In the last few weeks, there have been several reports that senior intelligence officials were skewing the intelligence on how (un)successful the military campaign against ISIS has been. “Officials at United States Central Command — the military headquarters overseeing the American bombing campaign and other efforts against the Islamic State — were improperly reworking the conclusions of intelligence assessments prepared for policy makers, including Pre
Trusting any agency in the
US Fourth Reich to investigate itself or any other agency and come up with the truth is about like looking for the good turd in a cesspool.
The honest mind cannot penetrate into the mind--and thought processes--of the dark, often truly diabolical mind. And so, for militarism to protect its worst trespasses and hide them from the scrutinizing eyes of society, there are lies within lies like layers of an onion. So many journalists peel away the first one or two layers and then set their intellectual sights upon analyses taken from there. The truth is, the actual events occur at much deeper levels of action, contrivance, and counter-narrative to serve as official story back-up.
In other words, this is nonsense because:
- Bin Laden was NOT the agent responsible for an inside job false flag
- Bin Laden did not live on kidney dialysis in a cave for 10+ years
- The military needs "wins" and so it hires Hollywood scriptwriters (and now funds movies that promote these made-for-TV-audiences VERSIONS of actual as well as non-actual events) to craft compelling stories that always feature simplistic good guys and bad guys, and acts of heroism.
"But there’s an even more important example why DOD’s IG should not be investigating this allegation: as became clear during the investigation into leaks about the Osama bin Laden raid to the makers of Zero Dark Thirty, DOD’s IG may not issue reports on senior DOD officials and will not on people who work in other agencies (as Leon Panetta did when he disclosed classified information)."
When journalists follow leads that support the FALSE version of events, they do what's left of our Democratic society no favor.
Two days ago I listened to one of the most impressive interviews that I've heard in some time with Catherine Austin Fitts. She is a very well-read and well-spoken individual, and during the interview she used historical references to make the case that any totalitarian society (or one that becomes increasingly fascist) has a common component: and that element is its lack of transparency.
So when C.D. readers get a deeper view of events, and learn how many decisions--like TPP, TIPP, the idiot Obama bailout to insurance companies packaged as a health care plan--always occur behind closed doors and involve inside corporate players, it's evident that this necessary transparency is no longer operational. In its place, much of the American public is fed a diet of false information with much of it propped up to make the military appear to be doing something worth financing.
The truth is: the military is spreading the wars it was employed to theoretically put out. It would be like hiring an arsonist to put out a raging blaze. What can its proponents say on its behalf that isn't the product of expensively-crafted P.R. and "Army Intelligence" lies and false storylines?
I know that, and obviously you know that, and the only candidate who is speaking out about some the stuff WE (sorry, SIouxRose11 -- what happened to the first 10? --but forgetting about the "frame," to avoid the use of "we" means constructing convoluted sentences that don't express the point nearly as well than would be the case if one just went ahead and used the "W-word."
I wish SR and some of the others who kvetch and get picky-feistyu with the choir here and in the few other sites that allow comments would find ways to express their views forcefully at the politicians and their appointed public servants, and the editorial staffs of the news media who, if they were to get scared that they are alienating the advertising audiences and realized that WE are a market share that they're possibly losing because the anger WE experience over their corrupt incorrect reportage has no affect on them, They don't see loss of the Left-Liberal-Progressives as having any affect on their bottom lines. And they should me made to fear that. WE don't need people who write things that can get CommonDreams folks (an altogether too apt name for the opinionators who appear here, whose rage never leaves here to bite y hands that feed off it.
Bernie Sanders seems like a naive grandfatherly fuddy duddy who doesn't seem to have the force of character and personality to take the bullshit by the horns and show how clumsy and ignorant the self-styled neocon-MIC-Big Banks and the stock broker (they're certainly making most of us "broker" than we need be) gangs they are in cahoots with, how dumb they are when they parrot the party line and convince themselves that they're speaking God sanctioned great truth.
The Liberal Progressive need to find people with public fight back skills, hard hitting counter propagandists who can tap into the anger out there that so easily gets rerouted to US and successfully. WE need political satirists, investigative journalists, and candidates for small offices who knew they were not there just to "win" but to have the charismatic style, We need videographers to document the times when the conservatives hide hide behinds their, WE not only ought to be express anger at the political dupes who are making all the signs and signals heading us done the road as we "reason together.
found this on Today's Counterpunch
"The Left (whatever that means to you) has a problem with anger. When it surfaces, leftists’ first response is to find root causes so they can propose public policies to address them. They tend not to milk the anger to build a winning coalition; the very idea is anathema. But playing a happy warrior is not the royal road to political power. It’s not even a dirt path. You have to raise ire,,&
-- Time For Some Anger Management
by Geoff Dutton,
it's time for letters to the editors,calls to hotlines -- and any other techniques to get our thoughts stuffed Intto their avoidant places
I had to chuckle wryly at the suggestion that we contact our alleged Representatives with powerful, well reasoned, statements.
* For years, I wrote carefully worded and researched comments to my three Fascists. I would sometimes get an answer, which often didn't address what I had sent. Sometimes I would get the same boilerplate two or three times.
