Subsequently, however, Bush has publicly admitted that Saddam did not have anything to do with 9/11.
1 | 2
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
End the concentration of mass media ownership
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=JCpLDBUAAAC
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
| 16 comments |
|
Hillary voted for the IWR because she "TRUSTED" Bush
The invasion of Iraq was clearly illegal under international law but Mr. Parry's contention that the Iraq War Resolution required Bush to assert that Saddam was directly involved with 9/11 is just not true. In fact, the capitalized words Mr. Parry used, i.e. CLEAR EVIDENCE, do not even appear in the IWR. Here is the relevant clause on the subject of 9/11. It required Bush to certify in writing that, among other things: "(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." The burden of proof, given this language, was NOT that Bush had to tie Saddam to 9/11 but merely that invading Iraq was "consistent with" the objectives of the "War on Terror." Essentially, the words in this section were totally meaningless. The key words are "consistent with." Any Democrat who voted for this insanity should be made an ex-Democrat as quickly as possible. When you hand power to madmen, you're an accessory to the crimes they commit. It's sort of like supplying the gun to the bank robber. Taking impeachment "off the table" is sort of like driving the getaway car. by welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 5, 2008 at 1:50:48 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: I will forward your comments to Bob Parry . .
. . to see if I can get a reply from him re: what you've pointed out. My first guess is that the language to which you refer is so vague as to be very much open to interpretation. Thanks for calling our attention to this. -- Richard Clark by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 5, 2008 at 2:16:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Mr. Clark,
This can be considered “old news”, but these are facts that need repeating over and over and over again until it becomes “real” news. You lay out what happened to get almost 4,000 American military troops killed, thousands wounded, physically and/or mentally, for life and who knows how many hundreds of thousands of residents of that part of the world killed. You lay it out plainly, in an easy to follow, unmistakable narrative against which there is no argument. You document all of the Newspeak that has been used by both The Regime and its patsies in the lamestream media. After reading your article and articles like it that have been written before yours, how can anyone not see Mr. Pelley’s “question” as a statement of fact and not, in reality, a question at all? Orwell wrote about the state and the Newspeak dictionary. It didn’t take me long to understand what the state was trying to do with Newspeak. It was so easy to discern that I recall thinking how impossible it would be to implement Newspeak in the “real world”. When I’m wrong, I’m wrong, Richard. As you point out, it’s not only possible to implement, but it’s been implemented. I’ve heard Bush’s statement that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Yes, this as he writes to Congress that Saddam was involved in 9/11. The lamestream media? It obviously believed/believes both doesn’t it? Hard as it is to believe, this is a “classic” case of doublethink. I never, when I first read 1984, would have ever thought that we would get to a point where one could say that a thought process is a “classic” example of doublethink. After all, isn’t doublethink illogical and even impossible? Apparently not. Mr. Clark, this is not “old news” because it hasn’t reached the minds, even the ears, of enough people who get it, who see through it. People have called The Regime the least transparent administration in the history of this nation. I understand what those people mean and I agree to some extent. They are, indeed, secretive. Maybe this sounds like doublethink, but it’s not. In a major way, The Regime is the absolutely most transparent administration in the history of this nation. It’s my impression that, sometimes, when something is so easy to understand and so obvious, people overlook it or look over it. This is why Newspeak has actually taken root. People are utilizing it without even realizing it. Thanks for this article. Michael Bonanno by Michael Bonanno (119 articles, 19 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 152 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 5, 2008 at 2:05:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Nail on the head.....
but I would add that the motivating factor in all of this is fear, fear of terrorisum, fear of safety in one own home, fear of economic disaster to the point that Americans are like a person standing in a canoe, don't rock the boat or we all die. The truth is we need to jump this ship and swim for the Constitution and Bill of Rights that has floated this country for over 200 years. Then once again, We the People of the United States of American can live without fear. by Michael Morris (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 316 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 6, 2008 at 1:22:04 AM (0+)
|
|
14 Years Old
Crook television is designed to reach suckers at the 14 year old level. Action, images, and fairy stories are most effective and persuasive at that age. Crook television makes people gullible and stupid and it keeps people gullible and stupid. As crook television becomes more sophisticated, it will always circle for the kill around the 14 year old emotional and intellectual world. Even when a grown up watches crook television, he is no more than an adult looking at a comic book. The worst thing about crook television is that it corrupts education by preventing discourse, reading and writing. It aborts a ready mind, a full mind and the exact mind that is needed for our very survival. The net has started to revive discourse, reading and writing, so there may be a source of natural hope. But, crook media and crooks in general are beginning to realize the danger caused by people talking to one another. by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 5, 2008 at 2:11:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Thanks for adding this great commentary you guys
You all make very good points. by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 5, 2008 at 2:26:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Bald Faced Lie
“The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.” The only thing that infuriates me more than this is that the news media let him get away with it, repeatedly, and allowed him to call those telling a different story "historical revisionists"! Yes, it's old news. Yes, it needs repeating because it still hasn't sunk in. And I don't think the "political capital" issue is the whole story. Maybe for Bush, but not Cheney and the neocon cabal. The answers still need to be found. by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 5, 2008 at 3:55:43 PM (0+)
|
|
I hope that...
