Iran 'threat'? Press or Propaganda? You Decide...

There are also journalists who cover the Pentagon, and their job too is pretty much to report who is going where, doing what, and comments made by Pentagon officials. Again, with the exception of a few, these people also serve in basically a newsfeed capacity.  This of course is an unfortunate state of affairs, because as we saw over the last few weeks, the Pentagon correspondents laundered propaganda, which was then used by the White House to launder rhetoric through the White House press corps.

Let's look at what the brilliant Gareth Porter reports today on the Iranian-US Navy non-event that nearly caused WWIII. From his Asia Times article:

"WASHINGTON - Senior Pentagon officials,  evidently reflecting a broader administration  policy decision, used an off-the-record Pentagon  briefing to turn the January 6 US-Iranian incident  in the Strait of Hormuz into a sensational story   demonstrating Iran's military aggressiveness, a reconstruction of the events following the  incident shows.

The initial press stories on the incident, all of which can be traced to a  briefing by deputy assistant secretary of defense  for public affairs in charge of media operations, Bryan Whitman, contained similar information that has since been repudiated by the navy itself."

So Bryan Whitman held an off-the-record briefing (which technically means that information provided could not be used on the record... but it was used, meaning that Whitman only wanted his name off the record), in which he provided the Pentagon press corps with propaganda and asked that his name not be used.  The reporters who cover this beat are not meant to investigate, they are wire reporters. So the story is planted just in time for President Bush's visit to Israel. The Navy now repudiates the incident, do they? Back to the article:

"Then the navy disseminated a short video into which was spliced the audio of a phone call warning that US warships would "explode" in "a few seconds". Although it  was ostensibly a navy production, Inter Press Service (IPS) has learned that the ultimate decision on its content was made by top officials of the Defense Department.

The encounter between five small and apparently unarmed speedboats, each carrying a crew of two to four men, and the three US warships occurred very early  on Saturday January 6, Washington time. No information was released to the public about the incident for more than 24 hours, indicating that  it was not viewed initially as being very urgent. "

Okay, so clearly Whitman was not sitting in the bowls of the DOD splicing fake audio to go along with doctored video. In other words, this was an operation that included more than just Whitman and since domestic propaganda is illegal, then this is evidence of a conspiracy to mislead the public and Congress.

What is interesting too is that although the DOD reporters are not there to investigate stories, they are still supposed to actually ask questions, not just parlay unofficial government positions into stories using a single, unnamed source of information. But they did not ask the basic question about why it took the DOD 24 hours to publicly respond to this situation. Nor did they apparently ask why Whitman felt that such important information required that he be kept as an anonymous source.

I have to ask another serious question about this. What role did Stephen Hadley play in fixing this new propaganda around the policy? As we know, he briefed the President that morning:

“There will be serious consequences if they attack our ships, pure and simple,” Bush said during a news conference in Jerusalem. “And my advice to them is, don’t do it.”

Bush was referring to an incident in which five high-speed Iranian boats reportedly threatened to attack the USS Port Royal, USS Hopper and USS Ingraham as they were entering the Persian Gulf on Jan. 6.

Defense officials said the Iranian boats maneuvered aggressively, threatened the U.S. ships via radio and dropped objects into the water in the path of one of the ships. The U.S. president said “our ships were moving along very peacefully off the Iranian border in territorial water — international waters — and Iranian boats came out and were very provocative. And it was a dangerous gesture on their part.” Bush said that earlier in the day, Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, made it “abundantly clear that all options are on the table to protect our assets.”

Of course this was all over the news thanks to the White House press corps, which was only doing its job in getting a comment from the president in reaction to what they thought was legitimate news out of the DOD.

Now, if I were the Bush, or if I were a member of Congress, and certainly as a journalist and a citizen of the United States, I would wonder how it is possible that a group of DOD officers got together and misled the National Security Adviser to the president, as well as the president, the public, and Congress on something as serious as war?

Of course we have been here before in the build up to the Iraq war, but we were told that all of the "bad apples" were gone. Should these people not be all identified and held accountable for at the very least violating propaganda laws? To say nothing of the other laws relating to fraud and tampering with evidence that should also be considered. Now if these people did not act alone, rather, they were following orders - then whose orders were they following? Was Stephen Hadley part of that chain? Who else was part of that chain?

