Academics are far from unanimous that only kooks and misguided ideologues suspect the government is covering up the truth about 9/11.
One example of a professional who doubts the government story is Richard A. Falk, a UN human rights official.
"Any close student of 9/11 is aware of the many serious discrepancies between the official version of what took place and the actual happenings of that fateful day in 2001," wrote Falk, the UN's human rights rapporteur in Israeli-occupied territories.
The recently retired Princeton University international law professor argued that it is "not paranoid" to "assume that established elites of the American government structure have something to hide, and much to explain."
Falk's article, which appeared Nov. 9, 2008 in a British journal, took aim at the fact that the presidential candidates avoided discussion of these matters. Please see http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5056-911-more-than-meets-the-eye. Or Google: Richard Falk, 9/11.
Falk, who is a member of the editorial board of the left-leaning Nation, was, however, somewhat critical of government antagonists, saying that "what has not been established by the '9/11 Truth Movement' is a convincing counter-narrative -- that is, an alternate version of the events that clears up to what degree, if at all, the attacks resulted from incompetence, deliberate inaction and outright complicity."
Comment: There is ample evidence of "outright complicity." However, it is quite difficult for honest observers, lacking the power of subpoena, to shake out a truthful account of all covert actions related to the attacks.
Christmas jet attack's 9/11 echoes
There are many chilling echoes of the attacks of 9/11 in the Yuletide terror attempt.
Recriminations are flying, and we have the same failure to connect dots. Now consider, suppose the jet downing had succeeded? The hysteria would have been so great that Obama would have been forced into draconian measures that enhanced the control of those secret cliques Falk was talking about.
Yes, the CIA is taking a lot of heat right now. But, had the attack succeeded, perhaps the heat would have been worthwhile. After all, the CIA managed very well with political damage control following the 9/11 attacks (and also following John Kennedy's assassination).
Though I can't at this point say that we have grounds to suspect an inside job, I would say that there are disconcerting similarities with a previous inside job.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Why does Shermer believe weird things?
Because al Qaeda claimed credit for the Christmas airline bombing attempt, therefore the U.S. government is innocent of involvement in orchestrating the events of 9/11.
This is the reasoning of Skeptic Michael Shermer, according to a Dec. 28 post at TrueSlant.
Evidently the Skeptic missed his basic logic class at university.
Well, actually, he didn't quite use strict logic. He deployed the implication arrow rather loosely, in the manner typical of a professional propagandist. Maybe he should write a column for the New York Post, or appear as a commentator on Fox News.
There are very few critics of the official 9/11 tale who claim that al Qaeda is not a terrorist group anxious to inflict spectacular casualties on Americans. The point is that the scientific evidence fails to corroborate the government story about what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.
Nevertheless, we can anticipate that there will be a barrage of this sort of junk reasoning aimed at drowning out the inconvenient truths about what happened, and did not happen, on 9/11.
And note the contrast between this most recent al Qaeda attack -- if that's what it really was -- and the attacks of 9/11. In the first case, we have a highly coordinated, professional paramilitary operation; in the latter case, we have an attack at about the level of sophistication al Qaeda demonstrated before and after 9/11.
If Shermer is not a professional disinformation agent, then, alas, he is a scientist whose reasoning powers have been clouded by hysterical, irrational thinking.
This is the reasoning of Skeptic Michael Shermer, according to a Dec. 28 post at TrueSlant.
Evidently the Skeptic missed his basic logic class at university.
Well, actually, he didn't quite use strict logic. He deployed the implication arrow rather loosely, in the manner typical of a professional propagandist. Maybe he should write a column for the New York Post, or appear as a commentator on Fox News.
There are very few critics of the official 9/11 tale who claim that al Qaeda is not a terrorist group anxious to inflict spectacular casualties on Americans. The point is that the scientific evidence fails to corroborate the government story about what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.
Nevertheless, we can anticipate that there will be a barrage of this sort of junk reasoning aimed at drowning out the inconvenient truths about what happened, and did not happen, on 9/11.
And note the contrast between this most recent al Qaeda attack -- if that's what it really was -- and the attacks of 9/11. In the first case, we have a highly coordinated, professional paramilitary operation; in the latter case, we have an attack at about the level of sophistication al Qaeda demonstrated before and after 9/11.
If Shermer is not a professional disinformation agent, then, alas, he is a scientist whose reasoning powers have been clouded by hysterical, irrational thinking.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
What Bush 'knew' and when he 'knew' it
Within hours of the 9/11 attacks, the White House "knew" without a doubt that al Qaeda had carried them out, the former British envoy to the United States has testified.
Christopher Meyer, the former ambassador, told of a conversation with National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. "She said, well, there's no doubt it's -- this has been an al Qaeda operation."
The disclosure to Britain's Iraq war inquiry makes one wonder how the White House could have been so certain so rapidly. Perhaps the FBI had by then found the luggage left on a connecting flight that, at first sight, seemed to implicate al Qaeda, but that, on further reflection, looked planted. (See my article The worst of Hearst which can be reached via the links in the sidebar.)
It seems quite suspicious that the White House was dead certain that al Qaeda had pulled off the attacks so soon after they occurred. How were top officials already so sure that there was no chicanery going on? After all, it's a given that cloak-and-dagger units are proficient at throwing suspicion onto others.
And to compound things, Meyer added that the White House was already seeing a link between the attacks and Saddam Hussein. "But at the end of the conversation, it's: we are just looking to see whether there could possibly be any connection with Saddam Hussein. And that was the very first time -- on the day itself -- that I heard the name of the Iraqi leader mentioned in the context of -- of 9/11."
(Gleaned from a Judy Woodruff report on PBS's Newshour.)
A top aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair then confirmed that the White House was pushing to link the attacks to Hussein very soon after Sept. 11.
David Manning, Blair's foreign policy adviser in 2001, testified that, in a Sept. 14 conversation with Blair, President Bush "said that there might be evidence that there was some connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda."
Manning added, "The prime minister's response to this was that the evidence would have to be very compelling to justify taking any action against Iraq."
(Gleaned from an Agence France Presse report.)
A "link" of sorts eventually surfaced when military anthrax was mailed to journalists and politicians. The White House seized on the anthrax attack to imply a link to Saddam, who was suspected of developing military grade anthrax. That pattern of inuendo was sustained even after it was learned that the anthrax was linked to the Pentagon.
We see that:
1. The White House was immediately interested in exploiting the attacks of 9/11 to further its agenda against Hussein, but that the British were not persuaded there was much to the suspicion. Others have also disclosed that the in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the White House decided to "get" Saddam. If the White House wasn't overly concerned with the truth at that point, does this not suggest that the White House was behaving as if it had advance knowledge?
2. Blair knew that the White House favored military action against Iraq based on unsubstantiated inferences. Yet, supposedly he accepted the White House's eventual theory that Iraq was sitting on a dangerous complex of WMD horror weapons. In other words, didn't Blair realize that the White House was determined to launch a war no matter what and that, perhaps, he should have been chary of being dragged along?
Christopher Meyer, the former ambassador, told of a conversation with National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. "She said, well, there's no doubt it's -- this has been an al Qaeda operation."
The disclosure to Britain's Iraq war inquiry makes one wonder how the White House could have been so certain so rapidly. Perhaps the FBI had by then found the luggage left on a connecting flight that, at first sight, seemed to implicate al Qaeda, but that, on further reflection, looked planted. (See my article The worst of Hearst which can be reached via the links in the sidebar.)
It seems quite suspicious that the White House was dead certain that al Qaeda had pulled off the attacks so soon after they occurred. How were top officials already so sure that there was no chicanery going on? After all, it's a given that cloak-and-dagger units are proficient at throwing suspicion onto others.
And to compound things, Meyer added that the White House was already seeing a link between the attacks and Saddam Hussein. "But at the end of the conversation, it's: we are just looking to see whether there could possibly be any connection with Saddam Hussein. And that was the very first time -- on the day itself -- that I heard the name of the Iraqi leader mentioned in the context of -- of 9/11."
(Gleaned from a Judy Woodruff report on PBS's Newshour.)
A top aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair then confirmed that the White House was pushing to link the attacks to Hussein very soon after Sept. 11.
David Manning, Blair's foreign policy adviser in 2001, testified that, in a Sept. 14 conversation with Blair, President Bush "said that there might be evidence that there was some connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda."
Manning added, "The prime minister's response to this was that the evidence would have to be very compelling to justify taking any action against Iraq."
(Gleaned from an Agence France Presse report.)
A "link" of sorts eventually surfaced when military anthrax was mailed to journalists and politicians. The White House seized on the anthrax attack to imply a link to Saddam, who was suspected of developing military grade anthrax. That pattern of inuendo was sustained even after it was learned that the anthrax was linked to the Pentagon.
We see that:
1. The White House was immediately interested in exploiting the attacks of 9/11 to further its agenda against Hussein, but that the British were not persuaded there was much to the suspicion. Others have also disclosed that the in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the White House decided to "get" Saddam. If the White House wasn't overly concerned with the truth at that point, does this not suggest that the White House was behaving as if it had advance knowledge?
2. Blair knew that the White House favored military action against Iraq based on unsubstantiated inferences. Yet, supposedly he accepted the White House's eventual theory that Iraq was sitting on a dangerous complex of WMD horror weapons. In other words, didn't Blair realize that the White House was determined to launch a war no matter what and that, perhaps, he should have been chary of being dragged along?
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Tiptoeing past conspiracy disclosures
The UK Iraq war inquiry got off to a hot start as leaked documents implied conspiracy between Blair and Bush to bring about war hell or high water.
One special forces general was quoted as saying he had been preparing for an Iraq war since 2002, well ahead of the timetable given in official history.
One internet reporter, Dave Lindorff, noted that most of the U.S. media ignored these disclosures, though the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an AP story and the New York Times ran a story that, he said, cruised past the conspiracy angle.
True, it's the holiday season, and many journalists assume Americans are uninterested in "foreign" news. But there is also the fact that controlled reporters and editors are fearful of being labeled as "conspiracists" for exposing conspiracies.
And clearly, the control freaks fear too much awareness of high-level conspiracy because where there's one conspiracy, there may be another -- such as to cover up the facts about 9/11.
9/11 fair trial problems
It has been reported that at least one 9/11 defendant, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, plans to plead guilty, thus sparing the government of the need to prove his guilt. However, KSM was extensively tortured. The FBI's way out is to say that he confessed to being the 9/11 ringleader before the torture by the CIA. Mmmhmm.
There are times when a judge can refuse to accept a defendant's guilty plea and force the government to prove its case. One would think that the extensive use of torture is grounds for such a decision.
However, there's a bit of a hang-up. Anyone who goes to trial should be entitled to bring in evidence concerning torture, but the special prosecutor assigned to investigate the CIA's torture of captives appears to be far from ready to prosecute anyone or issue a report. Still, the political pressure to try these people is so strong that it is unlikely defense lawyers will have access to the special prosecutor's material prior to trial.
Well, we all know these are intended as show trials meant to obtain "closure" concerning 9/11. There is no effort to bring the real 9/11 masterminds to trial.
One special forces general was quoted as saying he had been preparing for an Iraq war since 2002, well ahead of the timetable given in official history.
One internet reporter, Dave Lindorff, noted that most of the U.S. media ignored these disclosures, though the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an AP story and the New York Times ran a story that, he said, cruised past the conspiracy angle.
True, it's the holiday season, and many journalists assume Americans are uninterested in "foreign" news. But there is also the fact that controlled reporters and editors are fearful of being labeled as "conspiracists" for exposing conspiracies.
And clearly, the control freaks fear too much awareness of high-level conspiracy because where there's one conspiracy, there may be another -- such as to cover up the facts about 9/11.
9/11 fair trial problems
It has been reported that at least one 9/11 defendant, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, plans to plead guilty, thus sparing the government of the need to prove his guilt. However, KSM was extensively tortured. The FBI's way out is to say that he confessed to being the 9/11 ringleader before the torture by the CIA. Mmmhmm.
There are times when a judge can refuse to accept a defendant's guilty plea and force the government to prove its case. One would think that the extensive use of torture is grounds for such a decision.
However, there's a bit of a hang-up. Anyone who goes to trial should be entitled to bring in evidence concerning torture, but the special prosecutor assigned to investigate the CIA's torture of captives appears to be far from ready to prosecute anyone or issue a report. Still, the political pressure to try these people is so strong that it is unlikely defense lawyers will have access to the special prosecutor's material prior to trial.
Well, we all know these are intended as show trials meant to obtain "closure" concerning 9/11. There is no effort to bring the real 9/11 masterminds to trial.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Greenspan's 9/11 skepticism
I posted an item on this when Greenspan's memoir, The Age of Turbulence, was published in 2007. He didn't alter his words for the updated version that discussed the first phase of last year's financial crises.
