i wanted to thank you for your continued struggle.
arrrrgh… the organization(s) she called „rebels“ were led, backed (or directly created) by the CIA and her „rebels“ were introduced into Syria to get the desired reaction. a „wonderful“ reaction that can be used for all kinds of „wonderful“ things the Pentagon desires and the press will love, love to dance with Washington and wip the public into a fury by presenting „atrocities“ that are either CIA orchestrated or more often downright lies — e.g „killed“ babies, WMD in „dangerous“ countries on the brink of collapse — lies that could’ve been debunked by monkeys will be used by the press to wip america into a frenzy for war — i call it the psyop 101 because it just works — however what i hate the most about the press is how the progressive establishment plays along!!! e.g the progressive establishment helped to fabricate Obama’s post presidential star dom arrrrrrrrgh. Amy Goodman et al washed Obama’s, bloody arse it’s appalling and absolutely ensane.
the Nobel prize committee who gave Obummer the Nobel prize ended up regretting their decision, and the Nobel prize committee is a fairly conservative institution… the progressive establishment washed the arse of war criminal!!! instead of sending Obama away into a lonely political after life complete with Valium, Xanax and snoop, instead they 'd chose to make a star out of him, thank you Amy and thank you mister Gonzales for focusing on skin color right when Obama left the office — to feed a insidious media narrative (1) that protects a war criminal — thank you Amy, but the problem is not limited to democracynow.
a few weeks ago i’ve read an essay on Counterpunch that dreamed up the redemption of Obama yes sir you’ve read correctly, his redemption not his burial place in a volcano… plz tell me, that i am not entirely crazy when i say: the obama-fanboi-zombie-journalist-mob is as guilty as Obummer and Killary!!! i want to thank them all — very mutch — for taking peoples eyes.
1: Obama’s departure from the Whitehouse was presented (by the press) as departure of black qualities, a black man and his progress had to go, so that the evils of history can return (2) to destroy Barry’s „astounding“ legacy of war, bank bailouts and his eight years of loving, caring sex with the neocons. i think, the narrative that comes out of the press is too bizarre for analysis, instead it would need to be satirized but even their supposed satire „analyzes“ skin color.
First of all, thank you very much for your kind comment!
Secondly, I certainly agree with you about the extraordinary failures of progressive media during the Obama years (covering up his appalling crimes and shredding of the Constitution) – and now, in the Trump era (siding with the genocidal neocons and pushing WWIII and ludicrous, utterly debunked Russiagate, simply because they despise Trump).
But I ask you, what kind of “liberal” sides with Bolton, Brennan, Clapper, William Kristol, David Frum, and the rest of those Nazi-esque “resistance heroes?”
How have Democrats become the new McCarthyites, every bit as conservative, reckless, and dangerous as the previous generation of McCarthyites?
How is it that the “liberal” class has failed to notice the complete takeover of the Democratic Party by Bush/Cheney-era neocons, Wall Street, and the intelligence agencies?
Actually, I think we know the answers to those questions: It’s because over 90% of American journalism, including that coming from once-progressive sources, has collapsed in recent years.
It breaks my heart that DemocracyNow!, in particular, has fallen so far – and I have so little use for the show, these days. I very much admire the work of Aaron Mate, who has clearly been disappointed by Amy Goodman’s new alignment with the neocons and McCarthyites – and her general refusal to publish journalism that challenges official narratives, re: Russia, Syria, Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and more. Mate worked for DemNow! for a decade, if memory serves, and he’s at least as baffled as I am by the show’s descent into partisanship, putting politics over principle, even when it means siding with the worst war criminals of the last half-century!
But I also miss the more progressive incarnations of Mother Jones, Daily Kos, HuffPo, and a few other sites that once provided useful information and quality journalism… rather than official propaganda with a partisan spin.
(And yes, the bastardization and corruption of Identity Politics has played an enormously destructive role in the collapse of the left’s integrity and moral/intellectual coherence.)
Thanks again for the supportive comments. Good luck continuing the struggle on your end!
Rather than a “phony subscription” scheme or an actual quid pro quo pay-off for suppressing specific stories exposing DNC/Democratic Party corruption, I think it’s more about self-censoring – journalists and publishers strictly adhering to the agendas of mega-donors (plutocrat donors that even progressive outlets like DemNow and CommonDreams depend on for their funding).
Money/power corrupts, and when the Democrats and Republicans allow themselves to be bought off and corrupted by the billionaire class, there’s not much hope for the future of our once-constitutional, semi-democratic republic.
And when journalistic organizations succumb to those same pernicious influences – the billionaire class that’s revived fascism and put the planet’s biosphere on life-support – reliable information becomes very, very difficult to find.