And in my humble opinion, every single journalist who wrote the DOD story, based on a single government source unwilling to go on the record while making such astonishing claims, should be immediately fired. If they want to work as propagandists, there are plenty of slots open in the PR industry. But covering the DOD, during a time of war, and knowing what this administration is about, requires someone with a bit more ethics than the crop of stenographers currently playing at being journalists.

I tend to think, and I am speculating based on the information made public, that because Bush was being dispatched by Cheney to the Middle East to go beg for support from our allies in building a coalition against Iran, a timely incident was needed to demonstrate the looming Iranian threat. I don't claim Bush knew that he was being used like a puppet - after all, has he not already proved to be exactly that, a puppet? But as far as speculation can take me without total proof, I am convinced that Cheney, Hadley, and the cabal were very much behind the cooking of this episode.

I suggest you read the whole Porter piece. It is illuminating and disturbing all at once.

Albert Spits over de kredietcrisis en de staat van beleg

In dit 3e deel gaat Albert Spits in op een kwestie die ook door Glenn Beck is aangehaald in een van zijn laatste shows voor CNN: wordt de kredietcrisis gebruikt om te komen tot een wereldmunt. Spits spreekt zich ook uit over mogelijke gevolgen van de kredietcrisis, zoals het uitroepen van de staat van beleg (waarmee volgens de Amerikaanse senator Brad Sherman is gedreigd in het Congres) in Amerika of Nederland.
Spits heeft crises bestudeerd en legt aan de hand van zijn onderzoek, ondermeer naar de zogenoemde Kondratieffwinter, waarom hij rekening houdt met het uitbreken van oorlogen, als gevolg van de huidige economische problemen.

lees meer

Willem Middelkoop: '2008 is een economisch kantelpunt'

Financieel expert Willem Middelkoop in gesprek met Daan de Wit van DeepJournal. 'Als we straks terugkijken, zullen we spreken over een tijdperk vóór 2008 en na 2008. Dit is een kantelpunt', aldus Middelkoop.
In het gesprek staat de financieel-econmische realiteit centraal waarmee de toekomstige president van de Verenigde Staten zal worden geconfronteerd.

lees meer

'Meteen verkopen', bij hoge hypotheek, laag salaris: Albert Spits

In dit tweede gesprek (dat is opgedeeld in drie delen) gaat Albert Spits in op vragen van lezers over goud en zilver, de verantwoordelijkheid van de burger in deze crisis, overproductie en over de positie van de minima. Hij spreekt ook over de rol van Alan Greenspan, de voormalig voorzitter van de Amerikaanse federale bank onder wiens bewind veel cruciale beslissingen zijn gemaakt. Ook komt de vraag aan de orde wat Spits zou hebben gedaan in de plaats van minister Wouter Bos.
Spits adviseert wat de beste strategie is voor huizenbezitters, hij gaat in op de achtergronden bij het Amerikaanse plan van 700 miljard, spreekt over het Plunge Protection Team en legt uit hoe het kan dat de goudprijs zo laag staat.

lees meer

'Ernstiger dan menigeen denkt', Albert Spits over de economische situatie

In dit tweede gesprek (dat is opgedeeld in drie delen) gaat Albert Spits in op de actuele situatie rond de pensioenfondsen. Hij spreekt ook over de gevolgen van het feit dat de oplossing van de economische crisis gelijk is aan de oorzaak ervan: het scheppen van grote hoeveelheden geld. Hierdoor wordt de crisis opgerekt en verhevigd. Spits legt uit hoe lang de crisis naar alle waarschijnlijkheid zal duren en hoe die er concreet uit zal zien. Het gesprek biedt een fundamentele blik achter de schermen van de huidige kredietcrisis.

lees meer

Interview financieel expert: duurder, minder, rellen en opstanden

Vooral in grote steden moet je rekening houden met rellen en opstanden. Wellicht dat in sommige landen revoluties ontstaan, vooral in mediterrane landen. Dan worden er bijvoorbeeld overheidsgebouwen in brand gestoken en overheidsfunctionarissen aangevallen. Met dat soort scenario's moet je rekening houden. In elke crisissituatie heb je mensen die in opstand komen. Voor de gevolgen van een crisissituatie hoeven we alleen maar te kijken naar wat er in Argentinië gebeurde. Daar kwamen de mensen van de een op de andere dag van de middenklasse onder de armoedegrens terecht.

lees meer