In the days following Sept. 11, 2001, said former Fed chief Alan Greenspan, "There was no bigger question in Washington than, Why no second attack?" (Page 227)
He wrote:
"If al Qaeda's intent was to disrupt the U.S. economy, as bin Laden had declared, the attacks had to continue. Our society was open, our borders porous, and our ability to detect weapons and bombs was weak. I asked this question of a lot of people at the highest levels of government, and no one seemed to have a convincing response." (Emphasis added.)
In other words, Greenspan thought there was something fishy about the attacks and the war on terror. Greenspan, who describes himself as a libertarian Republican, makes it clear that he was disturbed by the threats to individual liberty that arose after the attacks. And, Greenspan was candid about having little respect for Bush and a number of his aides.
We should add that Greenspan does not challenge the authenticity of the purported bin Laden statement, but then, he doesn't need to. If the statement is authentic, his question follows. If it isn't, then why did the Bush bunch vouch for it?
Neither does he question the FBI's decision to treat the anthrax attacks as unrelated to the events of 9/11. Once a Pentagon role was discovered in the anthrax case, the FBI quickly nixed the theory that it was part of a single terrorist campaign. But, because that position became the official stance, Greenspan's question stands.
You won't find information like this on Fox news -- though it was widely reported that Greenspan had little use for the official tale of what was behind the Iraq war.
Greenspan argued that regional instability posed a threat to oil supplies, spurring U.S. and British action, "whatever their publicized angst about 'weapons of mass destruction'."
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
We also learn that Greenspan, a market fundamentalist, was surprised that the market's "counter-party surveillance" provided insufficient self-regulation to avert the subprime crash.
He expressed alarm at global warming and said he was concerned that political dithering would prevent realistic countermeasures. Nevertheless, he backed a tax on gasoline in order to force America to wean itself from dependence on oil. He argued that the economy could well handle a tax that pushed gas up to $5 a gallon. Of course, this was written before the wild financial meltdown of last autumn.
++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: Holy cow! A post from this blog showed up in the Google blog alerts under "Znewz1" -- a first. Now, the thing will be to see if blogs that mention Znewz1 show up in Google alerts.
FOLLOW-UP NOTE: Well, an alert arrived with an old Znewz1 post linked on someone else's old blog. Interesting.
In the days following Sept. 11, 2001, said former Fed chief Alan Greenspan, "There was no bigger question in Washington than, Why no second attack?" (Page 227)
He wrote:
"If al Qaeda's intent was to disrupt the U.S. economy, as bin Laden had declared, the attacks had to continue. Our society was open, our borders porous, and our ability to detect weapons and bombs was weak. I asked this question of a lot of people at the highest levels of government, and no one seemed to have a convincing response." (Emphasis added.)
In other words, Greenspan thought there was something fishy about the attacks and the war on terror. Greenspan, who describes himself as a libertarian Republican, makes it clear that he was disturbed by the threats to individual liberty that arose after the attacks. And, Greenspan was candid about having little respect for Bush and a number of his aides.
We should add that Greenspan does not challenge the authenticity of the purported bin Laden statement, but then, he doesn't need to. If the statement is authentic, his question follows. If it isn't, then why did the Bush bunch vouch for it?
Neither does he question the FBI's decision to treat the anthrax attacks as unrelated to the events of 9/11. Once a Pentagon role was discovered in the anthrax case, the FBI quickly nixed the theory that it was part of a single terrorist campaign. But, because that position became the official stance, Greenspan's question stands.
You won't find information like this on Fox news -- though it was widely reported that Greenspan had little use for the official tale of what was behind the Iraq war.
Greenspan argued that regional instability posed a threat to oil supplies, spurring U.S. and British action, "whatever their publicized angst about 'weapons of mass destruction'."
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
We also learn that Greenspan, a market fundamentalist, was surprised that the market's "counter-party surveillance" provided insufficient self-regulation to avert the subprime crash.
He expressed alarm at global warming and said he was concerned that political dithering would prevent realistic countermeasures. Nevertheless, he backed a tax on gasoline in order to force America to wean itself from dependence on oil. He argued that the economy could well handle a tax that pushed gas up to $5 a gallon. Of course, this was written before the wild financial meltdown of last autumn.
++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: Holy cow! A post from this blog showed up in the Google blog alerts under "Znewz1" -- a first. Now, the thing will be to see if blogs that mention Znewz1 show up in Google alerts.
FOLLOW-UP NOTE: Well, an alert arrived with an old Znewz1 post linked on someone else's old blog. Interesting.
Obama-Murdoch battle widens
A media battle royal between President Obama and mogul Rupert Murdoch is rapidly escalating.
The fracas took another turn when a media watchdog urged progessives to join an all-out campaign to delegitimize Fox News as a real news organization. This followed an effort by Republican partisans Karl Rove and Lamar Alexander to characterize Obama as a Nixon-like figure.
David Brock, who runs Media Matters, sent out a call to action to others on the left to counter "lethal" Fox, as Politico reports in its latest editions.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
Brock at one time was a conservative journalist who indulged in many of the tactics used by Fox and most Murdoch media. He later wrote a book "Blinded by the Right," which marked his change of conviction.
It is very likely that Fox's Glenn Beck and others at Fox will jump on Brock's call to action as evidence that the left-wing is out to get Fox. However, it should be noted that other left-oriented groups have only touched on the controversy tepidly, if at all, and that the conservative Accuracy in the Media, while running some commentary on the brawl, has largely been unenthusiastic about backing Fox.
In another development, Newsweek published Slate chief Jacob Weisberg's piece upholding the White House view and urging reputable journalists to shun Fox, with a headline denouncing Fox -- and by implication Murdoch -- as "un-American." Considering Glenn Beck's attacks on White House aide Anita Dunn as a Mao-loving radical, Newsweek's head was no doubt thoughtfully chosen.
"Whether the White House engages with Fox is a tactical political question," wrote Weisberg. "Whether journalists continue to do so is an ethical one. By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations. Responsible journalists -- I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson -- should stop appearing on its programs."
A memorable dart tossed by Weisberg: "If you were watching Fox News Channel, you saw a familiar roster of platinum pundettes and anchor androids reciting the same soundbites: this was Obama's version of Nixon's enemies list."
See http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192
Clearly, non-Fox journalists have been getting a kick out of covering this feud. At least that's the sense one gets when reading the latest wrap-up in the New York Times, where it was reported that Obama himself had vented his displeasure at Fox in a closed meeting, which included the liberal opinion molders Rachel Madow, Keith Olberman, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert.
Reflecting Obama's pique, White House aide David Pfeiffer kept up the attack on Fox. "We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional press organization," Pfeiffer said.
Latest salvoes: Dan Froomkin writes in the liberal Huffington Post about "why journalists shouldn't defend Fox" and Murdoch's Wall Street Journal has a right-spin piece by James Taranto suggesting that the White House is behaving like left-wing radicals when it criticizes Fox.
Some question the political wisdom of the White House drive to marginalize Fox as a serious news organization. However, one might recall that Hillary Clinton kicked off a counter-offensive in the Monica Lewinsky scandal with her famous "vast, right-wing conspiracy" theory. That counter-offensive did not save her husband from impeachment, but it very likely influenced the Senate's decision to let him off with a reprimand.
The fracas took another turn when a media watchdog urged progessives to join an all-out campaign to delegitimize Fox News as a real news organization. This followed an effort by Republican partisans Karl Rove and Lamar Alexander to characterize Obama as a Nixon-like figure.
David Brock, who runs Media Matters, sent out a call to action to others on the left to counter "lethal" Fox, as Politico reports in its latest editions.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
Brock at one time was a conservative journalist who indulged in many of the tactics used by Fox and most Murdoch media. He later wrote a book "Blinded by the Right," which marked his change of conviction.
It is very likely that Fox's Glenn Beck and others at Fox will jump on Brock's call to action as evidence that the left-wing is out to get Fox. However, it should be noted that other left-oriented groups have only touched on the controversy tepidly, if at all, and that the conservative Accuracy in the Media, while running some commentary on the brawl, has largely been unenthusiastic about backing Fox.
In another development, Newsweek published Slate chief Jacob Weisberg's piece upholding the White House view and urging reputable journalists to shun Fox, with a headline denouncing Fox -- and by implication Murdoch -- as "un-American." Considering Glenn Beck's attacks on White House aide Anita Dunn as a Mao-loving radical, Newsweek's head was no doubt thoughtfully chosen.
"Whether the White House engages with Fox is a tactical political question," wrote Weisberg. "Whether journalists continue to do so is an ethical one. By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations. Responsible journalists -- I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson -- should stop appearing on its programs."
A memorable dart tossed by Weisberg: "If you were watching Fox News Channel, you saw a familiar roster of platinum pundettes and anchor androids reciting the same soundbites: this was Obama's version of Nixon's enemies list."
See http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192
Clearly, non-Fox journalists have been getting a kick out of covering this feud. At least that's the sense one gets when reading the latest wrap-up in the New York Times, where it was reported that Obama himself had vented his displeasure at Fox in a closed meeting, which included the liberal opinion molders Rachel Madow, Keith Olberman, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert.
Reflecting Obama's pique, White House aide David Pfeiffer kept up the attack on Fox. "We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional press organization," Pfeiffer said.
Latest salvoes: Dan Froomkin writes in the liberal Huffington Post about "why journalists shouldn't defend Fox" and Murdoch's Wall Street Journal has a right-spin piece by James Taranto suggesting that the White House is behaving like left-wing radicals when it criticizes Fox.
Some question the political wisdom of the White House drive to marginalize Fox as a serious news organization. However, one might recall that Hillary Clinton kicked off a counter-offensive in the Monica Lewinsky scandal with her famous "vast, right-wing conspiracy" theory. That counter-offensive did not save her husband from impeachment, but it very likely influenced the Senate's decision to let him off with a reprimand.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
KRM, champion of America's right to know
K. Rupert Murdoch, a mastermind of the 9/11 treason coverup, is indignant that he can't get no respect from the Obama White House.
How dare the White House scold us? KRM's co-conspirators snort. We dish it out! We don't have to take it!
Why, that Obama gang is trying to MUZZLE THE PRESS, rages the KRM crew. It's really terrible that a government unit would try to RUN THE NEWS MEDIA, by DELEGITIMIZING the great journalist KRM.
The government wants to turn us into nobodies because it is covering up terrible things! (Except not about 9/11. In that case, the government is telling the GOD'S HONEST TRUTH.)
Others in the news business should RUSH TO OUR AID in the name of defending FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. (We'll get back to you on why we haven't rushed to the aid of journalists forced to the margins for news reports that were too pointed or commentary that was too assertive.)
Obama's people can't distinguish between commentary and reporting, the KRM crew says.
True, says the White House, it is hard to tell the difference when viewing or reading KRM's tales. Balloon boys and the like may wow the audience, but who is checking facts at KRM offices?
+++++++++++++
True to form, we have problems with Google. This time it's their news and blog alerts. Allegedly, no blogger or news outlet has vigorously defended the White House. Only alerts favoring Fox are delivered. This is consistent with previous experiences of political filtering by Google, which, like Murdoch, has been highly accommodating of Chinese communism. My blog is barred from Google alerts. I suppose a notional case can be made that not enough people read it; yet, I've seen some pretty obscure stuff in Google alerts.
++++++++++++++++
What have Britons learned about the row between Obama and a tycoon with a strong hand on Britain's media?
Nothing at all from Murdoch's prestigious Times of London or his wild tabloid, the Daily Mirror. At any rate, a search of those sites turned up nothing concerning the feud. Evidently Murdoch , a former British Commonwealth citizen, believes that the British have better things to do than read about a wild melee between a British media tycoon and the president of the United States.
Yes, KRM, defender of the people's right to know...
++++++++++++++++++
Karl Rove and Lamar Alexander have jumped into the fray, using all their partisan wiles to defend Fox from the charge that it is a partisan political outfit masquerading as a news organization. Hey, somewhere around here is an old post about Rove at a Tennessee GOP event that, in a precedent, excluded the press. Back then, he was too hot for public dissemination, I suppose.
How dare the White House scold us? KRM's co-conspirators snort. We dish it out! We don't have to take it!
Why, that Obama gang is trying to MUZZLE THE PRESS, rages the KRM crew. It's really terrible that a government unit would try to RUN THE NEWS MEDIA, by DELEGITIMIZING the great journalist KRM.
The government wants to turn us into nobodies because it is covering up terrible things! (Except not about 9/11. In that case, the government is telling the GOD'S HONEST TRUTH.)
Others in the news business should RUSH TO OUR AID in the name of defending FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. (We'll get back to you on why we haven't rushed to the aid of journalists forced to the margins for news reports that were too pointed or commentary that was too assertive.)
