compiled by Dee Finney





6-27-09 - WAR TIME

DREAM -  I was sitting in a guard chair on a hill overlooking our street.  It was up high enough so I could see pretty far both directions up and down our street.  The chair was on tall legs like they would use at the beach to watch for drowning people, but this was evidently war time and I was protecting our street from violent people causing trouble.

Some young women came by walking with their dog and they stopped to ask how things were going, and while we were talking, the young women's mother came walking down the street in a silk-like purplish dress, bringing her black Doberman Pincer dog who was basically leading her instead of her leading him. 

I asked the young woman if she would go into my back yard across the street and get my dog too and she did and brought out my little white poodle dog. The three dogs got along well, and to get down off my chair I just leaned forward and the chair and all. with me on it, tilted forward and I landed on my feet in the street.

The mother was really nice and we, as a group sat and watched some other young women singing sad war songs from WWII and the mother was telling me how tough it was to watch her husband go off to war and only getting a folded flag back.  I held her hand with one hand and rubbed her back with my other hand as I sat next to her and listened to her cry.

The singing was so sad and while we listened, I thought, "If I could just get over my stage fright, I could do that too and wouldn't sound too bad either."

A chubby young man came then to model a swimming suit of the future - it was rather like they wore in the 1920's - pretty well covered up but had bare arms and legs.  We assured him he looked good despite how chubby he was.  He was very self-conscious about his weight.

Out of the corner of my eye, I could see glimpses of something white coming down from the sky off to the west and I asked one of the women if she could see that too and she looked and said she did.  So we turned around and looked west, and indeed there were white blobs of something coming down from the sky and landing on the ground.  However, it wasn't UFOs, it looked more like square soap bubbles in odd shaped clusters and when I looked really good and focused on it, I could see that they were actually coming off the top of a tall building that was hard to see in the growing darkness off to the west.

I then saw an 18 wheeler truck on top of that building, and people moving around the truck, and suddenly, the truck drove off the front of the building the same direction the white blobs had come down and the truck cab jackknifed off the front of the truck and the whole truck followed and fell head first off the building into the street in front of it. I knew there had to be damage to the building as well as the truck, but surmised that the truck was probably pushed off the building, not driven by a living person.

A growing crowd came quickly around the truck, and I decided I didn't need to run over there and help because there were plenty of people already there to help.  I decided I should stay where I was and continue guarding my own street as it was War Time.

MURDER CITY DEVILS - 18 WHEELS - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPMnK7DZBEc
don't listen if you don't like this type of music

ALABAMA - THE JACKKNIFED 18 WHEELER - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYtJIFVxQXY



18-Wheeler Jackknifes on I-35E in Dallas, Hits Motorists, Flips ...

InjuryBoard.com - Jeff Rasansky - ‎Jun 24, 2009‎
About 1pm this afternoon, an 18-wheeler truck struck two parked cars on the shoulder of the southbound side I-35E in Dallas, Texas, then jackknifed, ...
Fiery wreck shuts down I-35E at intersection of President George ... Dallas Morning News


PETE SEEGER - AMERICAN WAR SONGS - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhxjqM4y5f4&feature=PlayList&p=8B13287885A1EB08&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2

VIETNAM WAR SONG - PROUD MARY  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zchSnPcEbU&feature=PlayList&p=8B13287885A1EB08&index=3&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

WAR SONGS - CREEDENSE CLEARWATER REVIVAL -  FORTUNATE SON - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zchSnPcEbU&feature=PlayList&p=8B13287885A1EB08&index=3&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

CULTURE CLUB - WAR SONG - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAUK4TY0uNE

DAVID BROZA AND OTHERS - WAR - NO MORE TROUBLE - AROUND THE WORLD- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgWFxFg7-GU

TOMMY SMOTHERS - ANTI WAR SONG - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZEjxwsT7ak

PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zva9mnZCrWU&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=1

JOHN LENNON - IMAGINE - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b7qaSxuZUg&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=2

GIVE PEACE A CHANCE - JOHN LENNON - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-NRriHlLUk&NR=1

BOB DYLAN- BLOWIN IN THE WIND http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ced8o50G9kg&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=3

BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN - BORN IN THE USA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPudiBR15mk&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=4

PINK FLOYD - US AND THEM - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBBRhmH4S8A&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=7

BOB DYLAN - MASTERS OF WAR - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWkWSLEW-Ds&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=9

BOB DYLAN - LET ME DIE IN MY FOOTSTEPS - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFKj7iX150Y&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=10

BOB DYLAN- A POLITICAL WORLD - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e4a-QpfhD8&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=11

PINK FLOYD - TWO SUNS IN THE SUNSET - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqt5fZFvGVU&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=12

DIRE STRAITS - BROTHERS IN ARMS - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6oWvAGmiCo&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=13

PINK FLOYD  THE WALL - WAITING FOR THE WORMS - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUneAyAO6cg&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=14

GEORGE HARRISON - GIVE ME PEACE ON EARTH  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-KAvPbO8JY&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=17

PINK FLOYD - THE GUNNERS DREAM - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8g_Y6jEv2U&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=18

THE BEATLES - THE SOLDIERS DREAM - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8iLwwac4i4&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=19

BOB DYLAN - WITH GOD ON OUR SIDE - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmDVyBceEv4&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=22

PINK FLOYD - GOOD BYE BLUE SKY - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lauO6NugDnY&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=24

JIMI HENDRIX -   MACHINE GUN-  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVvtIS2YGVI&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=25

BOB MARLEY - WAR NO MORE TROUBLE - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPZydAotVOY&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=26

BOB DYLAN - KNOCKING ON HEAVEN'S DOOR - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-5JvACzGp8&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=29

JOHN LENNON - SERVE YOURSELF - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXd25Jqi7G0&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=30

PAUL MCCARTNEY - PIPES OF PEACE - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVK_mJrLbmY&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=40

JOAN BAEZ - WE SHALL OVERCOME - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkNsEH1GD7Q&feature=PlayList&p=971928C725EF5BDF&index=41

ERIC CLAPTON - KNOCKING ON HEAVEN'S DOOR - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh4WwCzjtL4


- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_time_in_the_United_States

Anti-Iran propaganda indicates war is imminent


The Guardian, "Are we going to war with Iran?", 18 October 2005.

