|
Writers Articles And Opinions |
|
|
|
31 July 2010 By Stephen Lendman
When truths are too disturbing to
conceal, downplay them, change the subject, and blame
others, not responsible Washington officials and key
allies, culpable politicians and media misinformation
masters suppressing and misreporting the facts, their
well-oiled spin machine counterattacking WikiLeaks -
revelations too sensitive to explain, a potential
game-changer otherwise, so pundits and reporters duck
them.
Above all, WikiLeaks "Afghan War
Diaries" are a powerful indictment of wars, their true
face, the mindless daily slaughter and destruction too
disturbing to reveal, for Julian Assange:
"the vast sweep of abuses,
everyday squalor and carnage of war....one sort of
kill after another every day going on and on and
on....one damn thing after another....(endless) small
events, the continuous deaths of children, insurgents,
allied forces....(many) thousands" of war crimes
needing exposure, accountability, and prosecutions.
The "Diaries" document them,
suppressed by the major media, choosing embedded
complicity and Pentagon handouts over real journalism,
WikiLeaks "high quality material" and solid analysis
their antidote, so far not enough to stop Congress.
One day after their release,
following the Senate's passage days earlier on top of
$130 billion already approved this year, the House
overwhelmingly passed a $60 billion supplemental
spending bill, including $37 billion for America's
wars, mostly for 30,000 additional troops in
Afghanistan. Obama tripled the force since taking
office, now around 100,000 and increasing by about
2,000 a month, their numbers exceeded by private
military and other contractors, making the annual cost
per US soldier $1 million and rising, reason enough to
end both wars and bring them home.
Yet more escalation is planned,
breaking candidate Obama's October 27, 2007 pledge
saying:
"I will promise you this, that if
we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am
president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get
our troops home, We will bring an end to this war. You
can take that to the bank," perhaps an insolvent one
under FDIC receivership.
A day after the WikiLeaks
release, he ignored old promises, evaded indictable
war crimes evidence and a deepening unwinnable
quagmire, urging the House authorize more
supplemental funding, then engaged in contradictory,
deceitful damage control saying:
"While I'm concerned about the
disclosure of sensitive information from the
battlefield that could potentially jeopardize
individuals or operations, the fact is these documents
don't reveal any issues that haven't already informed
our public debate about Afghanistan. Indeed, they
point to the same challenges that led me to conduct an
extensive review of our policy last fall."
Instead of withdrawing as earlier
promised, he plans escalation, the same Vietnam
misjudgment, force levels there reaching 540,000 in
December 1969, yet not enough to win, resulting in
drawdowns, withdrawal and defeat, now repeating in
Afghanistan, then Iraq no matter each country's troop
level. Mindless of history, Obama added:
"We've substantially increased
our commitment there, insisted upon greater
accountability from our partners in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, developed a new strategy that can work and
put in place a team, including one of our finest
generals, to execute that plan. Now we have to see
that strategy through," no matter its illegality and
futility, what he and Pentagon brass know but won't
say, what Congress and the media won't address,
supporting a killing machine in violation of US and
international law, explained in this writer's July 28
article, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikileaks-afghan-war-diaries.html
Deceitful Media
Misinformation
Released in advance to the
Guardian, Der Spiegel, and New York Times, the "paper
of record" collaborated with White House officials to
sanitize it, clearing it in advance before publishing.
Its Washington bureau chief, Dean Baquet, confirmed
that he and two reporters (Mark Mazzetti and Eric
Schmitt) "did in fact (tell them) what we had," Obama
officials "prais(ing) us for the way we handled it,
giving them a chance to discuss it, and for handling
the information with care. And for being
responsible."
Responding to readers, Times
editor Bill Keller wrote:
"The administration, while
strongly condemning (the release), did not suggest (we
not) write about them. On the contrary, in our
discussions....while challenging some of (our)
conclusions....thanked us for handling the documents
with care (read sanitizing disturbing truths), and
asked us to urge WikiLeaks to withhold information
that could cost lives. We did pass along that
message."
In addition, he concealed daily
war crimes, including mass civilian deaths, many
willfully committed. Also, Task Force 373, death squad
assassins killing suspected insurgents, cold-blooded
murder The Times suppresses, collaborating with
imperial lawlessness.
Instead, it focused on
"Pakistan's Double Game," a July 27 editorial "confirm(ing)
a picture of Pakistani double-dealing that has been
building for years," saying "If Mr. Obama cannot
persuade Islamabad to cut its ties to, and then
aggressively fight, the extremists in Pakistan, there
is no hope of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan,"
The Times, of course, supporting the Afghan and Iraq
wars.
For many decades, it's suppressed
disturbing truths, functioning like a propaganda
ministry, masquerading as real news, commentary and
analysis - why WikiLeaks gave the Guardian and Der
Spiepel its documents for more accurate reporting if
three papers, not one, had them.
A wise decision given The Times
history of supporting privilege, backing corporate
interests, knowingly ignoring CIA efforts to topple
elected governments, letting the Agency use its
correspondents as covert assets, turning a blind eye
to electoral fraud, and promoting imperial wars.
In the run-up to attacking Iraq,
its star reporter, Judith Miller, bylined daily
Pentagon handouts, scamming the public as a complicit
Bush administration agent, a weapon of mass
destruction against truth and real journalism by
transmitting lies, deceit and agitprop, standard New
York Times fare.