everyone that has commented here also followed the call to action link. by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 5, 2008 at 4:08:09 PM (0+)
|
|
1984 and old news
Richard Clark’s observations and the excerpts he presented, together with the additional comments, are an important reminder of the dismal role of the MSM in implicitly or explicitly helping to cover-up the facts which led up to the Iraq War. It is especially helpful to point out that many times “old news” is indeed worth repeating, and in fact should be repeated when the facts have been obscured and devalued. Too often the claim “But that is old news” is sufficient to quell further inquiry. I came across several pieces of valuable old news last week in unloading my bulletin board, where several layers of clippings had collected over a long time. Truth be known, the thumbtacks were getting too short to attach anything more. Among the retired clippings were: -------------------------------------------------- Sept. 5, 1988: “Iran-Contra figure says he hid bomber”, by Brian Barger, UPI. “Washington—A key figure in the Iran-Contra scandal with close ties to Vice President George Bush has acknowledged harboring a fugitive charged in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban passenger plane in which 73 people died.” “[Felix] Rodriguez, a former CIA operative, offered refuge to Posada while managing a secret White House operation based in El Salvador to ferry weapons to the Nicaraguan rebels. The weapons airlift was directed by [Oliver] North during a U.S. ban on rebel military aid.” As head of the president’s Task Force on Combating Terrorism, Bush has trumpeted a tough stand on pursuing and punishing international terrorists.” ------------------------------------------------------ June 16, 2004: “Senate retains money to study new N-bombs” by Richard Simon, Los Angeles Times. “Washington—The Senate yesterday endorsed money to study new kinds of nuclear bombs, despite objections that doing so would undermine U.S. efforts to promote nuclear non-proliferation around the world.” ---------------------------------------------------------- Sept. 19, 2007: “La Center man was prisoner of war in Korea”, by Bill Myers, The Reflector, Ridgefield, WA. My sister, who still lives near the town of La Center where we grew up, sends me an occasional local clipping if it involves someone I once knew. In the interview, Ken Viles, now 74, gave the following account of one incident while a POW: “Viles said a North Korean soldier, without provocation, viciously slapped American captives in their faces with a leather glove. Viles said a Chinese officer suddenly ran up to the North Korean soldier and, without a word, shot him dead at point blank range.” “Viles said the Chinese wanted it known that they were civilized and treated prisoners humanely, in accord with the Geneva Convention.” ------------------------------------------------------- How far we’ve come! by Laurence A. Toenjes (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 20 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 5, 2008 at 5:26:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: As you said, Larry:
<<< It is especially helpful to point out that many times “old news” is indeed worth repeating, and in fact should be repeated when the facts have been obscured and devalued. Too often the claim “But that is old news” is sufficient to quell further inquiry. >>> Perhaps equally important is the fact that when various articles of old news accumulate over the years, to layer one on the others, the importance and significance of that combined information can often illustrate something that is much greater than the sum of the parts. by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 5, 2008 at 10:32:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Re: Our corporate-controlled (Orwellian) mass media
by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 5, 2008 at 6:53:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Thanks for the sanity, Mr. Clark
Before the internet, use of the "memory hole" required not only media black-out but the confiscation/containment of hard-copy books and reports--very difficult in practice. The crazy-making aspect of the internet is that now it is possible to watch the "hole" work in real time. "Inconvenient" reports are routinely scrubbed from the net before one's eyes (404), but rarely before they are cached, copied and printed for posterity. Among the numerous potentially incendiary realities snatched from the "event horizon": If such reports are revisited at all by the corporate media after the official narrative takes shape, they are dismissed as viral "confusion" in the "fog of war". Are (honest) professional journalists trained to broadcast inflammatory "rumors" or to seek and corroborate authoritative sources for such information? by Michael Fury (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 6, 2008 at 9:28:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Amazing video clip, Mike
If anyone hasn't yet viewed this video clip that Mike just provided, please watch it now. It shows segments from several different local newscasts, all of which speak of two or three unexploded but very sophisticated bombs that were found in the wreckage of the Murrah building in Oklahomah City. I've heard unsubstantiated rumors about this but had no idea that this information had made it onto so many local newscasts. Doesn't this clearly prove that that there are people other than the two who were charged, who planned and helped execute this crime? So what happened to the attempt to find them? And why is the public at large being kept in the dark about all this? by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 6, 2008 at 12:36:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: OKC was the proto-9/11
I think often of Terry Yeakey. How many like him will the public never know? http://www.riflewarrior.com/who_killed_terry_yeakey.htm The men who did that to this heroic man were protected, and their protectors smile at us on teevee everyday and tell us they feel our pain and promise to save us from evil. Deception is the rule. A man of moral courage is a pearl of great price. by Michael Fury (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 6, 2008 at 9:05:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Whitehouse.gov
Can you provide the exact link to that letter? I can't find it. by Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments) on Thursday, Feb 7, 2008 at 7:15:23 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The claim was made by Thom Hartmann on his radio program
Several people have looked for a copy of that letter at the Whitehouse.gov web site and were not able to find it. Perhaps the letter has been excised from the site, or perhaps Hartmann was mistaken. My bet is that the former is true. Contact Hartmann if you wish; http://thomhartmann.com/. If a few of us write him about this, perhaps he will reply. Richard Clark by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 8, 2008 at 12:58:35 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