*** An analysis of recent American and British rhetoric exhibits the hallmarks of pre-war propaganda. The evidence strongly indicates that the allies have set a course for war with Iran. ***

Dan Plesch evaluates the evidence pointing towards a new conflict in the Middle East

The Sunday Telegraph warned last weekend that the UN had a last chance to avert war with Iran and, at a meeting in London last week, the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, expressed his regret that any failure by the UN security council to deal with Iran would damage the security council's relevance, implying that the US would solve the problem on its own.

Only days before, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, had dismissed military action as "inconceivable" while both the American president and his secretary of state had insisted war talk was not on the agenda. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have found that Iran has not, so far, broken its commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, although it has concealed activities before.

It appears that the UK and US have decided to raise the stakes in the confrontation with Iran. The two countries persuaded the IAEA board - including India - to overrule its inspectors, declare Iran in breach of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and say that Iran's activities could be examined by the UN security council. Critics of this political process point to the fact that India itself has developed nuclear weapons and refused to join the NPT, but has still voted that Iran is acting illegitimately. On the Iranian side there is also much belligerent talk and pop music now proudly speaks of the nuclear contribution to Iranian security.

The timing of the recent allegations about Iranian intervention in Iraq also appears to be significant. Ever since the US refused to control Iraq's borders in April 2003, Iranian backed militia have dominated the south and, with under 10,000 soldiers amongst a population of millions, the British army had little option but to go along. No fuss was made until now. As for the bombings of British soldiers, some sources familiar with the US army engineers report that these supposedly sophisticated devices have been manufactured inside Iraq for many months and do not need to be imported.

But is the war talk for real or is it just sabre rattling? The conventional wisdom is that for both military and political reasons it would be impossible for Israel and the UK/US to attack and that, in any event, after the politically damaging Iraq war, neither Tony Blair nor George Bush would be able to gather political support for another attack.

But in Washington, Tel Aviv and Downing Street, if not the Foreign Office, Iran is regarded as a critical threat. The regime in Tehran continues to demand the destruction of the state of Israel and to support anti-Israeli forces. In what appeared to be coordinated releases of intelligence assessments, Israeli and US intelligence briefed earlier this year that, while Iran was years from a nuclear weapons capability, the technological point of no return was now imminent.

Shortly after the US elections, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, warned that Israel might attack Iran. Israel has the capability to attack Iranian targets with aircraft and long-range cruise missiles launched from submarines, while Iranian air defences are still mostly based on 25-year-old equipment purchased in the time of the Shah. A US attack might be portrayed as a more reasonable option than a renewed Israeli-Islamic confrontation.

The US army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but soldiers could be found if the Bush administration were intent on invasion. Donald Rumsfeld has been reorganising the army to increase front-line forces by a third. More importantly, naval and air force firepower has barely been used in Iraq. Just 120 B52 and stealth bombers could target 5,000 points in Iran with satellite-guided bombs in just one mission. It is for this reason that John Pike of globalsecurity.org thinks that a US attack could come with no warning at all. US action is often portrayed as impossible, not only because of the alleged lack of firepower, but because Iranian facilities are too hard to target. In a strategic logic not lost on Washington, the conclusion then is that if you cannot guarantee to destroy all the alleged weapons, then it must be necessary to remove the regime that wants them, and regime change has been the official policy in Washington for many years.

For political-military planners, precision strikes on a few facilities have drawbacks beyond leaving the regime intact. They allow the regime too many retaliatory options. Certainly, Iran's neighbours in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf who are worried about the growth of Iranian Shia influence in Iraq would want any attack to be decisive. From this logic grows the idea of destroying the political-military infrastructure of the clerical regime and perhaps encouraging separatist Kurdish and Azeri risings in the north-west. Some Washington planners have hopes of the Sunnis of oil-rich Khuzestan breaking away too.

A new war may not be as politically disastrous in Washington as many believe. Scott Ritter, the whistleblowing former UN weapons inspector, points out that few in the Democratic party will stand in the way of the destruction of those who conducted the infamous Tehran embassy siege that ended Jimmy Carter's presidency. Mr Ritter is one of the US analysts, along with Seymour Hersh, who have led the allegations that Washington is going to war with Iran.

For an embattled President Bush, combating the mullahs of Tehran may be a useful means of diverting attention from Iraq and reestablishing control of the Republican party prior to next year's congressional elections. From this perspective, even an escalating conflict would rally the nation behind a war president. As for the succession to President Bush, Bob Woodward has named Mr Cheney as a likely candidate, a step that would be easier in a wartime atmosphere. Mr Cheney would doubtless point out that US military spending, while huge compared to other nations, is at a far lower percentage of gross domestic product than during the Reagan years. With regard to Mr Blair's position, it would be helpful to know whether he has committed Britain to preventing an Iranian bomb "come what may" as he did with Iraq.


Selling War against Iran
Propaganda campaign portrays Iran as a pariah statE.

Global Research, February 17, 2006

While U.S. forces and their allies are continuing the destruction of Iraq and sadistic torture of Iraqi civilians, the phantom of Iran “threat” is being amplified across the world. Speculations about possible U.S.-Israel attacks on Iran have reached a stage of war propaganda by Western media and Western pundits. The aims are: to demonise Iran and keep the public in state of war, and create a smokescreen to divert the public from greater war crimes in Iraq and Palestine.

Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector in Iraq turned “anti-war” activist wrote on 05 April, 2005 that in June 2005 there will be a “massive aerial attack against Iran.”  Ritter alleged that his information come from “someone close to the Bush administration”. When Ritter asked his source: “Why June 2005?” His answer was that, the “Israelis are concerned that if the Iranians get their nuclear enrichment programme up and running, then there will be no way to stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. June 2005 is seen as the decisive date”. We all know that June had passed and there was no “massive aerial attack against Iran”. Let’s hope Ritter’s next prediction of an attack on Iran will be wrong too.

Gerard Baker, the Times Online U.S. editor is more bellicose. Baker wrote on 27 January, 2006: “The unimaginable but ultimately inescapable truth is that we are going to have to get ready for war with Iran … If Iran gets safely and unmolested to nuclear status, it will be a threshold moment in the history of the world, up there with the Bolshevik Revolution and the coming of Hitler”. It should be remembered that, in 2003, Baker was part of the international criminal gangs that advocated and later celebrated the illegal war against Iraq.

Mike Whitney, a knowledgeable critic of U.S. policy, predicted in recent internet postings that “Iran will be attacked without pretext and without congressional or UN authorization invoking the executive authority to prosecute the war on terror by ‘all necessary and appropriate means’”. The fraudulent ‘war on terror’ is the usual cliché that justifies every U.S. attack on a sovereign nation. Citing Zoltan Grossman, Whitney added; “Khuzestan [the province neighbouring Basra] will become the next front in the war on terror and the lynchpin for prevailing in the global resource war. If the Bush administration can sweep into the region (under the pretext disarming Iran’s nuclear programs) and put Iran’s prodigious oil wealth under U.S. control, the dream of monopolizing Middle East oil will have been achieved”. However, Whitney failed to tell the reader how a dying sardine fish sandwiched between two hard rocks in a rough sea will extract itself alive. And will the people of Iran welcome the Bush gang? We know the Iraqis didn’t.

The ongoing fabricated Iran “crisis” is nothing more and nothing less than a “collection of misinformation, disinformation, misunderstanding, miscalculation, egregious prognostications, boo-boos, and the occasional just plain lies”, wrote Christopher Cerf and Victor Navasky. This has allowed the U.S. and Israel to “mobilize the UN and NATO allies to focus on, browbeat, and threaten Iran to abandon its [peaceful] nuclear activities or face some kind of retaliation”, wrote Edward Herman and David Peterson.

This somehow ‘successful’ propaganda campaign which portrays Iran as a pariah state and a “threat” is based on a distorted and carefully orchestrated U.S.-Israeli propaganda. Iran legitimate right to acquire nuclear energy through peaceful research is deliberately ignored, even as the U.S. and Israel threaten to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. Iran is being singled out and threatened with destruction by the U.S. and Israel is absent in Western media. In addition, Iran fear of U.S. and Israeli attacks may motivate Iran to build a deterrent – similar to that of North Korea – against this real threat also remains hidden from the public.

According to the Geneva Convention and the Nuclear none Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is not doing any thing illegal. There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and Iran has not threatened anyone. By contrast, the U.S., Britain and France are promoting the spread of nuclear weapons by supporting the expansion of Israel’s and India’s weapons production and encouraging Pakistan and China to do likewise. In fact, the U.S. is openly increasing the threat of nuclear war and violence.

Furthermore, the recent attack on Muslims in Europe, who were rightly protesting against the rise of European fascism and anti-Muslim hatred – shown in the depiction the Prophet Mohammed as a “terrorist” –, is a racist campaign to incite racism and justify war of aggression against Muslims world-wide. It has nothing to do with “free speech”. There is no “free speech” in Europe; it has to do with colonial oppression of minorities. In addition to the huge propaganda campaign against Iran, Western politicians, Western media and pundits have used the demonstrations to promote the war against Iran. At the same time, the U.S. and its European vassals are unjustifiably accusing Iran and Syria of “inflaming the situation” in the Muslim world. The purpose of the current war propaganda is a deliberate distortion designed to fool the world, soften public opinion and start a psychological war against the people of Iran before an actual war is started.

As a result of this war propaganda, a majority of people in the West, Americans in particular, not only see a U.S. war of aggression against Iran is inevitable, but also support it. A recent Gallup Poll reveals that Americans not only think Iran will develop nuclear weapons but also use them against the U.S. The poll also reveals eight out of 10 U.S. respondents predicted Iran would provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists to attack the U.S. or Israel. Six out of 10 respondents said Iran itself would deploy nuclear weapons against the U.S. Furthermore, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found that 57 per cent of Americans favour military intervention in Iran. The poll suggests that the crimes committed by U.S. forces in Iraq have not turned the American people against the possibility of military actions elsewhere in the Middle East.

A report by the Oxford Research Group revealed that any bombing of Iran by U.S. forces, or by their Israeli allies, would result in the unnecessary death of many innocent lives. “A US military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon as well as the United States and Iran, with the possibility of western Gulf States being involved as well. Military deaths in (the) first wave of attacks against Iran would be expected to be in the thousands, especially with attacks on air bases and Revolutionary Guard facilities”, said the report by Paul Rogers of the University of Bradford. ”Civilian deaths would be in the many hundreds at least,” said the report. “If the war evolved into a wider conflict, primarily to pre-empt or counter Iranian responses, the casualties would eventually be much higher”. The death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children appears not enough to satisfy Westerners appetite for protracted violence.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, U.S. occupying forces and their vassals continue their murderous campaign. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have been murdered by the occupying forces. Tens of thousands more have been arrested, imprisoned, and tortured to death. Ongoing humiliation, sadistic torture, rape and abuse of Iraqi civilians, including children as young as 8 years old, is a daily “sport” practiced by U.S. soldiers and their vassals. “The extent of the abuse shown in the photos suggests that the torture and abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib in 2004 is much worse than is currently understood”, reported the Australian Special Broadcast Services (SBS) TV. According to producer Mike Carey of SBS TV, the new photos show that “homicide, torture, criminal abuses, rapes and sexual humiliation” of Iraqi civilians are common practices by the occupying forces. "We actually did not broadcast some of the photographs because we thought they were too extreme” added Carey. Iraqis human rights have never been violated in such criminal ways before. No wonder why so many people around the world have resented the criminal nature of the Bush-Blair “shared values”.

