President Bush sent American troops to Georgia on Wednesday to oversee a "vigorous and ongoing" humanitarian mission, in a direct challenge to Russia's display of military dominance over the region. His action came after Russian soldiers moved into two strategic Georgian cities in what he and Georgian officials called a violation of the cease-fire Russia agreed to earlier in the day.But the propaganda is already at work, before we even get to these lead paragraphs, within the headline itself, splashed as it is across the front page of America's oft-called "newspaper of record," along with the Gray Lady's hundred-plus-year-old motto "All the News That's Fit to Print." The headline is accompanied, or vice versa, by a photograph of a "humanitarian aid" shipment being unloaded, we're told, from a U.S. military cargo plane at an airport in Tbilisi, Georgia.
Mr. Bush demanded that Russia abide by the cease-fire and withdraw its forces or risk its place in "the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century." It was his strongest warning yet of potential retaliation against Russia over the conflict.
The decision to send the American military, even on a humanitarian mission, deepened the United States' commitment to Georgia and America's allies in the former Soviet sphere, just as Russia has been determined to reassert its control in the area.
But to be sure that all concerned -- that is, we historical-fact-deprived Americans, you God-help-you Georgians, and the rest of "the free world"--get the point at a glance, the U.S. State Department seal, apparently color-coordinated for the occasion, graces the side of the shipment.
As part of an all-out Western media campaign to bury the simple fact that Georgia invaded South Ossetia a week ago today -- an act of aggression which led, subsequently, to Russia's response -- today's NYT's top headline helps to further instill the lie, at home and abroad, that Bush and the U.S government are truly concerned about the welfare of Georgians and human beings generally.
American and international readers are spoon-fed their daily dose of sanctioned thought within the very first sentence of the article. Bush, and by extension, the U.S. government and its military are not in Georgia to further U.S. (or the global elite's) geopolitical interests.
Don't you dare think such a forbidden thought, the NYT goads its readers (of whom, on the whole, it can be said could do with a fair bit of goading to wake them from their psyop slumber).
Bush, the U.S. government and its military -- who, lest we forget, are guilty of murdering more than a million Iraqi civilians by way of their very own and very indisputable act of overt aggression, to say nothing of atrocities in Afghanistan or the ceaseless drumbeat toward a prefabricated war with Iran -- are in Georgia on a "humanitarian mission."
A "vigorous and ongoing" one at that, should we have considered that it could be otherwise.
Gee whiz, what swell folk they are, off on a sticky humanitarian venture, risking life and limb for liberty and justice for all, when they could be vacationing during the final throes of summer. Worse yet, some of the American men and women deployed to Georgia may actually believe that they're doing just that, risking life and limb (as they most certainly are) for liberty and justice for all.
Mike Whitney wrote the following in an article which headlined yesterday's Information Clearing House newsletter:
The attack was unprovoked and took place a full 24 hours before even ONE Russian soldier set foot in South Ossetia. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Americans still believe that the Russian army invaded Georgian territory first. The BBC, AP, NPR, the New York Times and the rest of the establishment media has consistently and deliberately misled its readers into believing that the violence in South Ossetia was initiated by the Kremlin. Let's be clear, it wasn't. In truth, there is NO dispute about the facts except among the people who rely the western press for their information. Despite its steady loss of credibility, the corporate media continues to operate as the propaganda-arm of the Pentagon.Whitney's article popped into my inbox at 1:35 BST (British Summer Time) this morning. The New York Times daily headlines email arrived at 9:31, giving me time, first, to read, share and comment on (in correspondence) Whitney's ICH article before coming upon the NYT's daily dose.
But let's return to those first three paragraphs and see if we can't sift through the propaganda that the New York Times has the never-ending gall to heap upon its readers, despite or in continuation of its deep complicity in smoothing the way within the hearts and minds of the American people for the U.S. to wage its criminal war in Iraq, as it did in the lead up to the invasion of Afghanistan, as it has been doing with feverish abandon concerning Iran, and is doing now within the article at hand in order to provide pseudo-intellectual cover for U.S. aggression-by-proxy in the Caucasus.
President Bush sent American troops to Georgia on Wednesday to oversee a "vigorous and ongoing" humanitarian mission, in a direct challenge to Russia's display of military dominance over the region.The U.S. already had troops in Georgia, reportedly to train the Georgian military. Considered in this light, the first sentence of this NYT article is, at best, a half-truth, at worst, a lie of omission.
On July 15, Reuters reported (and MSNBC.com published, though the page has since "expired") that "one thousand U.S. troops began a military training exercise in Georgia on Tuesday against a backdrop of growing friction between Georgia and neighbouring Russia." The report continues: "The main purpose of these exercises is to increase the cooperation and partnership between U.S. and Georgian forces," Brigadier General William B. Garrett, commander of the U.S. military's Southern European Task Force, told reporters. This was reported on July 15, one month ago.
But this fact must be relegated to the memory hole. We are meant only to remember that U.S. forces are on a humanitarian mission and that Georgia was attacked, unprovoked, by Russia in a "display of military dominance over the region." Never mind that U.S. forces did, in fact, invade and presently occupy both Iraq and Afghanistan in a display of military dominance. Russia, on the other hand, was meant to stand by as their citizens were being attacked and killed by Georgia military forces which General Garrett has told us were working in cooperation and partnership with U.S. forces in July.
Given this fine example of international cooperation and partnership, are even Americans and other gullible New York Times readers meant to swallow the obvious conclusion that Georgia would never have attacked South Ossetia without prior U.S. knowledge and approval?
His [Bush's] action came after Russian soldiers moved into two strategic Georgian cities in what he and Georgian officials called a violation of the cease-fire Russia agreed to earlier in the day.We're meant to believe that Russian soldiers just decided, devoid of any cause whatsoever, to move into two Georgian cities. Russia, not Georgia, must be seen to be the aggressor. Not a hint of reality must be allowed to seep in and cause good ol' American patriotic resolve to waver.
All must be black and white, even if what passes for black is, indeed, white or vice versa.
Mr. Bush demanded that Russia abide by the cease-fire and withdraw its forces or risk its place in "the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century." It was his strongest warning yet of potential retaliation against Russia over the conflict.Can even the New York Times, propaganda-arm-extraordinaire, print this with a straight face? Bush--the million-plus-mass-murderer from Connecticut, I mean Crawford--is pointing out to Russia that it is risking its place in the "the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century," by which he can only mean the New World Order, the very nature of which the world's citizens have observed throughout the Bush years (I and II) is nothing if not diabolical.
In closing, and in brief, let us take a look at the third paragraph in this New York Times piece:
The decision to send the American military, even on a humanitarian mission, deepened the United States' commitment to Georgia and America's allies in the former Soviet sphere, just as Russia has been determined to reassert its control in the area.The New York Times now asserts--in case we missed it being gently shoved down our throats the first time--that only in retrospect did the U.S. decide to deepen its "commitment to Georgia and America's allies in the former Soviet sphere." A bald-faced lie if ever there was one.
But, note, this isn't a U.S. official lying to the American public via the New York Times. No, this is the New York Times, itself, lying directly to its readers, worldwide, as it does day in and day out.
And, finally, the spoonful of sugar, to either help it go down or to make you regurgitate the whole:
"Even on a humanitarian mission."