Obama's people can't distinguish between commentary and reporting, the KRM crew says.
True, says the White House, it is hard to tell the difference when viewing or reading KRM's tales. Balloon boys and the like may wow the audience, but who is checking facts at KRM offices?
+++++++++++++
True to form, we have problems with Google. This time it's their news and blog alerts. Allegedly, no blogger or news outlet has vigorously defended the White House. Only alerts favoring Fox are delivered. This is consistent with previous experiences of political filtering by Google, which, like Murdoch, has been highly accommodating of Chinese communism. My blog is barred from Google alerts. I suppose a notional case can be made that not enough people read it; yet, I've seen some pretty obscure stuff in Google alerts.
++++++++++++++++
What have Britons learned about the row between Obama and a tycoon with a strong hand on Britain's media?
Nothing at all from Murdoch's prestigious Times of London or his wild tabloid, the Daily Mirror. At any rate, a search of those sites turned up nothing concerning the feud. Evidently Murdoch , a former British Commonwealth citizen, believes that the British have better things to do than read about a wild melee between a British media tycoon and the president of the United States.
Yes, KRM, defender of the people's right to know...
++++++++++++++++++
Karl Rove and Lamar Alexander have jumped into the fray, using all their partisan wiles to defend Fox from the charge that it is a partisan political outfit masquerading as a news organization. Hey, somewhere around here is an old post about Rove at a Tennessee GOP event that, in a precedent, excluded the press. Back then, he was too hot for public dissemination, I suppose.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Justice Dept: Israel stole U.S. defense secrets
Though he wasn't charged with spying for Israel, federal scientist Stewart Nozette had supplied Israel Aerospace Industries, which is owned by the Israeli government, with classified information in the past for a total of some $225,000, reports say. The payments came after Nozette answered specific questions supplied by the Israelis, the Justice Department said.
When leaving the country recently, U.S. Customs inspectors checked Nozette's airport baggage and took note of two computer discs. On his return, inspectors observed that the discs were missing. After that, the FBI set up a sting to obtain evidence of a willingness to commit espionage, the bait being cash offered by an FBI agent posing as a member of Mossad.
Some media, perhaps misled by an FBI press release, have made it appear that the Israeli government was not involved in this matter. Certainly, it seems unlikely that Mossad had previously been directly involved; otherwise Nozette would have recoiled from the impostor's offer. But, a Justice Dept. criminal complaint says that Nozette had in the past transferred U.S. defense secrets to the Israeli government, which asked specific questions of him. This allegation was omitted from an FBI press release.
It may be that that part of the case is too difficult to prosecute. And I suppose one could say that the Israeli government is innocent until proved guilty. However, we should beware assuming that that government was in no way involved in stealing American defense secrets, especially in light of the Justice Department assertion.
Sources for this post include a Bloomberg News article, an FBI press release and a Haaretz article.
When leaving the country recently, U.S. Customs inspectors checked Nozette's airport baggage and took note of two computer discs. On his return, inspectors observed that the discs were missing. After that, the FBI set up a sting to obtain evidence of a willingness to commit espionage, the bait being cash offered by an FBI agent posing as a member of Mossad.
Some media, perhaps misled by an FBI press release, have made it appear that the Israeli government was not involved in this matter. Certainly, it seems unlikely that Mossad had previously been directly involved; otherwise Nozette would have recoiled from the impostor's offer. But, a Justice Dept. criminal complaint says that Nozette had in the past transferred U.S. defense secrets to the Israeli government, which asked specific questions of him. This allegation was omitted from an FBI press release.
It may be that that part of the case is too difficult to prosecute. And I suppose one could say that the Israeli government is innocent until proved guilty. However, we should beware assuming that that government was in no way involved in stealing American defense secrets, especially in light of the Justice Department assertion.
Sources for this post include a Bloomberg News article, an FBI press release and a Haaretz article.
Math phobics can't calculate 9/11 treason
I don't suppose that everybody in the media and government system who subscribes to the Murdoch theory of 9/11 is a witting member of a subversive conspiracy.
Quite a few of them are certain to be the math phobics who leave the technicalities to others. Hence, they are easily persuaded by what mathematicians and physicists call "hand-waving arguments."
It's quite possible that former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey fits into that category. Mukasey's argument that normal human rights safeguards shouldn't apply to persons branded as terrorists may well stem from an inability to process forensic evidence independently because of a shallow mathematical background.
Unfortunately, math phobia is rampant among journalists, lawyers and government policy makers. So they are inclined to conceal their educational and knowledge deficits by agreeing to what a controlled group of "experts" alleges.
But then one is left with people such as Rep. Rush Holt, a physicist, who in a letter to me said that he hadn't seen any specific evidence that the three World Trade Center towers were downed by controlled demolition. This sort of evasiveness serves the murderers well. Holt knows perfectly well he doesn't need to see bits of 9/11 rubble in order to discern a treasonous cover-up. Can it be that he hasn't bothered to do the math either?
And there is math that shows the collapses are extraordinarily strange. Check my 9/11 reports links on this page.
Quite a few of them are certain to be the math phobics who leave the technicalities to others. Hence, they are easily persuaded by what mathematicians and physicists call "hand-waving arguments."
It's quite possible that former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey fits into that category. Mukasey's argument that normal human rights safeguards shouldn't apply to persons branded as terrorists may well stem from an inability to process forensic evidence independently because of a shallow mathematical background.
Unfortunately, math phobia is rampant among journalists, lawyers and government policy makers. So they are inclined to conceal their educational and knowledge deficits by agreeing to what a controlled group of "experts" alleges.
But then one is left with people such as Rep. Rush Holt, a physicist, who in a letter to me said that he hadn't seen any specific evidence that the three World Trade Center towers were downed by controlled demolition. This sort of evasiveness serves the murderers well. Holt knows perfectly well he doesn't need to see bits of 9/11 rubble in order to discern a treasonous cover-up. Can it be that he hasn't bothered to do the math either?
And there is math that shows the collapses are extraordinarily strange. Check my 9/11 reports links on this page.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Fox silent on owner's commie-cuddling
White House spokeswoman Anita Dunn tonight was raked over the coals by a Fox opinion panel anxious to spotlight her lame attempt at antithesis when seeming to uphold both Mother Theresa and Mao Tse Tung as sources of wisdom. As the panel pointed out, this was especially absurd rhetoric to use before a high school audience.
But the panelists, who included conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who is a Fox regular; a writer for the highly conservative American Spectator; and a National Public Radio commentator who also shows up on Fox, never broached the controversies concerning Fox owner Rupert Murdoch's various accommodations of communism. Prior to his takeover of the Wall Street Journal, a group of Journal reporters blasted Murdoch's bid based on their experiences covering China and their belief that Murdoch would permit Communist influence to soften the Journal's coverage of what is still red China. (Glenn Beck made a nasty joke about setting up a Red phone to the White House while also dutifully avoiding his boss's affinity for communistic favors.)
I went to Fox's web site a few minutes ago to review the panel discussion, but a diligent search failed to turn it up, although a number of other Fox items concerning the controversy with the White House were available.
True, Fox can defend the panel's bias as coming under "opinion." But, nevertheless, no opinion was permitted concerning Murdoch's shady dealings with communism. I didn't closely check every Fox news report, but the ones I scanned all avoided mention of Murdoch's own problems of communist connections.
In any event, Fox is certainly ridiculous when it runs a ballot -- under "comment" of course -- like this:
"You decide:
* They want to shoot the messenger
* They don't have a good case to make
* They confuse News and Opinion
* I don't know"
Those are the options. What about, "The White House might be right"; "They do have a good case to make"; or "The news is slanted so that Obama is always wrong, no matter what"?
Or even better, "Do you agree that Fox News is essentially an arm of the Republican Party?"
The Hannity show made much of Dunn's statement that the campaign had found a way to get Obama's unedited words past reporters during the campaign season. Somehow that transmogrified into a Fox accusation that rival news organizations were under the control of the White House.
Yet, Fox has been airing stuff from journalists for those rival organizations saying that the White House is in error. As a former reporter, I know where they're coming from. But, whatever the failings of other news organizations, no one has ever accused the Murdoch press of objectivity or being worthy of being considered professional NEWS media. As another former newspaperman, Obama aide David Axelrod, said, Murdoch may be clever at making money, but that doesn't qualify his wares for the category of legitimate news.
Sure, sometimes Fox reporters develop good stories. But, look at the ones they are directed to avoid. Aren't they compelled to kowtow to the Murdoch theory of 9/11? You don't call that news bias?
Let this sink in: the Murdoch theory of 9/11 comes from an organization headed by a fellow with a history of commie-cuddling.
But the panelists, who included conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who is a Fox regular; a writer for the highly conservative American Spectator; and a National Public Radio commentator who also shows up on Fox, never broached the controversies concerning Fox owner Rupert Murdoch's various accommodations of communism. Prior to his takeover of the Wall Street Journal, a group of Journal reporters blasted Murdoch's bid based on their experiences covering China and their belief that Murdoch would permit Communist influence to soften the Journal's coverage of what is still red China. (Glenn Beck made a nasty joke about setting up a Red phone to the White House while also dutifully avoiding his boss's affinity for communistic favors.)
I went to Fox's web site a few minutes ago to review the panel discussion, but a diligent search failed to turn it up, although a number of other Fox items concerning the controversy with the White House were available.
True, Fox can defend the panel's bias as coming under "opinion." But, nevertheless, no opinion was permitted concerning Murdoch's shady dealings with communism. I didn't closely check every Fox news report, but the ones I scanned all avoided mention of Murdoch's own problems of communist connections.
In any event, Fox is certainly ridiculous when it runs a ballot -- under "comment" of course -- like this:
"You decide:
* They want to shoot the messenger
* They don't have a good case to make
* They confuse News and Opinion
* I don't know"
Those are the options. What about, "The White House might be right"; "They do have a good case to make"; or "The news is slanted so that Obama is always wrong, no matter what"?
Or even better, "Do you agree that Fox News is essentially an arm of the Republican Party?"
The Hannity show made much of Dunn's statement that the campaign had found a way to get Obama's unedited words past reporters during the campaign season. Somehow that transmogrified into a Fox accusation that rival news organizations were under the control of the White House.
Yet, Fox has been airing stuff from journalists for those rival organizations saying that the White House is in error. As a former reporter, I know where they're coming from. But, whatever the failings of other news organizations, no one has ever accused the Murdoch press of objectivity or being worthy of being considered professional NEWS media. As another former newspaperman, Obama aide David Axelrod, said, Murdoch may be clever at making money, but that doesn't qualify his wares for the category of legitimate news.
Sure, sometimes Fox reporters develop good stories. But, look at the ones they are directed to avoid. Aren't they compelled to kowtow to the Murdoch theory of 9/11? You don't call that news bias?
Let this sink in: the Murdoch theory of 9/11 comes from an organization headed by a fellow with a history of commie-cuddling.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Murdoch's foul theory of 9/11
The Murdoch theory of 9/11 may have had a significant impact on Obama's decision to tackle the news fiend head-on.
It must have been the last straw for Obama when a top environmental aide was pressured to resign after the Murdoch press made an issue of his doubts about the Murdoch theory of 9/11, which almost nobody believes after the 9/11 commission's top people themselves tore apart the credibility of the panel's report
Murdoch is ticked off, that's easy to see. He showed 'em by canning a token liberal and told investors that the White House controversy had driven ratings up. Yet, does he understand that there is no more reason to believe this claim than to believe his wingnut theory that 9/11 was no inside job or to believe much of anything else purveyed by his outlets?
It seems to me that today's news show broadside by David Axelrod does indeed damage Murdoch, no matter how Murdoch tries to squirm out of it. It focuses the nation's attention on the very, very serious problems of credibility and professionalism at Fox News. Many ordnary Americans -- not necessarily fire-breathing liberals -- will begin to think, you can't believe everything you hear on Fox.
Also, the idea that the sleaze factor is good for ratings doesn't necessarily mean advertising income will benefit. Advertisers don't like their products being sullied by a media outfit's sleaze factor and tend to shy away -- something Murdoch never accepted when he owned a string of U.S. papers.
It must have been the last straw for Obama when a top environmental aide was pressured to resign after the Murdoch press made an issue of his doubts about the Murdoch theory of 9/11, which almost nobody believes after the 9/11 commission's top people themselves tore apart the credibility of the panel's report
Murdoch is ticked off, that's easy to see. He showed 'em by canning a token liberal and told investors that the White House controversy had driven ratings up. Yet, does he understand that there is no more reason to believe this claim than to believe his wingnut theory that 9/11 was no inside job or to believe much of anything else purveyed by his outlets?