Outside the countless U.S. and British-run prisons and fortified torture chambers, which the so-called “sovereign” Iraqi government has absolutely no control over, the Iraqi economy had fallen below that of pre-war levels (Financial Times, 16/02/06). The living conditions of ordinary Iraqis have worsened many folds since the 2003 illegal and criminal invasion of the country. Iraq which once enjoyed a reasonable standard of living is descended into extreme poverty toady. Illegitimate and fraudulent elections were cleverly used as a cover up to legitimise not only the Occupation, but also the presence of violent militia groups and U.S.-trained death squads brought into Iraq on the backs of the invading forces.

Fratricidal killings and murder of innocent Iraqis, including the deliberate murder of thousands of prominent politicians, scientists and professionals by U.S.-trained and financed death squads and criminal gangs have instilled fear and terror among the Iraqi population. The independent British journalist Felicity Arbuthnot wrote recently: “In the distorted horrors of today's Iraq, many never make it home: disappeared, kidnapped, shot by the occupying forces for driving, walking, and playing, in familiar venues. Iraqi lives are the earth's cheapest”. The number of Iraqis killed by U.S. forces has increased dramatically as a result of U.S. self-induced immunity from prosecution. In addition, Western-induced corruptions and looting of the country’s wealth have plummeted and destroying the Iraqi society. All these war crimes are masquerading in the West as “freedom” and “democracy” that the Iraqi people have long been denied.

Further away from Iraq, in Palestine, Israel is speeding up its overt theft of Palestinian land in contravention of international laws and UN resolutions. Israel has just “completed a process of sealing off the eastern sector of the West Bank from the remainder of the West Bank. Some 2,000,000 Palestinians, residents of the West Bank, are prohibited from entering the area, which constitutes around one-third of the West Bank, and includes the Jordan Rift, the area of the Dead Sea shoreline and the eastern slopes of the West Bank mountains”, reported the Israeli journalist Amira Hass of Israel’s daily, Ha’aretz. “The prohibition also applies to thousands of residents of towns and villages in the northern West Bank like Tubas and Tamun, most of whose lands are in the Jordan Valley, and some with residents who have been living there for many years’, added Hass.

In addition, Israel has encircled and isolated Jerusalem from the rest of the Occupied Territories, making the creation of a viable Palestinian “state” impossibility. More than 3.5 Palestinians are living in prison under unbearable apartheid system of control, checkpoints, road blocks and walls. And with the elections of Hamas, Israel is increasing the terror against the Palestinians from all sides. Thousands of Palestinian men, women and children are still imprisoned by Israeli occupation forces without charge. Of course, Western governments, the U.S. in particular, provided the financial “aid” and political support for Israel’s terror and violations of international law.

Let’s hope that those who think the next war on Iran is inevitable are wrong, and that common sense will prevail over violence. Furthermore, in its entire history of aggression, the U.S. chose its defenceless targets carefully. Iran may be able to defend itself.

It also depends on people in the West and the American people in particular. Are they happy with war crimes committed in their name? Do they want to live in a peaceful world with the rest of humanity or continue on the path to war, violence and destruction?

Global Research Editor Ghali Hassan live in Perth, Western Australia

Ghali Hassan is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Ghali Hassan


What is Propaganda -  The History:  http://www.historians.org/Projects/GIroundtable/Propaganda/Propaganda3.htm

 Neocon War Propaganda To Be Investigated

Will panel investigate all the lies, foul play, deaths and cover ups surrounding the Tillman and Lynch cases or will it be another whitewash?

Steve Watson

Friday, April 13, 2007  

A U.S. House committee has announced it will hold hearings to investigate misleading military statements that followed the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan and the rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch in Iraq.

As reported by the Associated Press, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said an April 24 hearing will be part of its investigation into whether there was a strategy to mislead the public.

It will "examine why inaccurate accounts of these two incidents were disseminated, the sources and motivations for the accounts, and whether the appropriate administration officials have been held accountable,'' the panel said on its Web site.

The House Armed Services Committee also is considering Tillman hearings, a spokeswoman for that panel said Monday.

The Tillman and Lynch cases are two clear and blatant examples of how the government has consistently lied to the public about events during both the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, often spinning situations and distorting reality in order to put the US military occupations in a better light.

We have covered both cases extensively and exposed the propaganda and the cover ups that have followed, now it seems, rather encouragingly, that some within the House are taking an interest in uncovering the truth and exposing the lies perpetrated by the Neocon White House war machine.

The Lynch case is well documented. In 2003 facing flack and extreme criticism the Bush administration orchestrated a clear piece of war propaganda in an effort to rally the people behind the troops and the Invasion of Iraq.

In April 2003 the US Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company took a wrong turning near Nassiriya and was ambushed by Iraqi soldiers. Nine of Lynch's US comrades were killed. The Iraqis took Lynch to the local hospital, where she was kept for eight days.

The Iraqi soldiers fled the hospital days before Lynch's rescuers stormed it. The doctors there, having already tried and failed to return Lynch to the Americans after they fired upon an ambulance which she was being transported in, described the "rescue" as a Hollywood show, as special forces stormed in with cameras rolling.

"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried, 'Go, go, go', with guns and blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show - an action movie like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan, with jumping and shouting, breaking down doors." one doctor later recounted.

First, a U.S. military spokesman in Iraq was ordered by CENTCOM to tell journalists that soldiers exchanged fire during the Rambo like rescue, without adding that Iraqi soldiers had already abandoned the hospital, then the military released a green-tinted night-vision film of the mission, adding to the drama.

Releasing its five-minute film to the networks, the Pentagon then claimed that Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed, interrogated and possibly even raped.

Then news organizations began repeating reports that Lynch had heroically resisted capture, emptying her gun as she fired at her attackers.