One has to be pretty experienced and savvy, these days, to recognize which journalists are still speaking truth to power on a regular basis… and which ones have been totally co-opted by the establishment (Rachel Maddow/Glenn Beck II comes to mind).
So CD plainly says they accept no corporate money, no government money, and no advertising money. But they do not say that they accept no foundation or other NGO money (although technically these would be corporations too, just not for-profit corporations), and they do not say they reject large personal donations. But, they close by saying that CD “is funded by the pooling together of thousands of small donations from our readers.” But, they do not specify that it is SOLELY funded by small donations.
i suppose we could ask them. Also as a 501c3 they have some reporting requirements, so there might be public information accessible.
Do you have any specific info on whether CD does take foundation money, or large personal donations, or any specific info on these funding sources if they exist? It would be good to know.
i know that CD co-founder Craig Brown came out of the Democratic party, as a former staffer for a Senator i believe. And they obviously walk on two sides of a line, offering hard critiques of the Democratic establishment, but also compromising and throwing some red meat to party adherents in their coverage, and investing tons of space on detailing Trump’s outrageous statements. They clearly want the Democrats to move to the left, and have served as a sort of Bernie Sanders Central for the past four years.
It would be good to know if they do have any large funders.
this is sorta good to hear… i am not very familiar with the McCarthyites but a lot that came out of the Obama administration reminded me at the stories i heared (so far) about the McCarthyites e.g the witch hunt against Julian Assange it sounded familiar — the McCarthyites apparently witch hunted „communists“ and all kinds of other things — anyway the chase after Julian Assange sounded very McCarthyish to me, err it might be worse than what the McCarthyites pulled off, but it’s hard to measure because i don’t know what might lurk in the deep end of the gruesome pool of McCarthyisms.
but why did i bring up Julian Assange? easy answer: he might mark a turning point in history.
virtually all grand establishment publications played along with the mmm public butchering of Julian Assange — my „friends“ (1) from the Economist magazine literally labeled him as that odious — the liberal elites savagely butchered him (or rather his reputation) with random accusation so after „they“ couldn’t take down his homepage they started to play it dirty. so far the basics but here is where it gets scary… not the pentagon hunted Assange well they hunted him too but here a more relevant MVP enters the game. virtually the whole assembled media establishment (NYT, economist magazine etc) joined the hunt and they all were willing to go after Julian Assange as a person, they couldn’t kill Wikileaks so they hunted their leader. for me the message was crystal clear: cross the liberal elites and you’re dead and there is more bad coming… for me, it didn’t look like Wikileaks published content, news, leaks etc that were outside of the „normal“ horizon of atrocities that come out of Washington. so what was the big deal about Wikileaks for the enemies of Julian Assange? i think there was something special about how Wikileaks could publish, Julian Assange could by pass the framing, filtering (and narrative spinning) of the establishment media — i think that’s why they want to kill him — and this is what makes it so scary: they didn’t hunt him out of necessity (to prevent leaks) they hunted him to keep their superiority over the „presentation“ of Washington, the masters of all narrative spinner cannot be crossed by a mere mortal, too bad that he could cross 'em with nothing but the truth — this got to be as depressing as it goes (from a perspective of say a teacher or journalist).
how many idealistic journalists entered the profession with the naive idea that truth will (eventually) win… turns out truth will lose the hardest after the greatest achievement of the field is won — by passing the „reality filter“ governed by the NYT et al, to me it sounded like a hell of an achievement — it’s also an impossible dream (of mine) and the guy who actually achived it was quckly axed, yet the axing came from the very elites that teach their people that all people should reach for the stars and then somebody reached for the stars and achieves the impossible to get locked away forever… Julian Assanges case isn’t merely depressing it’s above all a master class in organized cynicism.
so are the new McCarthyites already worse than „traditional“ McCarthyites? i’d say only the future will show.
1: describing them as „friends“ represents my sense of humor but they aren’t friends, the Economist magazine is more than an enemy it’s an evil that shouldn’t be around anymore.
I also read the NYT and The Guardian and several aggregator sites like Common Dreams. I am not familiar with Greenwald’s work. I think Hedges is always worth reading, but Hersh has some pretty loony ideas which could almost be described as conspiracy theories. He is no longer taken seriously by fellow journalists. Yet your view of Syria seems to be based largely on his views, so I do voice suspicions. The civil war in Syria began in 2011 and the situation is extremely complex, with an extremely restrained response from the US.
While investigating “our country’s very recent history” I came across an article from the Wharton School, about the origins of the civil war in Syria. (I’m not allowed to post a link so you will just have to find it yourself().
I find it a lot more credible than anything written by a journalist.