It seems to me that today's news show broadside by David Axelrod does indeed damage Murdoch, no matter how Murdoch tries to squirm out of it. It focuses the nation's attention on the very, very serious problems of credibility and professionalism at Fox News. Many ordnary Americans -- not necessarily fire-breathing liberals -- will begin to think, you can't believe everything you hear on Fox.
Also, the idea that the sleaze factor is good for ratings doesn't necessarily mean advertising income will benefit. Advertisers don't like their products being sullied by a media outfit's sleaze factor and tend to shy away -- something Murdoch never accepted when he owned a string of U.S. papers.
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Murdoch-Obama feud: Seeing Red
The Murdoch-Obama feud is getting loud. Fox commentator Glenn Beck has aired videos that he interprets to mean that Obama aide Anita Dunn has consorted with communists -- in particular the communist Mao Tse Tung.
And columnist Michelle Malkin, whose work often appears in the Murdoch press, repeated the charge.
Yet isn't it so that a number of Wall Street Journal reporters opposed Murdoch's takeover of that newspaper because of his relations with the Chinese communists?
And isn't it so that the Murdoch theory of 9/11 is welcomed by the KGB veterans who control Russia, as it fits their policies concerning Chechnya and Afghanistan?
And columnist Michelle Malkin, whose work often appears in the Murdoch press, repeated the charge.
Yet isn't it so that a number of Wall Street Journal reporters opposed Murdoch's takeover of that newspaper because of his relations with the Chinese communists?
And isn't it so that the Murdoch theory of 9/11 is welcomed by the KGB veterans who control Russia, as it fits their policies concerning Chechnya and Afghanistan?
Google mirrors shatter
Say, that GoogleDocs upload function was pretty handy. You could copy many a web page just by typing in the URL. But today that function is gone -- from all my accounts anyway.
Wonder why Google crippled itself like that? And why didn't it announce or explain the change? I look at GoogleNews, which features numerous stories about Google, regularly, but that one didn't get coverage, it seems.
GoogleDocs has now been rendered pretty much worthless to me. Previously, the editing functions simply wouldn't work. So I got around that hassle by writing on another free service and then moving the document page to GoogleDocs, which stripped the page of ads. Other web services have this page-mirror service, so it's not as though Google's mirror service was improper.
I also find that quite frequently GoogleDocs email attachments come through garbled, with lines of type moved around or missing altogether. When I query others about these problems, their copies are OK.
I'm sure there's no conspiracy involved. Stress might make it appear that Google is playing a role in some sort of denial of service campaign. But that's silly... (although, Google has kowtowed to Chinese communists in denying services...) Well, ho-hum, anyway... (Also, it must be admitted that some of my word processor skills are at best primitive, though that fact can't account for all the bugs that emerge when I use Google services.)
Real competition might do 'em some good.
Wonder why Google crippled itself like that? And why didn't it announce or explain the change? I look at GoogleNews, which features numerous stories about Google, regularly, but that one didn't get coverage, it seems.
GoogleDocs has now been rendered pretty much worthless to me. Previously, the editing functions simply wouldn't work. So I got around that hassle by writing on another free service and then moving the document page to GoogleDocs, which stripped the page of ads. Other web services have this page-mirror service, so it's not as though Google's mirror service was improper.
I also find that quite frequently GoogleDocs email attachments come through garbled, with lines of type moved around or missing altogether. When I query others about these problems, their copies are OK.
I'm sure there's no conspiracy involved. Stress might make it appear that Google is playing a role in some sort of denial of service campaign. But that's silly... (although, Google has kowtowed to Chinese communists in denying services...) Well, ho-hum, anyway... (Also, it must be admitted that some of my word processor skills are at best primitive, though that fact can't account for all the bugs that emerge when I use Google services.)
Real competition might do 'em some good.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
White House: Fox often airs false news
The White House took another poke at Fox News yesterday, saying many of its reports are false.
"I have watched many stories on that network that I've found not to be true," Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, told reporters. But, trying to soften the blow, he added: "I think everybody in this room has been on the receiving end of a phone conversation with me when I've had issues with your stories. I don't think that's new."
Gibbs had been pressed by internet journalist Tommy Christopher on whether White House spokeswoman Anita Dunn's blast at Fox might have a chilling effect on speech.
In his report, Christopher said that he had never been on the receiving end of such a call from Gibbs.
As Christopher noted, President Obama had told the New York Times of a "television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration." It was understood that Obama meant either the local Fox station or the Fox network.
This suggests that the decision to go public with criticism of Fox stems from the president.
But, as Christopher noted, so far the White House seems to be attacking Fox with "plastic army men, or something."
"I have watched many stories on that network that I've found not to be true," Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, told reporters. But, trying to soften the blow, he added: "I think everybody in this room has been on the receiving end of a phone conversation with me when I've had issues with your stories. I don't think that's new."
Gibbs had been pressed by internet journalist Tommy Christopher on whether White House spokeswoman Anita Dunn's blast at Fox might have a chilling effect on speech.
In his report, Christopher said that he had never been on the receiving end of such a call from Gibbs.
As Christopher noted, President Obama had told the New York Times of a "television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration." It was understood that Obama meant either the local Fox station or the Fox network.
This suggests that the decision to go public with criticism of Fox stems from the president.
But, as Christopher noted, so far the White House seems to be attacking Fox with "plastic army men, or something."
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Superprez versus Foxzilla
The sitdown between Obama's man and Murdoch's man took place about a month ago. It was a "cordial conversation" over coffee while the president was in Manhattan for a UN session. But nobody backed down, and now the White House is in an all-out struggle with a media outfit known for a willingness to brawl.
The topic of conversation between David Axelrod, Obama's chief political adviser, and Roger Ailes, who runs Fox News for media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, was "news coverage and the relationship between the two organizations," Politico's Mike Allen learned. A Fox spokesman confirmed that a talk took place, Allen said.
But the daily hostility toward Obama served up by Fox continued unabated and finally the White House had had enough. Anita Dunn, a White House spokeswoman, on Sunday took to CNN's airwaves to blister Fox News as essentially an "arm of the Republican Party."
"We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent," Dunn told the New York Times for Monday's editions. Accusing Fox of "undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House," she asserted that it was pointless "to pretend that this is the way legitimate news organizations behave."
A Fox executive told the Times that Ailes had remarked: "Don't pick a fight with people who like to fight."
Fox tried to defend itself by saying that the White House wasn't distinguishing between commentary and regular news coverage. However, many professional journalists have strongly criticized the Murdoch press for coloring news coverage for political purposes. [Please see "Fox News: trumpet of Israel's hard right" at http://www.angelfire.com/az3/nfold/rupert.html.]
Before Murdoch hired him to run Fox, Ailes was a top-level political operative in the presidential campaigns of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. And Fox News was warmly embraced by the second Bush White House.
Fox snubbed Obama by refusing to air his address to Congress and by blacking out a White House news conference. Obama returned the snub by declining to appear on Fox News Sunday while showing up on the other major Sunday news telecasts.
Fox's Glenn Beck ramped up the verbal firefight by accusing the White House of being more interested in fighting a war with Murdoch than with winning in Afghanistan. But Fox quoted neither Ailes nor Murdoch concerning the grudge match.
There's no love lost between Obama and Murdoch, of course. Murdoch promoted Obama in hopes that McCain would do better against him than against Clinton. (Murdoch once promoted Ted Kennedy against President Carter and then trashed Kennedy at the last minute, successfully assisting Republican presidential prospects.)
The White House decision to fight fire with fire and openly treat Fox as a political adversary comes amid the congressional wrangling over health care and may well be a tactic meant to aid in that struggle. If Fox can be politically neutralized, or at least weakened, lawmakers may not feel quite so timorous when contending with Fox's shouting heads. It may be that the White House hopes to form a united Democratic front against Murdoch, Ailes and Fox, especially when one considers that most of the GOP opposition in Congress fits hand-in-glove with the Fox slant.
But what can Axelrod and Dunn do against the daily Fox onslaught? The White House, one suspects, will have to find ways to go after Murdoch and Fox via "back channel" methods. What these might be, who knows? Other than that Obama is likely to curtail anything illegal that could blow up on him. Even so, the Bush-era wiretap laws are now in the hands of people who might well be tempted to listen in on the doings of Murdoch -- and such eavesdropping could easily be justified by Murdoch's penchant for peculiar relations with Chinese communists.
Another point: the Murdoch press has led the way in defending the traitors behind 9/11 by ignoring facts and through the use of cheap name-calling and smear tactics, exactly the methods used against the Obama White House. An open breach means Obama needn't worry about offending the Murdoch treason group. So we may expect that the White House may become a tad more daring in distancing itself from the Murdoch theory of 9/11. (See previous post.)
Addenda: Robert Parry points out that the insurance industry is inadvertently making a very strong case for a public health care option. See his OpEd News piece at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Insurers-Make-Case-for-Pub-by-Robert-Parry-09012-787.html. Also, the White House contends that the Hyde amendment will bar use of the health care system for abortions but critics say that the health care bills in Congress circumvent the Hyde amendment.
The topic of conversation between David Axelrod, Obama's chief political adviser, and Roger Ailes, who runs Fox News for media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, was "news coverage and the relationship between the two organizations," Politico's Mike Allen learned. A Fox spokesman confirmed that a talk took place, Allen said.
But the daily hostility toward Obama served up by Fox continued unabated and finally the White House had had enough. Anita Dunn, a White House spokeswoman, on Sunday took to CNN's airwaves to blister Fox News as essentially an "arm of the Republican Party."
"We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent," Dunn told the New York Times for Monday's editions. Accusing Fox of "undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House," she asserted that it was pointless "to pretend that this is the way legitimate news organizations behave."
A Fox executive told the Times that Ailes had remarked: "Don't pick a fight with people who like to fight."
Fox tried to defend itself by saying that the White House wasn't distinguishing between commentary and regular news coverage. However, many professional journalists have strongly criticized the Murdoch press for coloring news coverage for political purposes. [Please see "Fox News: trumpet of Israel's hard right" at http://www.angelfire.com/az3/nfold/rupert.html.]
Before Murdoch hired him to run Fox, Ailes was a top-level political operative in the presidential campaigns of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. And Fox News was warmly embraced by the second Bush White House.
Fox snubbed Obama by refusing to air his address to Congress and by blacking out a White House news conference. Obama returned the snub by declining to appear on Fox News Sunday while showing up on the other major Sunday news telecasts.
Fox's Glenn Beck ramped up the verbal firefight by accusing the White House of being more interested in fighting a war with Murdoch than with winning in Afghanistan. But Fox quoted neither Ailes nor Murdoch concerning the grudge match.
There's no love lost between Obama and Murdoch, of course. Murdoch promoted Obama in hopes that McCain would do better against him than against Clinton. (Murdoch once promoted Ted Kennedy against President Carter and then trashed Kennedy at the last minute, successfully assisting Republican presidential prospects.)
The White House decision to fight fire with fire and openly treat Fox as a political adversary comes amid the congressional wrangling over health care and may well be a tactic meant to aid in that struggle. If Fox can be politically neutralized, or at least weakened, lawmakers may not feel quite so timorous when contending with Fox's shouting heads. It may be that the White House hopes to form a united Democratic front against Murdoch, Ailes and Fox, especially when one considers that most of the GOP opposition in Congress fits hand-in-glove with the Fox slant.
But what can Axelrod and Dunn do against the daily Fox onslaught? The White House, one suspects, will have to find ways to go after Murdoch and Fox via "back channel" methods. What these might be, who knows? Other than that Obama is likely to curtail anything illegal that could blow up on him. Even so, the Bush-era wiretap laws are now in the hands of people who might well be tempted to listen in on the doings of Murdoch -- and such eavesdropping could easily be justified by Murdoch's penchant for peculiar relations with Chinese communists.
Another point: the Murdoch press has led the way in defending the traitors behind 9/11 by ignoring facts and through the use of cheap name-calling and smear tactics, exactly the methods used against the Obama White House. An open breach means Obama needn't worry about offending the Murdoch treason group. So we may expect that the White House may become a tad more daring in distancing itself from the Murdoch theory of 9/11. (See previous post.)
Addenda: Robert Parry points out that the insurance industry is inadvertently making a very strong case for a public health care option. See his OpEd News piece at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Insurers-Make-Case-for-Pub-by-Robert-Parry-09012-787.html. Also, the White House contends that the Hyde amendment will bar use of the health care system for abortions but critics say that the health care bills in Congress circumvent the Hyde amendment.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
A presidential signal?
Maybe not, but one likes to think so.
Obama gave a little talk to his counterterrorism team headed by Bush-holdover John Brennan. There were the routine thanks and the mandatory sports joke.
But what there wasn't was Obama directly blaming al Qaeda for the attacks of 9/11. Those he blamed on generic extremists and terrorists.