But subsequent disclosures have proved all those details to be complete fabrications. Lynch was badly injured by the crash of her vehicle, her weapon jammed before she could fire, the Iraqi doctors made friends with her and treated her kindly, and the hospital was already in friendly hands when her rescuers arrived.

Asked by the ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer after the event if the military's portrayal of the rescue bothered her, Lynch said: "Yeah, it does. It does that they used me as a way to symbolize all this stuff. Yeah, it's wrong,".

Lynch went on the record quickly and has since gone on to denounce the whole debacle as outright propaganda. This was perhaps wise given that four of Lynch's rescuers and colleagues have coincidentally died since.

Petty Officer First Class David M. Tapper died of wounds received in Afghanistan. He took part in the rescue.

Lance Cpl. Sok Khak Ung was killed in a drive-by shooting. He was also part of the rescue team.

Spc Josh Daniel Speer died when his car crashed into some trees for no apparent reason. He was part of the rescue team.

Kyle Edward Williams, who worked in the same company as Lynch, died of "suicide".

Will the House committee be investigating these deaths as part of the hearings?

We have previously reported on how Pat Tillman's tragic death was also seized upon and used as a cheap propaganda tool by the government for the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. His death may have even been a criminal plot manufactured to this end, a suspicion that both military investigators and Tillman's family have repeated.

After his death it was announced that Tillman, the All American poster boy, the former sporting hero who had traded in his football boots for army boots after witnessing the 9/11 attacks, had been tragically gunned down by evil Taliban terrorists whilst he was charging up a hill side to attack, bellowing orders to fellow Rangers.

A nationally televised memorial service and a Silver Star commendation cemented Tillman's place as the nation's first war hero since the story of Jessica Lynch's capture and phony details of her rescue were foisted on the public in 2003.

The truth was that Tillman's death was being exploited for public relations purposes by the U.S. military and the administration.

Weeks later, the Army acknowledged that Tillman had been a victim of friendly fire whilst on a routine patrol.

Tillman's platoon of the Second Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, began the day that he died dealing with a minor annoyance in the southeastern part of Afghanistan where the soldiers were conducting sweeps, the Army records show, one of their vehicles would not start.

Against their own policy and after the overruling of some objections, the platoon split into two parts so that half the team, including Tillman, could go on to the next town for sweeps while the second half could tow the disabled vehicle to a drop-off spot.

But both groups ended up in the same twisting canyon, along the same road, without radio communication. And after the sounds of an enemy ambush, three Rangers in the second group wound up firing at members of the first group — at an Afghan soldier who was fighting alongside Tillman, and then at Tillman himself.

The Afghan was killed. According to testimony, Tillman, who along with others on the hill waved his arms and yelled “cease fire,” set off a smoke grenade to identify his group as fellow soldiers. There was a momentary lull in the firing, and he and the soldier next to him, thinking themselves safe, relaxed, stood up and started talking. But the shooting resumed. Tillman was hit in the wrist with shrapnel and in his body armor with numerous bullets.

The soldier next to him testified: “I could hear the pain in his voice as he called out, ‘Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat f—ing Tillman, dammit.” He said this over and over until he stopped,” having been hit by three bullets in the forehead, killing him.

It was also admitted that soldiers destroyed evidence — Tillman's uniform and flak vest — after the shooting, claiming that they were a "biohazard". However another soldier involved offered a contradictory take, saying "the uniform and equipment had blood on them and it would stir emotion" that needed to be suppressed until the Rangers finished their work overseas.

An initial investigation by then-Capt. Richard Scott, interviewed all four shooters, their driver, and many others who were there. He concluded within a week that while some of the gunmen demonstrated "gross negligence" others demonstrated "criminal intent" and recommended further investigation to push for the harshest possible criminal sentencing.

But Scott's report disappeared after circulating briefly among a small corps of high-ranking officers. Some of Tillman's relatives think the Army buried the report because its findings indicated foul play. Army officials refused to provide a copy to the media, saying no materials related to the investigation could be released. A second investigation was then commenced by a higher ranking officer which called for less severe punishment.

Richard Scott later gave testimony alleging that Army officials allowed witnesses to change key details in their sworn statements so his findings could be softened.

Scott stated “watching some of these guys getting off, what I thought … was a lesser of a punishment than what they should’ve received. And I will tell you, over a period of time … the stories have changed. They have changed to, I think, help some individuals.”

The document containing Scott's testimony was reviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle. In a published story in September 2005 the Chronicle highlighted the following passage from Scott:

“They had the entire chain of command (inaudible) that were involved, the [deleted], all sticking up for [deleted] … And the reason the [deleted] called me in … because the [deleted] … changed their story in how things occurred and the timing and the distance in an attempt to stick up for their counterpart, implied, insinuated that the report wasn’t as accurate as I submitted it …”

In another section of his testimony, he said witnesses changed details regarding “the distance, the time, the location, the lighting conditions and the positioning” in Tillman’s killing.

There are many other examples of conflicting testimony in the Tillman case including the fact that he may not have been killed immediately and was certainly given CPR hours after being shot in the head three times.

At least one Army officer, the records show, changed his sworn statements about which supervisor had actually ordered the split of the platoon and what conversations had occurred before the order was given.

A further review of the case by the Pentagon's inspector general,Gen. Gary M. Jones found that Army officers told soldiers to remain quiet about the circumstances of Tillman's death for fear of negative news coverage.

One or more members of the Tillman family will testify in the new hearings, in addition to Jessica Lynch herself.

The Tillman family have been very reluctantly outspoken since the tragic Death of Pat Tillman, "All I asked for is what happened to my son, and it has been lie after lie after lie," Tillman's father told the New York Times, explaining that he believed the matter should remain "between me and the military" but that he had grown too troubled to keep silent.

Quoted elsewhere Mr Tillman has stated “The administration clearly was using this case for its own political reasons... This cover-up started within minutes of Pat’s death, and it started at high levels. This is not something that (lower-ranking) people in the field do,” he said.

