Monday, November 28, 2011

NY Times’ JFK Umbrella Man Exposed; More Iran Hoax News; and Did You Know Time Magazine Ran Only Psychological, Insipid Covers in the U.S. But Nowhere Else?

I'm a confirmed fan of Russ Baker's books and blog. He's a valuable source of well-documented information about political events and when I saw this essay, I just had to share it with you.

I suffer great unpopularity with various family members (but that's not really an original observation here) whenever I point out the obvious untruths run in the New York Times and never retracted. We can attribute much of the misinformation (disinformation campaign, many say) leading up to the U.S. attack on Iraq to the news reporting of Judith Miller, James Risen, Michael R. Gordon  and others who repeat it over and over on their pages such as columnists like Tom Friedman and William Kristol in The New York Times.

NY Times’ Umbrella Man Exposed

Give these stories time. Maybe another 48 years and the truths will all be revealed.

And an older story from the same source bears repeating.

Leave it to the US military-industrial complex to create sympathy for Iran. The recent allegation that Iran is behind a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States on US soil has been met with considerable skepticism — even by the usually docile US corporate media. Not only are folks skeptical, but they’re also feeling bad for Iran, given the real possibility that Iran is the victim of character assassination.

Why? Because the alleged plot doesn’t make any sense. Because the US establishment has high motivation to create reasons for attacking Iran. Because fabrications and false flag attack scenarios have been proposed or tried before — again and again — often with great success.
First off, let it be said that the Iranian leadership is theoretically capable of anything, and that many regimes are. There’s a remote chance that this whole thing is real, notwithstanding how foolish a gambit it would be.

The greater likelihood, however, is that this is something else. Some kind of deliberately conjured cassus belli.

It also comes at a convenient time — diverting attention from a real story about a regime with ties to terrorists. But, instead of a Saudi being a victim, in this other story, Saudis are the perpetrators.


Here’s an easy way to understand seemingly complex foreign policy:  it’s all about oil. Nothing is more important — to continuing the current “American way of life,” to the financial fortunes of the top one percent in this country, and to the US military, which is the world’s #1 consumer of Middle East oil.

When the military-industrial-financial complex is mad at a regime, it is never really about the beliefs or values of the regime, or the way it treats its people. It is always about “legitimate national interests” of the United States (most speeches mention this but don’t explain what it means) — and humanitarian or moral considerations don’t match “national interest.”

The “kooky” Iranian leadership, who wouldn’t be out of place in the freak shows known as Republican Presidential debates, has actually proven itself supremely practical in most matters. Its objective is to remain in power. So it does things that enhance that possibility, and eschews ludicrous schemes that could only get it into deep hot water. The latter is a perfect description of this scheme.

Students of American history know that the “fake-out” is a reliable staple. Whether the Spanish-American War, Vietnam, George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, or the fabricated “humanitarian” motive for intervening to secure the overthrow of Libya’s Qaddafi, when the US leadership has wanted to justify military action, it has always found a way — and had no reservations about creating false incidents and narratives. These never fooled the “enemy;” only the American people and a perennially captive and cooperative establishment media.

Meanwhile, the government, not surprisingly, is rolling out whatever guns it can in support of its claims. But consider who’s backing them. Former CIA director Jim Woolsey was invited to give his views by the often skeptical Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC. Woolsey, it should be remembered, was part of the neocon group agitating for the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein — WMDs or no WMDs. On Ratigan’s show, he declared it “highly likely” that the Iranian leadership was behind this, citing various examples of what he said was a propensity to assassinate foreigners. Ratigan did express skepticism about the scenario — Iran using Mexicans on American soil. Woolsey fatuously said it was probably because “we live in an open society” and it would therefore be much easier to carry out in the US.

Perhaps the best counter-analysis can be found here, on the PBS Frontline website, from the independent “virtual” news organization TehranBureau, and written by MUHAMMAD SAHIMI, a USC chemistry professor who has been writing about Iran, its nuclear program and its domestic developments for many years . . . .

Read the rest of the story here.

Blogger George Washington collected a bunch of other sources (including Pepe Escobar and retired Colonel Anthony Shaffer) who came out calling "lies", etc on the news of an Iranian plot:

Did you know the U.S. population gets a dumbed-down psychological, insipid Time Magazine cover while the rest of the world get the one about serious news events?

Fits in with all the rest of the news coverage, I guess.

Time Magazine Covers – December 5, 2011

Think the U.S. population will ever wise up?

The comments address the donated tents the New York cops under Bloomberg got rid of in the surprise attack on the protesters.


Anonymous said...

Think the U.S. population will ever wise up?

Nope. Its too far gone.

I like Russ and want to read his Bush book!

Suzan said...

It's absolutely a must read for anyone who wants to understand what has happened to this country and the world since the rise of the Bush/Walker Klan, the actual terrorists of your worst imagination.

You won't believe everything they've had their fingers in.

And don't forget - the clown circus is there to make a candidate like Jeb retrievable from the ash heap of bad history on the shoulders of the desperate.


Steve said...

The British way to protest is to turn ones back, I have never heard of the pumping the umbrella protest.