A few sentences later, he said America won't rest until she has defeated al Qaeda.
But, it seems, when he was speaking to the real professionals, he was wary of laying 9/11 at the feet of al Qaeda.
Oct. 7, 2009 note: Obama, opines the Times, is seeking some sort of middle ground on the Afghan war. No drastic scaledown or buildup. Yet, the status quo isn't that good. At any rate, suddenly the 9/11 truth idea has political traction; after all, if al Qaeda was little more than a minor pawn in the 9/11 attacks, the political justification for the war recedes. So Obama takes less heat for declining to prosecute the war as vigorously as some demand. (That's not to say that al Qaeda hasn't been responsible for other bloody attacks on Americans.)
Obama gave a little talk to his counterterrorism team headed by Bush-holdover John Brennan. There were the routine thanks and the mandatory sports joke.
But what there wasn't was Obama directly blaming al Qaeda for the attacks of 9/11. Those he blamed on generic extremists and terrorists.
A few sentences later, he said America won't rest until she has defeated al Qaeda.
But, it seems, when he was speaking to the real professionals, he was wary of laying 9/11 at the feet of al Qaeda.
Oct. 7, 2009 note: Obama, opines the Times, is seeking some sort of middle ground on the Afghan war. No drastic scaledown or buildup. Yet, the status quo isn't that good. At any rate, suddenly the 9/11 truth idea has political traction; after all, if al Qaeda was little more than a minor pawn in the 9/11 attacks, the political justification for the war recedes. So Obama takes less heat for declining to prosecute the war as vigorously as some demand. (That's not to say that al Qaeda hasn't been responsible for other bloody attacks on Americans.)
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Top lawyer for NYC: We didn't probe 9/11
New York City did nothing whatsover to investigate the events of 9/11, a senior city lawyer has reluctantly admitted in court.
Stephen Kitzinger, when asked whether the city had done such a probe, replied that the question was "irrelevant," but when pressed, conceded that the city had done nothing.
Please go to http://www.opednews.com
for the full account, which came from a group seeking a ballot question asking New Yorkers whether the city should conduct such a probe.
The reporting is based on the petitioner account.
The group was in court after a referee denied its petition for a ballot question based on what appears to have been a spurious argument that, for technical reasons, it was too late to prepare the ballot. The group noted the referee's file did not even include its legal brief about why the petition should go on the ballot.
The judge holding the hearing seemed surprised that the city had done nothing. He also was unaware of some issues, such as the fact that the 9/11 commission had omitted all reference to Trade Center 7, which he apparently never heard of.
Stephen Kitzinger, when asked whether the city had done such a probe, replied that the question was "irrelevant," but when pressed, conceded that the city had done nothing.
Please go to http://www.opednews.com
for the full account, which came from a group seeking a ballot question asking New Yorkers whether the city should conduct such a probe.
The reporting is based on the petitioner account.
The group was in court after a referee denied its petition for a ballot question based on what appears to have been a spurious argument that, for technical reasons, it was too late to prepare the ballot. The group noted the referee's file did not even include its legal brief about why the petition should go on the ballot.
The judge holding the hearing seemed surprised that the city had done nothing. He also was unaware of some issues, such as the fact that the 9/11 commission had omitted all reference to Trade Center 7, which he apparently never heard of.
Growing the octopus
The Obama administration isn't doing anything to try to curb the impression that it sympathizes with socialism.
You may think that texting while driving is a bad thing and that it should be discouraged. But, my question is, why should the federal government take control here? Each state is perfectly competent to decide what to do about this matter within its borders.
Of late Obama's transportation secretary has been hot on this matter, and allied Dems in Congress are promoting a measure to high-pressure states to adopt such laws or to rigorously enforce them. If they don't, 25 percent of federal transportation funding would be cut off.
This little trick has been going on for some time, and it's merely a way to get around the constitutional checks and balances system, specifically to vitiate the rights that were reserved to the states and to the citizenry of those states.
Even though the Reconstruction-era 14th amendment permits more federal involvement in the internal affairs of states, it seems unlikely that the amendment authors envisioned such an encroachment on state authority as is seen with the federal revenue-withholding gambit.
The erosion of state autonomy effectively gives aid and comfort to the covert coteries of socialists anxious to remake our country on the sly.
I wonder whether this revenue-sharing/withholding tactic has ever been challenged in the Supreme Court as an infringement of the ninth and tenth amendments. If not, let us hope it will be challenged and overthrown.
You may think that texting while driving is a bad thing and that it should be discouraged. But, my question is, why should the federal government take control here? Each state is perfectly competent to decide what to do about this matter within its borders.
Of late Obama's transportation secretary has been hot on this matter, and allied Dems in Congress are promoting a measure to high-pressure states to adopt such laws or to rigorously enforce them. If they don't, 25 percent of federal transportation funding would be cut off.
This little trick has been going on for some time, and it's merely a way to get around the constitutional checks and balances system, specifically to vitiate the rights that were reserved to the states and to the citizenry of those states.
Even though the Reconstruction-era 14th amendment permits more federal involvement in the internal affairs of states, it seems unlikely that the amendment authors envisioned such an encroachment on state authority as is seen with the federal revenue-withholding gambit.
The erosion of state autonomy effectively gives aid and comfort to the covert coteries of socialists anxious to remake our country on the sly.
I wonder whether this revenue-sharing/withholding tactic has ever been challenged in the Supreme Court as an infringement of the ninth and tenth amendments. If not, let us hope it will be challenged and overthrown.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Report: Rowley rips Tenet for torture conflict
FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley yesterday accused former CIA chief George Tenet of a conflict of interest in his call to cancel a probe of stressful CIA interrogations, according to web reports.
Rowley joined a group of intelligence professionals who, in a letter to President Obama, backed Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to assign the interrogation investigation to Special Counsel John Durham, according to a document posted by Common Dreams. The letter was in response to a letter earlier this month from seven former CIA chiefs urging Obama to order Holder to drop the probe.
Yesterday's letter said that "some" of the former CIA chiefs "were cognizant of and involved in decisions" that led to abuses, singling out George Tenet as "the chief enabler of torture."
The writers said "personal accountability is vital to maintaining an effective intelligence service" and argued against focusing only on "bad apples at the bottom of the barrel."
See http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/28-7
Needles and pins
I decided to change subscription options to various State Dept., EPA, National Science Foundation and Pentagon freebies. I noticed that all but the Pentagon required my email address before they could process my request. Apparently, the Pentagon already knew who I was.
A few days ago, I copied some of my Angelfire pages to Google documents. When I tried to do so again, I got two different pages telling me it couldn't be done. One Google page said the pages I was attempting to move were corrupt or wrongly formatted. In another instance, a Google error came up saying no such page existed, even though I carefully checked the URL.
What pages was I attempting to shift? My 9/11 reports.
I just tried to transfer two of my Angelfire pages that did not concern 9/11. No problem!
[After I published this post, the problem seemed to correct itself. But when I tried to reproduce a major report, the same hassle occurred. I then tried altering the web address slightly -- deleting the "www." That worked, indicating that the usual address had code attached prohibiting transfer. Still, I don't know what's going on, but past experience tells me there will be continuing problems trying to disseminate pages that find fault with government security agencies.]
I'll try to use copy and paste. But, funny things happen with that process, too.
Rowley joined a group of intelligence professionals who, in a letter to President Obama, backed Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to assign the interrogation investigation to Special Counsel John Durham, according to a document posted by Common Dreams. The letter was in response to a letter earlier this month from seven former CIA chiefs urging Obama to order Holder to drop the probe.
Yesterday's letter said that "some" of the former CIA chiefs "were cognizant of and involved in decisions" that led to abuses, singling out George Tenet as "the chief enabler of torture."
The writers said "personal accountability is vital to maintaining an effective intelligence service" and argued against focusing only on "bad apples at the bottom of the barrel."
See http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/28-7
Needles and pins
I decided to change subscription options to various State Dept., EPA, National Science Foundation and Pentagon freebies. I noticed that all but the Pentagon required my email address before they could process my request. Apparently, the Pentagon already knew who I was.
A few days ago, I copied some of my Angelfire pages to Google documents. When I tried to do so again, I got two different pages telling me it couldn't be done. One Google page said the pages I was attempting to move were corrupt or wrongly formatted. In another instance, a Google error came up saying no such page existed, even though I carefully checked the URL.
What pages was I attempting to shift? My 9/11 reports.
I just tried to transfer two of my Angelfire pages that did not concern 9/11. No problem!
[After I published this post, the problem seemed to correct itself. But when I tried to reproduce a major report, the same hassle occurred. I then tried altering the web address slightly -- deleting the "www." That worked, indicating that the usual address had code attached prohibiting transfer. Still, I don't know what's going on, but past experience tells me there will be continuing problems trying to disseminate pages that find fault with government security agencies.]
I'll try to use copy and paste. But, funny things happen with that process, too.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Top 9/11 lawyer: we heard a pack of lies
The 9/11 commission was handed a pack of lies by high-level government officials, the commission's former counsel says.
John Farmer, the panel's ex-counsel who is now dean of Rutgers University law school, said that "at some level of the government, at some point in time, there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened," according to a Rutgers press release announcing his new book "The Ground Truth: the story of America's defense of 9/11."
Farmer, one of the masterminds of the 9/11 account given by the commission in 2004, is quoted: "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described."
Specifically, he was referring to the discrepancy between NORAD tapes and what military officers told the commission.
The book is slated for release early next year.
One cannot come away thinking that Farmer has entirely retracted the government's essential story: that al Qaeda -- and not Pentagon or CIA puppet-masters -- arranged the attacks.
However, his concession in the law school press release and the fact that much of what the panel was told came from captives subjected to extreme duress should be enough to raise red flags.
It's certainly true that he joins a number of other 9/11 panel officials who have disavowed key parts of the report because of severe problems with government credibility that have surfaced since the 9/11 report was issued.
In a related matter, seven former CIA chiefs have signed a petition urging President Obama to block a criminal probe of CIA torture activity. Morale would be badly affected, they allege.
Conant comment: Of course, a real criminal probe would almost certainly turn up evidence of treason concerning 9/11. Maybe one or two of these spooks, such as James Schlesinger, are so doddering they don't see that. But the others should all be put on the short list of candidates for "persons of interest" in mole hunts.
John Farmer, the panel's ex-counsel who is now dean of Rutgers University law school, said that "at some level of the government, at some point in time, there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened," according to a Rutgers press release announcing his new book "The Ground Truth: the story of America's defense of 9/11."
Farmer, one of the masterminds of the 9/11 account given by the commission in 2004, is quoted: "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described."
Specifically, he was referring to the discrepancy between NORAD tapes and what military officers told the commission.
The book is slated for release early next year.
One cannot come away thinking that Farmer has entirely retracted the government's essential story: that al Qaeda -- and not Pentagon or CIA puppet-masters -- arranged the attacks.
However, his concession in the law school press release and the fact that much of what the panel was told came from captives subjected to extreme duress should be enough to raise red flags.
It's certainly true that he joins a number of other 9/11 panel officials who have disavowed key parts of the report because of severe problems with government credibility that have surfaced since the 9/11 report was issued.
In a related matter, seven former CIA chiefs have signed a petition urging President Obama to block a criminal probe of CIA torture activity. Morale would be badly affected, they allege.
Conant comment: Of course, a real criminal probe would almost certainly turn up evidence of treason concerning 9/11. Maybe one or two of these spooks, such as James Schlesinger, are so doddering they don't see that. But the others should all be put on the short list of candidates for "persons of interest" in mole hunts.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Veteran counterspy gets Obama green light
President Obama's top spook sent a message to the turncoat underground yesterday: We're coming after you.
But the question is, will the new chief counterspy have the resources needed to counteract the subversion of spies, moles and agents of influence? Certainly Robert Bryant, the new counterintelligence executive reporting to National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair, knows the ways of Washington and of spooks very well.
Bryant's counterspy credentials include the nabbing of CIA moles Aldrich Ames and Harold Nicholson and of FBI traitor Earl Pitts, according to Blair's office. As deputy FBI director, Bryant handled various matters, including national security, counterterrorism and counterintelligence.
Bryant, who returns from private life after serving some 40 years in the FBI, was named as part of the new national intelligence strategy, which elevates counterintelligence to a top mission priority, Blair's office said.
Previously, Blair's office has underscored national security threats from communist China and from Russia, which is in the grip of KGB veterans. It will be interesting to see whether Bryant's leadership results in a rolling up of networks of treason inside and outside of the federal government.
But the question is, will the new chief counterspy have the resources needed to counteract the subversion of spies, moles and agents of influence? Certainly Robert Bryant, the new counterintelligence executive reporting to National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair, knows the ways of Washington and of spooks very well.