"After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this," Mr Tillman has said. "They purposely interfered with the investigation …. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out."

Mr Tillman is certain that a cover up has been perpetrated and believes his son's death may not even have been an accident.

"There is so much nonstandard conduct, both before and after Pat was killed, that you have to start to wonder," Mr. Tillman said. "How much effort would you put into hiding an accident? Why do you need to hide an accident?"

Kevin Tillman, Pat's brother (pictured above) has also been very outspoken and recently slammed the Bush administration and the war in Iraq in a lengthy article. Kevin Tillman wrote:

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.
Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.
Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.
Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.
Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.
Somehow torture is tolerated.
Somehow lying is tolerated.
Indeed, it has been revealed since his death that Pat Tillman was himself highly critical of the war in Iraq where he also served a tour of duty. Fellow soldiers have described the well spoken, well educated Tillman as having strong views, often openly stating "this war is so f— illegal." and describing Tillman as "totally against Bush.”

Moved in part by the 9/11 attacks, Tillman decided to give up his career, saying he wanted to fight al Qaeda and help find Osama bin Laden. He spurned an offer of a three year, $3.6 million NFL contract extension with Arizona Cardinals and joined the Army in June 2002.

Instead of going to Afghanistan, as Tillman expected, their Ranger battalion was sent to participate in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Word of the new hearings comes three years after Tillman was killed and two weeks after the Pentagon released the latest findings of its own investigations into Pat Tillman's death. The latest report once again faults as many as nine officers as responsible for mistakes and irregularities during the investigation into Tillman's death, but also dismisses the notion of a cover up, much the same as a previous report did in 2005.

In all, the Army and Defense Department have conducted five investigations into Tillman's April 22, 2004 death, with the most recent one pointing toward high-ranking military officers knowing the circumstances of his death long before Tillman's family.

As reported by the AP, a memo sent to a four-star general a week after Tillman's death revealed that then-Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned that it was "highly possible" the Army Ranger was killed by friendly fire. McChrystal made it clear his warning should be conveyed to the president.

The memo was provided to the AP by a government official who requested anonymity because the document was not released as part of the Pentagon's official report into the way the Army brass withheld the truth. McChrystal was, and still is, commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, head of "black ops" forces and was the highest-ranking officer accused of wrongdoing in the report.

Tillman's parents have since stated that they believe the memo backs the cover up theory. "He knew it was friendly fire in the very beginning, and he never intervened to help, and he essentially has covered up a crime in order to promote the war," Mary Tillman said in a telephone interview. "All of this was done for PR purposes."

As the AP commented, The memo reinforces suspicions that the Pentagon was more concerned with sparing officials from embarrassment than with leveling with Tillman's family. 

Although it is encouraging that the high profile Tillman and Lynch cases are being investigated, it seems there are countless others that should be deserving of the same treatment. One such example is the case of Jess Buryj, a soldier from Canton, Ohio, who (it turns out) died in a friendly fire incident – shot in the back.

When his parents were told by the U.S. military that Polish soldiers were responsible for his death, a soldier who served with Buryi could not bear for the truth to be buried and so told Buryi's parents that an American G.I. was actually at fault. Buryj’s father was so shaken by the alleged cover-up that he came to question whether the body they buried was even their son’s.

Again and again, the press, the public, parents and spouses have been lied to about how young Americans in the military have died. The lies and the propaganda are endemic, just as the Bush government cannot afford to allow Americans to see flag draped coffins coming home, nor can they allow the truth of the war machine to be exposed and jeopardize their international killing spree.




by Hugh Rank

Words are weapons in warfare.
Words affect how people think about themselves and about others. War is probably the time of the greatest language manipulation, when people are most likely to deceive others, least able to negotiate, and are under the most intense emotional stress -- of fear and anger -- with the greatest dangers of loss, death, and destruction.

PROPAGANDA is often used as a general attack word to label any claims or charges from opponents, rivals, or critics Here, however, two terms are used with specific meanings: War propaganda, here refers to persuasion targeted at an internal audience: to bond one's own group, to build morale (a belief in "being right" and in "being able"), to get people to agree, to get involved, to silence internal opposition, to incite to action, and to channel that response. ("Psychological warfare" here refers to persuasion designed to demoralize or terrorize an external audience, the "Other" -- the outsider, the foe, the enemy.) .In practice, terms and boundaries shift or are blurred :e.g. Pentagon PR and "psy ops":(Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq).

Both kinds of persuasion pose a great danger today. Unlike all previous eras, TV now gives persuaders quick access to huge audiences, and powerful new weapons are rather easily available to all nations, small groups, and individuals. After World War II, during what we caledl "peace time," (1945-1999), some 25 million people had been killed in "small" wars: local conflicts about dominance, territory, ethnic and religious issues, all of which were "justified" by words.

War propaganda can often be deliberately manipulated by professional persuaders (a "thermostat effect" calculated to heat up or cool a crisis).However, once started, sometimes war propaganda can get totally out of control (a "wildfire effect") with unpredictable, long term effects. Years after a crisis, individual zealots may still base their hatred of others on "outdated" ideas from earlier propaganda. Certain beliefs and attitudes, emotions and feelings, can rather easily lead to seriously harmful actions. There are many crazies and fanatics in the world: mentally unstable, and angry about real or imagined problems.

Thus, if our goals are to resolve conflicts, to lessen tensions, to counter irrationality, and to promote peace, then it helps if we understand how language has often been used in warfare. From observation -- and history -- consider this basic premise:

People intensify their own "good" and downplay their own "bad"; and, in aggression, people intensify others' "bad" and downplay others' "good."

their own "good"
Intensify others'
their own
Downplay others'


October 9, 2007

GOP 'War Propaganda' on Iran

posted by Ari Berman on 10/09/2007


The GOP presidential debate in Detroit today was ostensibly about the economy (more on that later). Soon enough, however, the topic turned to foreign policy, most notably Iran..