Evil doesn’t care what twisted logic you use to justify your bowing down to Evil, bend the knee to evil and you are furthering the cause of evil regardless of what End you strive to achieve, evil methods make you, and your goal, evil.
Especially, as there simply isn’t enough time left to save our nation, nor our global civilization, as it is, and there may not be enough of humanity left after the collapse to survive the hell we are creating in our planet’s biome
I’m starting to think you haven’t read Hersh’s “Redirection” article in the New Yorker, which I’ve linked you to.
(Again, not giving my perspective any genuine consideration does a grave disservice to your argument, and only signals laziness or disrespect; you don’t link to your sources and don’t read the sources I’ve linked – not a winning combination.)
And you say you’re unfamiliar with Greenwald’s work? Glenn Greenwald?! Name another journalist who has broken more significant stories in the post-9/11 era, the period defined by America’s headlong plunge into neo-fascism.
I’m fairly certain you can’t, since you don’t follow journalism or current events.
Which begs the question, what have you been reading over the last couple of decades?
Oh, that’s right, you’ve occasionally picked up copies of The Times and The Guardian, organizations that do as much “WMD” selling and Russiagating propaganda as they do actual journalism – far more, in fact, these days.
(Didn’t you read Greenwald when he was at The Guardian, breaking one groundbreaking story after another? I guess not. Nor have you read his excellent books, it seems.)
After the arrogance and disrespect you’ve exhibited, I don’t mind saying that I’m sure that you find MANY things “more credible than anything written by a journalist.” (Like the “Twilight” series, perhaps.)
Near as I can tell, you know virtually nothing about journalism… or politics… or current events.
Instead of being so certain about your opinions – based, it would seem, on not following the news – you should have a more open mind… and be willing to do a little work. We’re talking about life and death matters, here, including genocide (and the politicians who have advanced the current holocaust in the Middle East, including some of your favorite “liberals”).
In the future, you should consider giving an honest hearing to those who are polite enough to seriously engage with you, spending their time and effort trying to communicate basic, undisputed facts.
A personal entreaty: Either consider my arguments before you respond, or don’t respond. Because thus far, you’ve only degraded the conversation.
And the Wharton piece… my god! It’s sheer McCarthyism and propaganda. Yes, it offers many facts – but it leaves out far more than it offers (enormous sins of omission, eloquent of the authors’ nationalistic agenda).
Again, I ask you to consider giving a serious, scholarly read to the “Striking Lack of Empathy” piece I linked you to, re: the origins of the Syrian conflict (and don’t skip the linked articles within).
The Wharton piece is fine for the MAGA crowd and imperialist Republicans and Democrats who seek to advance U.S. hegemonic interests – but not for any self-respecting liberal. Not for anyone who actually desires information or gives a damn about human rights and the rule of law.
Because facts are facts, EAW, and the fact is, Clinton, Bush, and Obama killed millions of Muslims, the vast majority of whom were women and children. The rest of the world didn’t just make that up.
Stop doing what most Germans were doing during the previous holocaust – get that ostrich head out of the ground!
I have read most of Hersh’s interminable ramble. I didn’t get the point (my fault, no doubt) but that means that I also do not understand why you think it is such an important article. It is also not clear to me what your perspective is.
What have I been reading over the past couple of decades? Mostly books on gardening, compost, agriculture, global warming and the destruction of the planet.
Until the end of 2012, I got my information about the state of the world from our local paper, the PBS Newshour and CNN ad nauseam, When my husband died I turned off the TV, and began reading more broadly about current affairs. By most standards, I am extremely well-informed. Just not about what you care about, to the level you would like.
In one relatively short post you have implied that I cannot assess the quality of an academic paper; that I am either in the MAGA crowd or an imperialist; not a liberal; don’t care about human rights or the rule of law; and that I have my head in the sand. (Little aside here, ostriches don’t actually put their heads in the sand).
You also said (elsewhere) that Obama did the most damage of any president to the rule of law. I really can’t take seriously someone who has been asleep for the past four years.
That explains a great deal about the conversation we’ve been having.
You’d know the point of Hersh’s essential article if you’d read it carefully (that point emphasized further in the “Striking Lack of Empathy” piece I linked).
The point, since you missed it, is this: After the Iraq invasion exploded in Washington’s face and inadvertently empowered Iran, Bush and Saudi Prince Bandar (“Bandar Bush”) collaborated and decided to create a second mujaheddin army to attack Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, etc. (regional Shi’ites).
The relevant quote (Bandar to Bush): “'We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians…”
President Obama continued the “redirection” – away from direct, overt/large-scale U.S. military involvement in the region – to Obama’s famous “light footprint” approach, which involved the use of covert forces, including Salafist militants, especially al Qaeda and ISIS.