Bryant's counterspy credentials include the nabbing of CIA moles Aldrich Ames and Harold Nicholson and of FBI traitor Earl Pitts, according to Blair's office. As deputy FBI director, Bryant handled various matters, including national security, counterterrorism and counterintelligence.
Bryant, who returns from private life after serving some 40 years in the FBI, was named as part of the new national intelligence strategy, which elevates counterintelligence to a top mission priority, Blair's office said.
Previously, Blair's office has underscored national security threats from communist China and from Russia, which is in the grip of KGB veterans. It will be interesting to see whether Bryant's leadership results in a rolling up of networks of treason inside and outside of the federal government.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Bad medicine II: a house divided
9/11 truth is not welcome at the Obama White House. Gets in the way of health care reform.
Obama sent a very clear message: not interested in past treason.
White House adviser David Axelrod said Van Jones wasn't forced to resign after traitorous elements of the press made an issue of his signing of a 2004 petition calling for an invetsigation of the circumstances of 9/11, with the suspicion that an "inside job" had occurred. Van Jones, an environmental jobs adviser, simply didn't want to be an object of controversy, helping to cloud the health care debate.
Yes, but Obama did not step in and publicly support Jones for having a right to free speech and who was reflecting the thoughts of at least one third of the American public (as of a 2006 poll). Also, many in 2004 it was clear that many reporters were skeptical of the Bush bunch concerning 9/11.
The 9/11 commission was appointed in response to enormous public suspicion. A perverse panel was eventually appointed whereby the Bush bunch and the Clinton bunch agreed to a sham probe in exchange for not lifting each others skirts.
But, maybe Obama will yet see the light, as he did on the U.S. missile shield planned against Iran. Finally, it seems, he realized that the whole thing was basically a multi-billion hoax. See the old Ted Postol criticisms.
Maybe. But I won't hold my breath.
Obama sent a very clear message: not interested in past treason.
White House adviser David Axelrod said Van Jones wasn't forced to resign after traitorous elements of the press made an issue of his signing of a 2004 petition calling for an invetsigation of the circumstances of 9/11, with the suspicion that an "inside job" had occurred. Van Jones, an environmental jobs adviser, simply didn't want to be an object of controversy, helping to cloud the health care debate.
Yes, but Obama did not step in and publicly support Jones for having a right to free speech and who was reflecting the thoughts of at least one third of the American public (as of a 2006 poll). Also, many in 2004 it was clear that many reporters were skeptical of the Bush bunch concerning 9/11.
The 9/11 commission was appointed in response to enormous public suspicion. A perverse panel was eventually appointed whereby the Bush bunch and the Clinton bunch agreed to a sham probe in exchange for not lifting each others skirts.
But, maybe Obama will yet see the light, as he did on the U.S. missile shield planned against Iran. Finally, it seems, he realized that the whole thing was basically a multi-billion hoax. See the old Ted Postol criticisms.
Maybe. But I won't hold my breath.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Bad medicine
A country as rich as ours surely should find a way to make certain everybody has access to health care.
There are a number of possible solutions, but what do we see as the favorite? Baucus has in mind an authoritarian approach that imposes fines on those who don't buy health coverage. Why do we see something that gives the federal government authority to punish Americans for personal choices that are not criminal?
At this point in history, the federal government forces people in general to do only one thing: pay taxes. And the feds have the option of reviving military conscription. But forcing people to buy health insurance means forcing bondage to the insurance industry -- something New Jersey residents are very familiar with when it comes to onerous auto premiums.
Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. Once this federal curb on individual liberty is in place, more will follow.
So, my vote is definitely no to the Baucus plan. The fact that his plan has the Massachussetts plan as a precedent doesn't justify it; the Massachussetts law is, I think, unconstitutional. In fact, the Baucus plan might easily be upended by the Supreme Court, bringing all that effort to nought.
It's a case of choosing the lesser evil. And the lesser evil is to put liberty first.
(Personal note: I have federal health coverage, but I would do without rather than see more encroachment of our freedom.)
There are a number of possible solutions, but what do we see as the favorite? Baucus has in mind an authoritarian approach that imposes fines on those who don't buy health coverage. Why do we see something that gives the federal government authority to punish Americans for personal choices that are not criminal?
At this point in history, the federal government forces people in general to do only one thing: pay taxes. And the feds have the option of reviving military conscription. But forcing people to buy health insurance means forcing bondage to the insurance industry -- something New Jersey residents are very familiar with when it comes to onerous auto premiums.
Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. Once this federal curb on individual liberty is in place, more will follow.
So, my vote is definitely no to the Baucus plan. The fact that his plan has the Massachussetts plan as a precedent doesn't justify it; the Massachussetts law is, I think, unconstitutional. In fact, the Baucus plan might easily be upended by the Supreme Court, bringing all that effort to nought.
It's a case of choosing the lesser evil. And the lesser evil is to put liberty first.
(Personal note: I have federal health coverage, but I would do without rather than see more encroachment of our freedom.)
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Shake-up in spookdom
New blends of intelligence activity are coming into play that bypass the old system, according to Dennis C. Blair, director of national intelligence.
Blair said such teams drew from various governmental agencies and were capable of rapid analysis and response. He did not deny a questioner's assertion that CIA officers are not automatically named to head these interdisciplinary teams. On the other hand, he agreed that the interdisciplinary approach faces strong resistance in Washington, where the CIA and Pentagon intelligence agencies have been strong rivals for decades.
In press briefing remarks posted on his office's web site, Blair said that a "muscular" intelligence strategy is necessary to counteract China's aggressive behavior, particularly its cyber-espionage. The National Intelligence Strategy that he unveiled says China, despite having common interests with the United States, is challenging America with its military modernization program and a diplomacy increasingly focused on natural resources.
The strategy document also noted that Russia, despite cooperation in curbing nuclear terror threats, may continue maneuvering to try to regain Soviet-era power in ways that complicate U.S. interests.
Another area of concern is counterintelligence. The strategy document carries a photo of CIA spy boss Aldrich Ames, whose treason for Russia left many bodies in its wake.
The CIA mastermind was eventually isolated by an interagency task force set up as a result of pressure from clandestine operatives in the field. It appears that Blair would like to use such interdisciplinary teams to smoke out spies and agents of influence in the CIA and Pentagon.
Yet, there is strong resistance to this sort of initiative, according to Blair.
Blair said such teams drew from various governmental agencies and were capable of rapid analysis and response. He did not deny a questioner's assertion that CIA officers are not automatically named to head these interdisciplinary teams. On the other hand, he agreed that the interdisciplinary approach faces strong resistance in Washington, where the CIA and Pentagon intelligence agencies have been strong rivals for decades.
In press briefing remarks posted on his office's web site, Blair said that a "muscular" intelligence strategy is necessary to counteract China's aggressive behavior, particularly its cyber-espionage. The National Intelligence Strategy that he unveiled says China, despite having common interests with the United States, is challenging America with its military modernization program and a diplomacy increasingly focused on natural resources.
The strategy document also noted that Russia, despite cooperation in curbing nuclear terror threats, may continue maneuvering to try to regain Soviet-era power in ways that complicate U.S. interests.
Another area of concern is counterintelligence. The strategy document carries a photo of CIA spy boss Aldrich Ames, whose treason for Russia left many bodies in its wake.
The CIA mastermind was eventually isolated by an interagency task force set up as a result of pressure from clandestine operatives in the field. It appears that Blair would like to use such interdisciplinary teams to smoke out spies and agents of influence in the CIA and Pentagon.
Yet, there is strong resistance to this sort of initiative, according to Blair.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Osama baloney
This "Osama tape" bunk looks a lot like an exercise in: "We'll show everybody who controls the media."
The video came through IntelCenter, a private group reportedly close to U.S. intelligence. (See the Wiki article.) We get a still photo of Osama, some old video footage of him and an audiotape purportedly made by him. I went to the IntelCenter site and that group did not feature the video plainly on its home page.
At any rate, the AP's Paul Schramm and many others were perfectly aware of this doubtful provenance, and yet began their stories with: "Osama bin Laden said..." or the equivalent, rather than with: "Osama bin Laden was quoted on an apparent al Qaeda tape..."
Clearly Schramm and others know better. So that makes Paul Schramm -- or an editor who rewrote his lead -- and many others in the press members of some hidden network that takes orders from a hidden cell.
(In the old days, Communists behaved that way. Come to think of it, that's still how they behave.)
Why would these "journalists" be so crass? Haven't they been exposed on this point more than once? Sure they have, and they keep it up. So the "hidden persuaders" are sending a message to true journalists: "We run the show. And we want propaganda, not reporting."
Under Bush, unnamed CIA people would sometimes make noises seeming to give these "Osama tapes" credibility. That isn't occurring under Obama. Still, it is fair to wonder whether a group inside the CIA favors promoting this propaganda. After all, when you work for the CIA, who calls the shots? You wouldn't release such a video without its quiet assent if you wanted to keep getting contracts.
And if that's so, what does it say about the press in America and globally? What does it say about the CIA? Who is calling the shots, really?
None dare call it treason.
The video came through IntelCenter, a private group reportedly close to U.S. intelligence. (See the Wiki article.) We get a still photo of Osama, some old video footage of him and an audiotape purportedly made by him. I went to the IntelCenter site and that group did not feature the video plainly on its home page.
At any rate, the AP's Paul Schramm and many others were perfectly aware of this doubtful provenance, and yet began their stories with: "Osama bin Laden said..." or the equivalent, rather than with: "Osama bin Laden was quoted on an apparent al Qaeda tape..."
Clearly Schramm and others know better. So that makes Paul Schramm -- or an editor who rewrote his lead -- and many others in the press members of some hidden network that takes orders from a hidden cell.
(In the old days, Communists behaved that way. Come to think of it, that's still how they behave.)
Why would these "journalists" be so crass? Haven't they been exposed on this point more than once? Sure they have, and they keep it up. So the "hidden persuaders" are sending a message to true journalists: "We run the show. And we want propaganda, not reporting."
Under Bush, unnamed CIA people would sometimes make noises seeming to give these "Osama tapes" credibility. That isn't occurring under Obama. Still, it is fair to wonder whether a group inside the CIA favors promoting this propaganda. After all, when you work for the CIA, who calls the shots? You wouldn't release such a video without its quiet assent if you wanted to keep getting contracts.
And if that's so, what does it say about the press in America and globally? What does it say about the CIA? Who is calling the shots, really?
None dare call it treason.
Press denies bin Laden death reports
Many reporters have taken it upon themselves to deny the U.S. national security adviser's estimate that bin Laden may well be dead.
"We know he's alive, because we saw him on the internet," they say.
And that's the way it is.
"We know he's alive, because we saw him on the internet," they say.
And that's the way it is.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
America to Daily News: Drop Dead
It's really annoying that The New York Daily News is still in business, still peddling the insane conspiracy theory about 9/11 drawn up by the CIA and its stooges in the media to protect a band of horrendous traitors.
Zuckerman, hear this:
America to Daily News: Drop dead.
Zuckerman, hear this:
America to Daily News: Drop dead.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Ted's sad state of denial
In his memoirs, Kennedy says he accepted the Warren commission's version of his brother's assassination and stuck with that belief, according to reports.
Assuming he wasn't being cagey and asking us to read between the lines, then we must conclude that the emotionally scarred survivor lived his life in a state of delusion. Had he not done so, family honor would have intruded and compelled him to fight the conspirators.
Three brothers were war casualties. Joe was killed in World War II and Jack and Bobby were killed in the Cold War.
It is impossible for an informed person to believe the Warren commission got it right. But Ted must have had a strong emotional need to believe the lie -- the better to survive and get on with his life.
Do you suppose Teddy would have lasted all these years in the Senate had he publicly voiced doubts about his brothers' murders? "The group" would have had him neutralized. As long as he ate doo-d00, he could play ball.
Sorry to be harsh. It's the truth.
Assuming he wasn't being cagey and asking us to read between the lines, then we must conclude that the emotionally scarred survivor lived his life in a state of delusion. Had he not done so, family honor would have intruded and compelled him to fight the conspirators.
Three brothers were war casualties. Joe was killed in World War II and Jack and Bobby were killed in the Cold War.
It is impossible for an informed person to believe the Warren commission got it right. But Ted must have had a strong emotional need to believe the lie -- the better to survive and get on with his life.
Do you suppose Teddy would have lasted all these years in the Senate had he publicly voiced doubts about his brothers' murders? "The group" would have had him neutralized. As long as he ate doo-d00, he could play ball.
Sorry to be harsh. It's the truth.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
CIA: tortured 'mastermind' credible
Though the agency admits that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "manager" of the 9/11 plot, was unaware of many operational details. I guess he wasn't a hands-on manager.