Moderator Chris Matthews asked the contenders if they believed a future president possessed the the authority to attack Iran without Congressional approval.

Apparently unaware that the Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war, the GOP candidates answered, by and large, yes. They could attack Iran, if it posed an imminent threat, without consulting the Congress.

Mitt Romney said he'd have to check with his lawyers. But he vowed to "take action necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." By my recollection, all the rest of the candidates said pretty much the same thing.

Only Ron Paul, as has so often been the case in the debates, forcefully dissented. "Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it!" said an exasperated Paul. "The idea that Iran is on the verge of an imminent attack is just preposterous!"

He summed up the foreign policy views of his competitors thusly: "This is just war propaganda!"

VIDEO SERIES - WAR PROPAGANDA FROM ELLA2007 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnPf99Z9Wek


April 20, 2008

Pro-War propaganda and the Bush administration

As a follow-up to my previous post about how the US Defense Department was using news analysts to promote pro-war domestic propaganda, this is a good time to remind everyone that the media was knowingly complicit in the promotion of pro-war propaganda as noted in an earlier article in Salon.com
And for viewers that night who didn't get a strong enough sense of just how obediently in-step the press corps was with the White House, there was the televised post-press conference analysis. On MSNBC, for instance, "Hardball's" Chris Matthews hosted a full hour of discussion. In order to get a wide array of opinion, he invited a pro-war Republican senator (Saxby Chambliss, from Georgia), a pro-war former Secretary of State (Lawrence Eagleburger), a pro-war retired Army general (Montgomery Meigs), pro-war retired Air Force general (Buster Glosson), a pro-war Republican pollster (Frank Luntz), as well as, for the sake of balance, somebody who, twenty-five years earlier, once worked in Jimmy Carter's White House (Pat Caddell).

And the media is following the same propaganda promotion effort with respect to Iran too, as noted by the Columbia Journalism Review in an article entitled "Lost Over Iran: How the press let the White House craft the narrative about nukes", which I recommend. It states that some experts and analysts have been questioning the Bush administration claim that Iran was seeking to build nukes... but "What's striking is how rarely such questions were asked by members of the press."

I also recommend reading CJR's previous article about how the allegations of the "Iranian EFPs" in Iraq. Their article debunking Bush's EFPs-from-Iran claims was interesting reading too. McClatchy indeed does a great job questioning Bush too, as the CJR notes.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pro-War propaganda and the Bush administration:

You can watch this video for more information, and evidence of this issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQP7ASBdwdo.



by Alan Furford

I watched much of this story unfold most of my life, and noted entrapment by draft in force to actually make the real military work. Viet Nam was a fine example of draft cannon fodder forced upon the public who in general were against war. The end result is what we have today on the battle fields around the world regardless of nationality, and a very, very cynical attitude from the civilian populations in general.

I worked in the Defense industry, listened and read about all the excuses supporting the wars of empire, business and power expansion, and noted the moves made by both major political parties in the US to extend what really is pork barrel politics, the very industries we were warned about by Eisenhower, the industrial military complex. It is a very "clubby" outfit which runs and leads very club minded people striving to be crowd campy, and somewhat neoconservative around by their noses. Ditto Heads who listen to druggy half deaf Rush Limbaugh are examples of the clubby set though many do not see it this way. Limbaugh has made a fortune off this supposedly campy set merely telling them it is and American right to force the world to do damn stupid myopic things, like getting hooked on drugs because of sexual rushes underlined by his own name... all in name of the pain he seems to be afflicted with, as he sought to face his own reality as so many druggy Republicans do. Rush supports the industrial military complex as John McCain and Newt Gingrich do and laughs all the way to the bank.

Take the F-22 Raptor jet fighter as a fine example of feeding this industry for over 20 years even when it is rendered obsolete by the F-35 and this is just a small example.

Do a little historical work on this subject if you dare to face reality, then explain to me why universal health care cannot be funded, and keep in mind the US military budget can be cut in half while still maintaining strike force capability unmatched by the rest of the world for decades to come.

Remember how you had to be a neocon for eight years to be a campy Republican and a hip person who scoffed at the internet through all of the Bush family administrations? How soon we do "forget" ...

Did you realize the Governor of South Carolina is a Ditto Head firmly believing his has a god given right to screw with Argentina and support the Zionist movement while in bed?

I call them as I see them unfold with regularity...

Good old Newt will at least keep the Republicans talking with each other, even as their political membership is dropping like a rock kicked into the canyon of their own greed, a bottomless pit at this time of 2009, their position desperately protected by expert shot gunner, good old draft dodger Dick Cheney.

Did you forget old Dick? Have you forgotten God destroyed Ronald Reagan's mind? Perhaps you remember Richard Nixon... No? He was before your political time, or are you over 70 and just are losing it like Reagan did. Perhaps you can't really see why God took Jerry Falwell either.

I trust in God...

The American Way Of War
By Fred Reed

Being a military thinker of the profoundest sort, I offer the following manual of martial affairs for nations yearning to copy the American way of war. Read it carefully. Great clarity will result. The steps limned below will facilitate disaster without imposing the burden of reinventing it. The Pentagon may print copies for distribution.

(1) Underestimate the enemy. Fortunately this is easy when a technologically advanced power prepares to attack an underdeveloped nation. Its enemy's citizens will readily be seen as gadgetless, primitive, probably genetically stupid, and hardly worth the attention of a real military.

(2) Avoid learning anything about the enemy  his culture, religion, language, history, or response to past invasions. These things don't matter since the enemy is gadgetless, primitive, and probably genetically stupid. Anyway, knowledge would only make the enlisted ranks restive, and confuse the officer corps.

Blank ignorance of the language is especially desirable (as well as virtually guaranteed). For one thing, it will allow your troops to be seen as brutal invaders having nothing in common with the population; this helps in winning hearts and minds. For another, it will allow English-speaking officials of the puppet government to vet such information about the country as they permit you to have.