The CIA’s regime-change operation – which predates the 2011 Arab Spring uprising in Syria – was called Operation Timber Sycamore, and has been widely reported.
Effectively, Obama co-opted Syria’s Arab Spring moment and hijacked it with suicide-bombing, ethnic-cleansing terrorists, plunging the country into a full-scale, several-year war.
Syrian President Assad had met with Syria’s indigenous resistance following his heavy-handed crackdown, and made major concessions: multi-party elections, term limits for the president, and more. There was peace. And then Washington and Riyadh’s proxies began blowing themselves up in crowded city squares in Damascus, targeting all non-Sunnis.
Before you know it, the Syrian people were in an Iraq-like war zone, with the U.S. pouring billions of dollars into its regime-change op.
And for the record, I implied that you CAN assess the quality of an academic paper – and encouraged you to give it a shot.
That being the case, I think you can objectively reassess the significance of the Obama presidency, which is this: Everything that Bush/Cheney did under cover of darkness – warrantless vacuum-surveillance, torture, black sites, endless detention, assassination, targeting journalists, etc. – was legalized and made permanent under President Obama.
Bush subverted the law in fascist ways. I fought him every step of the way.
And then Obama made Bush’s fascism the new normal. That’s why the most steadfast opponents of Bush/Cheney’s war on the rule of law, including Glenn Greenwald, correctly refer to Barack Obama as “Bush on steroids.”
EAW, I realize that you’re unaware of many of these facts. I also understand that I’m holding you to a pretty high standard and being pretty hard on you for not trying to meet it (because, from my perspective, you’re being rather obtuse and dismissive).
But the record is the record, and I’ve tried to share that record with you, including the following facts:
President Obama deported three-million immigrants, more than all 20th century presidents combined, ramping up ICE, caging children by the thousands (far more than Trump has), and creating the template for Trump’s brutal border policies;
President Obama revived the Global War of Terrorism and expanded it by five nations (to seven), including Syria, where his Operation Timber Sycamore would claim the lives of half a million human beings (Obama, not Assad or Putin, plunged that country into war; the record is crystal clear);
President Obama became the #1 president in U.S. history for domestic oil production, exported (uniquely dangerous) fracking around the globe, opened the Arctic to drilling, built pipelines for tar sands oil, and vetoed legal carbon limits and polluter liability at the Paris Climate Accords, rendering the agreement toothless (I thought you cared about the environment – why don’t you know these things?);
Used the Espionage Act twice as many times as all previous presidents combined, in an unprecedented effort to prosecute honest journalists and whistleblowers – putting a chill on adversarial journalism;
Supported regime-change operations in Honduras, Brazil, Syria, and Ukraine (where his administration supported the neo-Nazi Svoboda group that’s been leading post-democratic Ukraine’s military operations aimed at ethnic Russians); and
SO much more…
I want you to understand that in 2008 few people worked harder to support Barack Obama’s candidacy than myself, primary through general. I donated hundreds of hours and many a dollar to his election… only to see him resurrect and entrench the neo-fascist agenda that Bush/Cheney had driven into the ditch. Only to see him allow a Citigroup executive name his first cabinet. Only to see him bail out Wall Street on Main Street’s back, erasing the economic gains of African-American households (per the Pew Research Center, whose data shows that the post-Civil Rights Era wealth of black families was wiped out by “reverse redlining” and illegal “robo-signings” that disproportionately cheated blacks and Hispanics).
Thanks to Obama, Donald J. Trump can now assassinate anyone, anywhere, including American citizens, including children, uncharged with any crime (does the name Abdulrahman Awlaki mean anything to you?).
Thanks to Obama (whose 2012 NDAA ended Posse Comitatus, nearly as old as the Constitution itself), Donald J. Trump can now legally deploy the U.S. military against American citizens on American soil.
Thanks to Obama (whose 2016 NDAA ended the Smith-Mundt Act), Donald J. Trump can now legally propagandize the American people on American soil, using taxpayer money to do it!
I’ve been well-awake over the last quarter-century, at least, my friend. My research and writing have been praised by CODE PINK’s Medea Benjamin and VIPS’s Ray McGovern, who was the CIA briefer to four U.S. presidents before he retired.
It’s not because I’ve been dozing…
Granted, Donald Trump is a moral trainwreck and an absolutely abysmal president. But he has a long, long, long way to go before he does as much damage to the rule of law as President Obama did.
OK, I’ll bite. How did Obama damage the rule of law? Did he repeatedly violate the Constitution? Did he obstruct justice? Did he seek to undermine the free press?
Appalling as the situation there is, Syria is not the center of the world, nor the only event by which to judge a two-term president.