For months in 2004, it also
concealed the Bush administration's illegal domestic
spying program, delaying its report until after the
November election, and in 2000 endorsed Bush v. Gore,
the first time in US history that the High Court
ignored electoral fraud, annulled the popular vote
(and final Electoral College count), installing its
own preferred candidate over the winner.
The Wall Street Journal is
unapologetic about supporting corporate interests, and
under Rupert Murdoch the lunatic fringe, neocon
extremism, and imperial wars, its July 29 editorial
titled "WikiLeaks 'Bastards' " an example, saying:
Julian Assange loves "crushing
bastards." We wonder if the 'bastards' he has in mind
include the dozens of Afghan civilians named in the
document dump as US military informants. Their lives,
as well as those of their entire families, are now at
terrible risk of Taliban reprisal."
In fact, the Journal ignores
Assange's "bastards" - imperial warlords reigning
death and destruction daily in Iraq and Afghanistan,
unmentioned in Journal reports, op-eds or editorials,
focusing instead on supporting the troops and
"humanitarian" wars bringing "democracy" to
beleaguered people, the kind that slaughters and
enslaves them.
The editorial calls publishing
disturbing truths "troubling," though revealing "no
big lies about the war (but) no small ones either."
Exposing details about "the military's methods,
sources, tactics and protocols of communication" harms
national security." In fact, what harms it is
America's presence, lawlessness and imperial agenda.
In a July 27 Journal op-ed, Bret
Stephens calls civilian deaths, Special Forces teams
targeting insurgents, and Pakistan aiding the Taliban
"not exactly" news. "Still, you'd be forgiven for
thinking it is, given the Pentagon Papers-style
treatment now being accorded" the WikiLeaks release.
"We'll see about that," so he focuses instead on a
former Khmer Rouge prison commandant's conviction for
his role in the 1970s Cambodian killing fields, hardly
worth discussing over 40 years too late.
Journal writers Siobhan Gorman
and Jay Solomon also dodged the story, diverting
attention to "Suspicion (and unproved allegations) of
Iranian ties to the Taliban and al Qaeda," alleging
Tehran provided them arms, like earlier false claims
about Iraq, the writers saying some accusations
"stretch credulity," yet they reported them anyway.
On July 27, the Washington Post
headlined "Wikileaks' release of classified field
reports on Afghan war reveals not much," saying:
The voluminous release "hardly
merits the hype (nor) does it provide evidence for war
crimes prosecutions - though in making that assertion,
Wikileaks' founder revealed his....antiwar agenda,"
one supported by most Americans and majorities
worldwide.
Saying the archives "add detail
and texture," the Post downplayed their importance,
calling them old news, insignificant, unreliable,
unconfirmed, not reflecting current policy - the kind
escalating killing by a tripled force level and
expanded war into Pakistan, its carnage and daily Iraq
violence suppressed, the grim facts too disturbing to
reveal, multiplied manyfold in Afghanistan.
On his nationally syndicated
radio program, Rush Limbaugh mocked WikiLeaks saying,
"In the old days, the definition of winning a war was
killing people."
Fox News on-air host/commentator
Greg Gutfeld headlined, "WikiLeaks' Crusade Against
the US Military," saying its documents are "pure
bullpoop times 12. The fact is, their goal is to
'expose' only the people they hate - meaning the US
military - and get famous for it. (What) Julian thinks
is 'unethical behavior' is only unethical if you're an
idiot....and if you disagree with me, you're a racist
homophobe who eats oil-soaked pelicans."
Fox News calls itself "fair and
balanced," saying "we report, you decide." Its above
comments show otherwise - why Fairness and Accuracy in
Reporting (FAIR) calls Fox "the most biased name in
news," its "extraordinary right-wing tilt" not reality
or honest journalism, sadly lacking throughout the
major media, cable and broadcast "news" looking more
like Fox, racing to the bottom for ratings and
profits, delivering a propaganda, junk food news and
entertainment diet, their viewers misinformed and
cheated.
Overall, the major media
downplayed the WikiLeaks story, CNN like others
saying:
"American officials from the
president on down" minimized the disclosures, Pentagon
officials finding no high classification level
disclosures. Senator John Kerry said the leaks
shouldn't be overstated. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
stressed they won't affect congressional support for
the war.
Trying to rebrand it, House Armed
Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton highlighted
"the new counterinsurgency strategy implemented
earlier this year, (a policy) to turn things around,"
and a July 25 White House email told reporters "Some
of the disconcerting things reported are exactly why
the President ordered a three month policy review and
a change in strategy," in fact, the same one escalated
with more troops, more attacks, and more killings.
Others called the documents old
news the way Pentagon Papers bombshells were
dismissed, the Los Angeles Times saying WikiLeaks
reports revealed few, just material "put(ting) the
Obama administration on the defensive about its
Afghanistan policy (that) may deepen doubts in
Congress about prospects for turning around the
faltering war effort."
Not easily with major media
support, complicit with Pentagon warlords, criminal
politicians, and corporate bosses burying the story,
calling it unimportant and moving on, backing the war
effort by misreporting or silence.
As a result, antiwar sentiment
must challenge official policy, enlisting others to
resist and back efforts to revive a sick economy, lift
living standards, save social benefits, and the
remnants of democratic freedoms, fast eroding in
America by design, the prospect too horrific to
accept, making bad governance essential to change.
If not now, when? If not us, who?
If that's not incentive enough, what is?
Stephen Lendman lives in
Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site
at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge
discussions with distinguished guests on the
Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio
Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and
Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are
archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
EsinIslam.Com
|
Save
Add Comments To This Story