* I got to thinking about this and came to the conclusion that, you know how you have to select a "subject" for your letter, and the subjects often don't cover what you are writing about? If you don't select one, you can't send the comment, so you try to find the nearest one to your subject and click on that.
* That limited list has a boilerplate response. They receive a comment, click on the appropriate boilerplate and voila! You have been answered by your alleged representative. Your content means little or nothing.
* I've got a pair of "Senators" and a "Congressman" who would be right at home in the 1930s Reichstag in Deutschland. (Heil Hitler!)
* And they, presumably, are the lesser of two evils?
* The mind boggles.
He knows that he's only prescribing "recipes" that cater to the dominant figures intent upon maintaining a paradigm that CANNOT involve genuine justice, freedom, fairness, or decency. But by making the case that the Left is defective IN its message, he can bamboozle naïve readers into thinking that maybe he has a point.
In this way, the truth about who owns media in order to maintain a fierce control OF message... need not be the issue highlighted.
A "former" poster who used a number of screen names, one of them--Contrarian--stayed STUCK on this particular meme in the same way that the loyal and daily appearing poster, Rosemarie Jackowski held true to the "blame voters" meme. (It's now picked up by a few others, albeit on not quite so apparent or obnoxious a redundant level). Then how about Tom Carberry, the lawyer, up first daily to denounce any luminary on the Left from Naomi Klein to Bill McKibben?
Did these individuals move on to more widely-read sites, get better PR deals, or... how about REAL jobs?
The metrics are the same across the globe: If the matter of disproportionate power was about anger, Greece would have gotten reforms on its loans.
You mistake the allusion of messaging "mistakes" with the far greater gravity of Power. It works from 3 pillars: Monetary (mammon), Martial Muscle (Mars-rules), and Mass Media control. Shorthand for this dark triumvirate could be: Triple M.
I believe that posters who sound well-meaning while critiquing the Left and always insisting on its weaknesses of tactic, organization, intention, leadership and so forth really do so to mask the TRUTH about the consolidation of far too much power in bodies that no longer answer to The People or the Rule of Law.
This is the type of argument that does the following:
- Take police brutality and invert it into the behavior of the kid shot down... taking the utmost care to paint the victim as some kind of law-abuser
- Take the inestimable brutality of the MIC, its bombing campaigns and drone campaigns, and excuse the casual loss of life with blaming those targeted... even though kill rates between civilians and "enemy" targets are in the ballpark of 10: 1
Take the brutality of the oil and gas industries and arrest those who protest what they are doing to OUR planet
Take the brutality of campus rapists and turn the matter onto those RAPED
- Take N.A.T.O-U.S. campaigns of brutal aggression (and other Regime Change extra-judicial tactics) and blame the nation under attack's leadership!
The only time I see people in this forum seeing through the counter-narratives that attribute level playing fields to blatantly unequal scenarios is when media speaks of Palestine aggression and Israeli aggression as two (implied equal) sides.
EVERYWHERE else, the SAME disproportionate power-arrangements propped up as team equivalents (in A or B "either-or" contexts) goes unseen, unmentioned, trivialized, or its spokesperson (me) comes under attack.
Disinformation is friggin disinformation WHEREVER it's dished out; and throughout the mass media and also now acting as a major factor in Internet chat rooms, it IS disinformation that is ON the menu and served (up) daily!
“If those in charge of our society - politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television - can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves.”
― Howard Zinn
You obviously haven't seen Sanders speak, or read his speeches, or followed his voting record.
But your ignorance is obviously no barrier to your willingness to flaunt it.
On very rare occasions have I ever written to a politician, though I have family members who have. Most times politicians - state reps, senators, and on up & down the chain, have staff who open their letters and they pick and choose whose gets seen by the boss. Usually that person has to be a bigwig in the business community or have a name that opens doors - but in that case, such privileged sorts have more direct means of contacting them. (It also helps to have a press card and be able to schmooze with the elected officials.)
There was the time my father had written a letter to a senator on the Armed Services committee, who actually visited the defense plant where he used to work! But my father was so cowed by possible repercussions, that he stood on the sidelines and did not speak up during the official visit.
In the last 15 years, though, I have found demonstrations to be a waste of time, unless it's a local issue, like the school board or public transit. Politicians are not listening. Signing petitions or writing to elected officials might actually get one's name added to a law enforcement database. The only utility I find in writing to newspapers, (if it gets past the gatekeepers) is that it gets people talking. If the editor gets too detailed with your personal information, depending on the content of your editorial, it could cost you your job - so be warned!
Having worked in the activist community, at a protest event years ago, my group and I spotted a man photographing us, wearing dark sunglasses who was not part of the press. Since I was the official reporter/photog for this group, I felt it imperative to snap his photo, as well.
So, just who is watching the watchmen?
I got fed up with the boiler plate crap too.
I now enjoy calling and joking with the dear minion that answers.
Then I unload my beefs and politely thank said minion and wish him/her a good day.
Whether or not any of my words matter or are heard ? who the hell knows, eh?
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.