Monday, August 24, 2009
A tortuous path
The bait and switch, if that's what was up, has been aborted: a special prosecutor has been assigned to look into CIA torture activities and the 2004 torture report has been released.
The report was unavailable via the Justice Dept. web page, though Holder's statement regarding it was there. I tried to view a PDF at the Washington Post but the document got lost in my laptop; however I was able to glance at a legible copy at the Washington Independent and my first impression was, boy, there's an awful lot blacked out.
Anyway, at least Obama doesn't come off looking like a typical political trickster. To the good.
But, on the downside: the prosecutor assigned the task was appointed by Mukasey to look into the CIA's erasure of videotapes of interrogations. Mukasey made clear that he fully backed the anything-goes attitude for suspected terrorists and had been an adviser to Giuliani's presidential campaign. So I wonder how much we can really expect from a Mukasey choice.
Everyone keeps trying to change the subject when we mention that the government's shaky tale about 9/11 largely rests on statements made under torture. And, in fact, the peculiar tale woven by the CIA and the FBI for the 9/11 commission is based on the synopses (no tapes, no transcripts) of statements made under torture. On close inspection, this narrative makes very little sense.
So do you suppose this prosecutor will notice that the 9/11 tale is absurd and that traitors are being shielded? Do you suppose he'll bring indictments against intelligence people involved in the mass murders of 9/11? Don't hold your breath.
The report was unavailable via the Justice Dept. web page, though Holder's statement regarding it was there. I tried to view a PDF at the Washington Post but the document got lost in my laptop; however I was able to glance at a legible copy at the Washington Independent and my first impression was, boy, there's an awful lot blacked out.
Anyway, at least Obama doesn't come off looking like a typical political trickster. To the good.
But, on the downside: the prosecutor assigned the task was appointed by Mukasey to look into the CIA's erasure of videotapes of interrogations. Mukasey made clear that he fully backed the anything-goes attitude for suspected terrorists and had been an adviser to Giuliani's presidential campaign. So I wonder how much we can really expect from a Mukasey choice.
Everyone keeps trying to change the subject when we mention that the government's shaky tale about 9/11 largely rests on statements made under torture. And, in fact, the peculiar tale woven by the CIA and the FBI for the 9/11 commission is based on the synopses (no tapes, no transcripts) of statements made under torture. On close inspection, this narrative makes very little sense.
So do you suppose this prosecutor will notice that the 9/11 tale is absurd and that traitors are being shielded? Do you suppose he'll bring indictments against intelligence people involved in the mass murders of 9/11? Don't hold your breath.
Torture bait and switch?
A political shuffle on torture?
It had been reported that the Justice Dept. would comply with a court order today and release a suppressed report by the CIA inspector general on interrogation abuses.
But instead the Justice Dept. website leads with Obama's decision to establish an elite interrogation unit to question presumed high-value captives.
From what I am able to discern, that decision had actually been made a while ago. So the leak to the Times just in advance of official confirmation smothers the question of what happened to the torture report.
I expect the Justice Dept. will release the report -- on Labor Day weekend when the public won't be paying attention. Then, by the following Tuesday, the report will be "old news" and perhaps get short shrift.
No doubt the White House is hoping to nix the controversy because it fears a "right-wing" wedge issue that could destabilize the health care initiative.
Holder was also expected to disclose today whether he would assign prosecutors to investigate whether any of the abuses were so bad that prosecution is warranted. Nothing on that either. Maybe that will get kicked back to Labor Day weekend also.
As to the actual decision to name an elite interrogation unit. That shows Obama's way of going after difficult problems. Pretty good. But, the FBI will control the unit. The FBI has been thoroughly dishonest about what happened on 9/11. Still, it has been reported that the White House concedes that the intelligence sector will see a lot of top-level changes in the first year. Hopefully, that includes the FBI.
Now I'm not really playing prophet here concerning what looks like a political switcheroo concerning the torture report and the need for prosecutions. So I won't mind being wrong. We'll see.
It had been reported that the Justice Dept. would comply with a court order today and release a suppressed report by the CIA inspector general on interrogation abuses.
But instead the Justice Dept. website leads with Obama's decision to establish an elite interrogation unit to question presumed high-value captives.
From what I am able to discern, that decision had actually been made a while ago. So the leak to the Times just in advance of official confirmation smothers the question of what happened to the torture report.
I expect the Justice Dept. will release the report -- on Labor Day weekend when the public won't be paying attention. Then, by the following Tuesday, the report will be "old news" and perhaps get short shrift.
No doubt the White House is hoping to nix the controversy because it fears a "right-wing" wedge issue that could destabilize the health care initiative.
Holder was also expected to disclose today whether he would assign prosecutors to investigate whether any of the abuses were so bad that prosecution is warranted. Nothing on that either. Maybe that will get kicked back to Labor Day weekend also.
As to the actual decision to name an elite interrogation unit. That shows Obama's way of going after difficult problems. Pretty good. But, the FBI will control the unit. The FBI has been thoroughly dishonest about what happened on 9/11. Still, it has been reported that the White House concedes that the intelligence sector will see a lot of top-level changes in the first year. Hopefully, that includes the FBI.
Now I'm not really playing prophet here concerning what looks like a political switcheroo concerning the torture report and the need for prosecutions. So I won't mind being wrong. We'll see.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
A phased plan for the uninsured?
Coverage for the 49 million uninsured? Impossible?
What about this? No direct penalty on a person who doesn't sign up for health insurance. But, when a person shows up at a health care provider with no coverage, he can either pay up front out of pocket or enroll in a government-sponsored insurance program whereby a surcharge is added to his federal payroll tax. If he (or she) has family members who need coverage, the surcharge would be a bit higher. This way coverage costs are reduced by the beneficiaries, and yet, the system is fair because surcharges are pro-rated.
Such an enrollee would later have the option of shifting from this plan to some other private plan.
This idea would mean that the large number who don't choose to sign up right away won't be depleting the Treasury in a big surge. On the other hand, the uninsured -- and greviously underinsured -- would help to pay their way in a manner that will work: a payroll tax surcharge.
If a moderate tax surcharge -- only on those who enroll -- gives people decent coverage, it is unlikely they will complain much.
Curious coincidence: Before David Axelrod sent out a chain email on health care, none of my email with the .gov tail was ending up in the Gmail spam box. But then certain people accused Axelrod of spamming, and, voila, Google's program seems to morph to redirect the White House emails into the no-read box. Also, my spam icon stopped working properly.
What about this? No direct penalty on a person who doesn't sign up for health insurance. But, when a person shows up at a health care provider with no coverage, he can either pay up front out of pocket or enroll in a government-sponsored insurance program whereby a surcharge is added to his federal payroll tax. If he (or she) has family members who need coverage, the surcharge would be a bit higher. This way coverage costs are reduced by the beneficiaries, and yet, the system is fair because surcharges are pro-rated.
Such an enrollee would later have the option of shifting from this plan to some other private plan.
This idea would mean that the large number who don't choose to sign up right away won't be depleting the Treasury in a big surge. On the other hand, the uninsured -- and greviously underinsured -- would help to pay their way in a manner that will work: a payroll tax surcharge.
If a moderate tax surcharge -- only on those who enroll -- gives people decent coverage, it is unlikely they will complain much.
Curious coincidence: Before David Axelrod sent out a chain email on health care, none of my email with the .gov tail was ending up in the Gmail spam box. But then certain people accused Axelrod of spamming, and, voila, Google's program seems to morph to redirect the White House emails into the no-read box. Also, my spam icon stopped working properly.
Friday, August 21, 2009
CIA report rebuffs Cheney on terror
The CIA's interrogation program was a "modest success" but failed to produce the dramatic results claimed by former Vice President Dick Cheney, a CIA inspector general report indicates.
The interrogations of al Qaeda captives yielded information about the leadership and organization of al Qaeda but produced nothing that thwarted an imminent attack, the report says, according to former CIA chief Michael Hayden.
The report is expected to be released Monday.
Hayden's remarks were reported by Stephen Lee, an internet journalist who attended a National Press Club forum.
In May, Cheney charged that President Obama had classified data that proved that the enhanced interrogations had yielded "enormously valuable" information that had helped thwart terrorist attacks.
A May 2005 Justice Department memorandum says that the CIA believed that the intelligence acquired from enhanced interrogations "has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack on the West since 11 Sept. 2001."
The CIA destroyed the videotapes of the interrogations that it said provided such valuable information.
Note: Every Blogger blog account I open develops some annoying bug. On this one, irritating extra spaces are inserted between paragraphs.
The interrogations of al Qaeda captives yielded information about the leadership and organization of al Qaeda but produced nothing that thwarted an imminent attack, the report says, according to former CIA chief Michael Hayden.
The report is expected to be released Monday.
Hayden's remarks were reported by Stephen Lee, an internet journalist who attended a National Press Club forum.
In May, Cheney charged that President Obama had classified data that proved that the enhanced interrogations had yielded "enormously valuable" information that had helped thwart terrorist attacks.
A May 2005 Justice Department memorandum says that the CIA believed that the intelligence acquired from enhanced interrogations "has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack on the West since 11 Sept. 2001."
The CIA destroyed the videotapes of the interrogations that it said provided such valuable information.
Note: Every Blogger blog account I open develops some annoying bug. On this one, irritating extra spaces are inserted between paragraphs.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
National Geographic: a Pentagon asset
National Geographic Channel is presenting what we already can see is a counter-attack against 9/11 skeptics.
The special will use "forensic science" to knock down various conspiracy theories. Their experts will also address the question of why so many people don't trust the government and " believe in" conspiracy theories.
It's that question that shows the bias. So we expect to see psychologists explaining how are unconscious minds deceive us, or some such. But, lest we forget, the Pentagon employs batteries of psywar experts with psychology degrees. Though it's true that some people are unduly credulous, still the real reason so many people "believe in" conspiracy (i.e., don't believe the government), is because the system (Pentagon-media establishment) hasn't got a handle on the what to do about the First Amendment and the internet.
NG also will address the question of whether a missile, rather than a jetliner, struck the Pentagon. Here we have a typical propaganda trick. Set up a straw man and knock it down. What of the possibility of 1. a bomb (which is what the FBI initially said was the cause); 2. a small plane, which is what an FBI-released security videotape appears to show?
We know why NG is using the concept of "forensic science" in their counter-attack. To divert attention from the NIST's failure to use basic forensic procedures in its investigation into how the towers collapsed.
We also know that NG's "forensic science" will never properly address the issue of entropy, no doubt the claim being that the topic is too difficult for a general audience. Yet, it is the scientific application of this concept that shows the absurdity of the official claims. (Please see my other blog, krypto99.blogspot.com, for a discussion of this matter, and have an off-the-record conversation with a physicist or two.)
I'd like to pose the question of where the money is coming from to pay for the various Pentagon shills posing as media people. I wonder. And if the National Geographic propagandists didn't receive bribes, then they must be ideologically motivated. We do know that the neocons and their purported enemy, the communists, are two sources of hostility to telling the truth about 9/11.
The Pentagon black budgets are just too big. How is it that the very large media operate pretty much like legs of an octopus with a single brain and that, when it comes to treason, media organizations are fanatically in favor of shielding the true killers?
Yet, those who push the official line should beware. The tide will turn, as it has on significant 9/11-linked issues, such as the rationalizations for the Iraq war and the use of "enhanced interrogations" to elicit a very shaky story from captives that was used by the 9/11 commission. (The commission was never allowed to interview the captives or have access to anything but CIA synopses of what they purportedly said.)
By the way, do you suppose National Geographic will point out that at least three 9/11 commissioners, including both co-chairmen, have cast serious doubt on the commission's narrative of what allegedly happened?
An example of someone who can only be a Pentagon shill is Noah Shachtman, writing in the current issue of Wired magazine. The sub-head gives an accurate appraisal of the tenor of the article: "A strange new Air Force facility creates enough energy to control the ionosphere -- but not the conspiracy theorists."
Schactman, who is obviously well-versed in the subject of the ionosphere-heating HAARP facility in Alaska, manages to concede many of Alaska writer Nick Begich's points while implying that Begich is nevertheless a crank. Schactman goes to great lengths to use vituperative put-downs, such as "tin-foil hat crowd" and "conspiracist," terms commonly used by those running interference for the Pentagon concerning 9/11.
In fact, I would have been much more likely to have respected Shachtman's idea that the HAARP conspiracy theories are overblown had he not been so skilfully dirty.
Among the major worries is that HAARP might be used for weather warfare by altering the path of the jet stream. Many other experiments are being done at HAARP of course. Still, it IS a classified facility.
In fact, the Pentagon has only ever permitted one journalist into HAARP's perimeter.
Guess who?
The special will use "forensic science" to knock down various conspiracy theories. Their experts will also address the question of why so many people don't trust the government and " believe in" conspiracy theories.
It's that question that shows the bias. So we expect to see psychologists explaining how are unconscious minds deceive us, or some such. But, lest we forget, the Pentagon employs batteries of psywar experts with psychology degrees. Though it's true that some people are unduly credulous, still the real reason so many people "believe in" conspiracy (i.e., don't believe the government), is because the system (Pentagon-media establishment) hasn't got a handle on the what to do about the First Amendment and the internet.
NG also will address the question of whether a missile, rather than a jetliner, struck the Pentagon. Here we have a typical propaganda trick. Set up a straw man and knock it down. What of the possibility of 1. a bomb (which is what the FBI initially said was the cause); 2. a small plane, which is what an FBI-released security videotape appears to show?
We know why NG is using the concept of "forensic science" in their counter-attack. To divert attention from the NIST's failure to use basic forensic procedures in its investigation into how the towers collapsed.
We also know that NG's "forensic science" will never properly address the issue of entropy, no doubt the claim being that the topic is too difficult for a general audience. Yet, it is the scientific application of this concept that shows the absurdity of the official claims. (Please see my other blog, krypto99.blogspot.com, for a discussion of this matter, and have an off-the-record conversation with a physicist or two.)
I'd like to pose the question of where the money is coming from to pay for the various Pentagon shills posing as media people. I wonder. And if the National Geographic propagandists didn't receive bribes, then they must be ideologically motivated. We do know that the neocons and their purported enemy, the communists, are two sources of hostility to telling the truth about 9/11.
The Pentagon black budgets are just too big. How is it that the very large media operate pretty much like legs of an octopus with a single brain and that, when it comes to treason, media organizations are fanatically in favor of shielding the true killers?
Yet, those who push the official line should beware. The tide will turn, as it has on significant 9/11-linked issues, such as the rationalizations for the Iraq war and the use of "enhanced interrogations" to elicit a very shaky story from captives that was used by the 9/11 commission. (The commission was never allowed to interview the captives or have access to anything but CIA synopses of what they purportedly said.)
By the way, do you suppose National Geographic will point out that at least three 9/11 commissioners, including both co-chairmen, have cast serious doubt on the commission's narrative of what allegedly happened?
An example of someone who can only be a Pentagon shill is Noah Shachtman, writing in the current issue of Wired magazine. The sub-head gives an accurate appraisal of the tenor of the article: "A strange new Air Force facility creates enough energy to control the ionosphere -- but not the conspiracy theorists."
Schactman, who is obviously well-versed in the subject of the ionosphere-heating HAARP facility in Alaska, manages to concede many of Alaska writer Nick Begich's points while implying that Begich is nevertheless a crank. Schactman goes to great lengths to use vituperative put-downs, such as "tin-foil hat crowd" and "conspiracist," terms commonly used by those running interference for the Pentagon concerning 9/11.
In fact, I would have been much more likely to have respected Shachtman's idea that the HAARP conspiracy theories are overblown had he not been so skilfully dirty.
Among the major worries is that HAARP might be used for weather warfare by altering the path of the jet stream. Many other experiments are being done at HAARP of course. Still, it IS a classified facility.
In fact, the Pentagon has only ever permitted one journalist into HAARP's perimeter.
Guess who?
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Frankly, these 'journalists' scare me
Though not that much. I'm accustomed to all their propaganda ploys.
The Times of London had an answer for the post below. It ran a wild-eyed, hand-waving nasty nasty by James Bone titled "Frankly, these conspiracists scare me" associating 9/11 skeptics with irrelevant controversies. Ie., the good ol' smear tactic.
Well, I suppose I can infer that someone is reading this blog and is very worried by the impact. Or, perhaps the acute timing was merely coincidental.
But I like to think that conspirators are running scared and rushed to plug a major breach in their wall of lies.
Plus, I don't necessarily think that Murdoch ordered that story. I think Bone and his editors may find that they are being maneuvered into a Murdochian black hole, where they'll have no power and will eventually be eased out.
Truth in blogging: My piece appeared the morning of Aug. 4 Eastern daylight savings time. The Bone piece appeared the same day -- possibly following my post. At any rate, there is reason to believe that Bone and his editors had access to an earlier version of this post, though, technically, I think, they're not supposed to break certain embargoes. (If you don't know what that means, write to me and I'll try to explain.)
Ha ha.
Just saw Gail Collins' column in the New York Times. Mixing a bit of sci fi with politics, she manages to make sport of Obama criticism. And, she wiggles in black holes and the large hadron collider.
So that convinces me that journalists read my blogs. Take a look at my other blog Kryptograff at http://krypto99.blogspot.com, wherein I mutter that now black holes seem to have made the Times' squelch list.
The Times of London had an answer for the post below. It ran a wild-eyed, hand-waving nasty nasty by James Bone titled "Frankly, these conspiracists scare me" associating 9/11 skeptics with irrelevant controversies. Ie., the good ol' smear tactic.
Well, I suppose I can infer that someone is reading this blog and is very worried by the impact. Or, perhaps the acute timing was merely coincidental.
But I like to think that conspirators are running scared and rushed to plug a major breach in their wall of lies.
Plus, I don't necessarily think that Murdoch ordered that story. I think Bone and his editors may find that they are being maneuvered into a Murdochian black hole, where they'll have no power and will eventually be eased out.
Truth in blogging: My piece appeared the morning of Aug. 4 Eastern daylight savings time. The Bone piece appeared the same day -- possibly following my post. At any rate, there is reason to believe that Bone and his editors had access to an earlier version of this post, though, technically, I think, they're not supposed to break certain embargoes. (If you don't know what that means, write to me and I'll try to explain.)
Ha ha.
Just saw Gail Collins' column in the New York Times. Mixing a bit of sci fi with politics, she manages to make sport of Obama criticism. And, she wiggles in black holes and the large hadron collider.
So that convinces me that journalists read my blogs. Take a look at my other blog Kryptograff at http://krypto99.blogspot.com, wherein I mutter that now black holes seem to have made the Times' squelch list.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Neocon icon nixed
Murdoch has ditched his neocon icon, The Weekly Standard, reports the New York Times, which also pointed out that Standard editor Bill Kristol no longer writes for the Times.
Murdoch, working with Kristol and other neocons, established the Standard in the 1990s and from thenceforth it became a bellicose voice for unilateral militarism in the Middle East. In June Murdoch sold it to a businessman with links to Christian conservativism.
Well, as the Times noted, Murdoch is known for bending with the political wind. So the question is: will the nasty-mouthed neocon crews throughout the Murdoch media empire tone down their attack talk? Will Fox News become more moderate? Will the New York Post's editorial pages become less truculent and pander less to the Israel chauvinists of the New York region?
The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages have long been known for an ugly neocon slant, though Murdoch has begun to intersperse other ideological views in those pages. Will we see a change there -- particularly considering that the Journal editor, Robert Thomson, ran the Times of London for Murdoch and while there published a number of exposes that rocked the boat of the neocon elite?
A principle source of vituperative attacks on 9/11 skeptics has been the neocon commentator contingent, much of which is found in the Murdoch press. So the question is, will those attacks subside and will honest reporters be unleashed to do the legwork that seriously needs doing on a number of unresolved 9/11 issues?
Murdoch, working with Kristol and other neocons, established the Standard in the 1990s and from thenceforth it became a bellicose voice for unilateral militarism in the Middle East. In June Murdoch sold it to a businessman with links to Christian conservativism.
Well, as the Times noted, Murdoch is known for bending with the political wind. So the question is: will the nasty-mouthed neocon crews throughout the Murdoch media empire tone down their attack talk? Will Fox News become more moderate? Will the New York Post's editorial pages become less truculent and pander less to the Israel chauvinists of the New York region?
The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages have long been known for an ugly neocon slant, though Murdoch has begun to intersperse other ideological views in those pages. Will we see a change there -- particularly considering that the Journal editor, Robert Thomson, ran the Times of London for Murdoch and while there published a number of exposes that rocked the boat of the neocon elite?
A principle source of vituperative attacks on 9/11 skeptics has been the neocon commentator contingent, much of which is found in the Murdoch press. So the question is, will those attacks subside and will honest reporters be unleashed to do the legwork that seriously needs doing on a number of unresolved 9/11 issues?
Monday, August 3, 2009
How it's done
I can hardly believe I'm seeing a partial return to professional journalism in New York -- under the guidance of an Australian who formerly modernized the Times of London.
Today's Wall Street Journal lead was headed "Deutsch Bank Spy Scandal Widens" and that lead made the difference between me plunking down two bucks for the Journal rather than for the New York Times. It was a decent story, too, showing that the bank's statements in the matter were incomplete.
Several weeks ago the Journal led with a story about a cyberattack on the White House and various banks. Others gave the story ho-hum coverage, which first showed up a day earlier as a minor item reported locally in Washington. But the Journal picked up the ball and ran with it.
Of course, Murdoch's New York Post is also known for independent news judgment, but the paper is far too breezy and slipshod to make the most of its scoops. The Journal, on the other hand, retains a certain level of professionalism that helps it promote strong stories.
Many moons ago, this sort of news judgment was routine in New York but these days news has been degraded by many owners as trivial window-dressing.
Murdoch of course has much to account for in what he doesn't cover. Yet, Thomson in London managed to print some eye-opening material concerning machinations regarding Iraq and other intelligence scandals. Hopefully, we'll start seeing more of that sort of thing in the Journal.
Today's Wall Street Journal lead was headed "Deutsch Bank Spy Scandal Widens" and that lead made the difference between me plunking down two bucks for the Journal rather than for the New York Times. It was a decent story, too, showing that the bank's statements in the matter were incomplete.
Several weeks ago the Journal led with a story about a cyberattack on the White House and various banks. Others gave the story ho-hum coverage, which first showed up a day earlier as a minor item reported locally in Washington. But the Journal picked up the ball and ran with it.
Of course, Murdoch's New York Post is also known for independent news judgment, but the paper is far too breezy and slipshod to make the most of its scoops. The Journal, on the other hand, retains a certain level of professionalism that helps it promote strong stories.
Many moons ago, this sort of news judgment was routine in New York but these days news has been degraded by many owners as trivial window-dressing.
Murdoch of course has much to account for in what he doesn't cover. Yet, Thomson in London managed to print some eye-opening material concerning machinations regarding Iraq and other intelligence scandals. Hopefully, we'll start seeing more of that sort of thing in the Journal.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Media chiefs play a dangerous game
The big media have plenty of room for columnists who take cheap shots against 9/11 skeptics but no room for reporters to do the legwork on problems with the official 9/11 fairy tale.
Everybody's entitled to an opinion, I suppose is the thinking. Yet by hiding behind columnists, editors and publishers are relieved of the journalistic responsibility of fact-checking.
What happened to this story, BTW? Bob Kerrey, a former 9/11 commissioner who heads the New School, was quoted in March's Newsweek as saying that the unanswered questions about 9/11 might require a permanent 9/11 investigation. So if ex-Senator Kerrey joins fellow commissioners Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean in raising doubts about the 9/11 investigation (including doubts about the CIA's "evidence"), that's at least sufficient grounds to rein in some of the more arrogant and contemptuous columnists.
Note: A previous version of this post contained errors that stemmed from my not checking a statement made by a source. Sorry.
You say, but they're "only" columnists. Still, the owners and publishers have a responsibility to make sure that their news organizations don't merely parrot some line while ignoring major issues conceded by "credible" sources.
Everybody's entitled to an opinion, I suppose is the thinking. Yet by hiding behind columnists, editors and publishers are relieved of the journalistic responsibility of fact-checking.
What happened to this story, BTW? Bob Kerrey, a former 9/11 commissioner who heads the New School, was quoted in March's Newsweek as saying that the unanswered questions about 9/11 might require a permanent 9/11 investigation. So if ex-Senator Kerrey joins fellow commissioners Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean in raising doubts about the 9/11 investigation (including doubts about the CIA's "evidence"), that's at least sufficient grounds to rein in some of the more arrogant and contemptuous columnists.
Note: A previous version of this post contained errors that stemmed from my not checking a statement made by a source. Sorry.
You say, but they're "only" columnists. Still, the owners and publishers have a responsibility to make sure that their news organizations don't merely parrot some line while ignoring major issues conceded by "credible" sources.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
The case of the bouncing blog
A search may lead you to previous incarnations of the Znewz1 blog. I've had quite a bit of trouble with bugs on Blogspot and so went to Angelfire for a bit. But I'll give Blogspot another shot.
My most recent Znewz1 posts are found at
http://www.angelfire.com/ult/znewz1/blog
My most recent Znewz1 posts are found at
http://www.angelfire.com/ult/znewz1/blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)