(3) Explain the invasion to the American public in simple moral terms suitable for middle-school children at an evangelical summer camp: We are bombing cities to bring the gift of democracy and American values, or to defeat some vague but frightening evil, perhaps lurking under the bed, or to get rid of a bad dictator no longer of service to us, or to bring freedom and prosperity to any survivors. (This doesn't work in Europe, which is honestly imperialistic.) The public can then feel a sense of unappreciated virtue when the primitives resist. Sententious moralism should always trump reason.

(4) A misunderstanding of military reality helps. Besides, comprehension would only lead to depression. As Napoleon said, or may have, in war the moral is to the material as three is to one, which implies that unpleasant facts should be played down in favor of cultivating a cheerful attitude. Most especially, it should not be noted that a few tens of thousands of determined, probably genetically-stupid primitives with small arms can tie down a cheerful force however gaudily armed.

Pay no attention to tactics, which are boring. It should never enter your mind that in this sort of war, if you don't win, you lose; if the enemy doesn't lose, he wins. Think about something else. Above all, do not understand that the enemy's target is not you, but public opinion at home. You don't need to remember this, as the enemy will remember it for you.

(5) Do not forget that a military's reason for existence is to close with the enemy and destroy him. An army is not in the social-services business. Do not let the mission be impeded by touchy-feely considerations. If you have to kill seventeen children to get a sniper, so be it. The enemy must realize that you mean business. Ignore cultural traits, which are of concern only to idealistic civilians. Grope the enemy's women. High-profile rapes are a good idea as they teach respect. It is better to be feared than loved. Be sure the embassy has a helipad.

(6) Intellectual insularity should be a primary goal, as it avoids distraction. This salubrious condition can be achieved by having officers read Tom Clancy instead of history. In military discourse it also helps to encourage the use of phrases like "force multiplier" and "multi-dimensional warfare," as these increase confidence without meaning anything.

Remember that doctrine and optimism should always outweigh history and common sense. Discourage colonels and above from reading about similar campaigns fought by other armies, as this might lead to nagging doubts, conceivably even to thought. Encourage the belief that other countries have lost wars by being inferior to the United States. "The French lost in Viet Nam? What else would you expect from the French? Never happen to us."

Some military philosophers favor actually removing from military libraries books on what happened to the French in Viet Nam, the Americans in Viet Nam, the Russians in Afghanistan, the Americans in Afghanistan (a work in progress), the French in Algeria, the Americans in Iraq (also in progress), the Israelis in Lebanon the first time, the Israelis in Lebanon the last time, the Americans in Lebanon 1983, the Americans in Somalia the first time, and so on. However, the best thinkers hold that it doesn't matter what books are in military libraries, as only those on stirring victories will be checked out.

(7) Keep up to date with the latest nostrums and silver bullets. Organize your military as a lean, mean, high-tech force characterized by lightning mobility, enormous firepower, and extraordinary unsuitability for the kind of wars it will actually have to fight. Flacks from the PR department of Lockheed will help in this. Recognize that an advanced fighter plane costing two hundred million dollars, invisible to radar, employing dazzling electronic countermeasures, and able to cruise at supersonic speed, is exactly the thing for fighting a rifleman in a basement in Baghdad. Such aircraft are crucial force multipliers in multi-dimensional warfare. Anyway, Al Quaeda might field an advanced air force at any moment. It pays to be ready.

(8) It is a good idea to bracket your exposure. Be ready for wars past and future, but not present. The Pentagon does this well. Note that the current military, an advanced version of the WWII force, is ready should the Imperial Japanese Navy return. It also has phenomenally advanced weaponry in the pipeline to take on a space-age enemy, perhaps from Mars, should one appear. It is only the present for which the US is not prepared.

(9) View things in a large context. People who have little comprehension of the military tend to focus exclusively on winning wars, missing the greater importance of the Pentagon as an economic flywheel. Jobs are more important than wars fought in bush-world countries. An American military ought to think of Americans first. This is simple patriotism. It is essential to spend as much money as possible on advanced weapons that have no current use, and none in sight, but produce jobs in congressional districts. Good examples are the F-22 fighter, the F-35, the Airborne Laser, the V-22, and the ABM.

(10) Insist that the US military never loses wars. Instead, it is betrayed, stabbed in the back, and brought low by treason. For example, argue furiously that the US didn't lose in Viet Nam, but won gloriously; the withdrawal was due to the treachery of Democrats, Jews, hippies, the press, most of the military, and a majority of the general population, all of whom were traitors. This avoids the unpleasantness of learning anything from defeat. Further, it facilitates a focus on controlling the press, who are the real enemy, along with the Democrats and the general population.

(11) Avoid institutional memory. Not having lost of course means that there is nothing to remember. Instead, read stirring novels and cultivate a cheerful, can-do attitude unintimidated by primitives in sand-lot countries, who are probably genetically stupid.

(12) Do it all again next time.
Allen D. Furford
The Mobius Insight


Lying War Propaganda Against Iran

by Ron Paul

Statement on H Con Res 21

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, May 22, 2007

Madam Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déjà vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.

Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”

I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. General William Odom, President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote: “Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the US thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the US from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of US foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution.

FROM: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul393.html
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives

Iran- Amnesia, Ignorance and Stupidity
by Gary Sudborough Tuesday, Jun. 23, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Iran is experiencing a classic CIA destabilization effort. It has been done dozens of times in the past, but Americans would rather watch American Idol than read history. Also, as Gore Vidal says, it is "The United States of Amnesia."
One can send a dissenting letter to any daily newspaper now on the subject of Iran, or an e-mail to any so-called leftist web site and I can guarantee, they will not publish it. Even in calmer times, I once conducted an experiment where I sent radical letters to nearly all the 1600 daily newspapers in the United States and very few were published. Few Americans realize it, but we have a very sophisticated propaganda system in place in the United States. It rose to great efficiency in World War 1, when most Americans were isolationists and didn't want to fight the Germans in Europe. The Creel Committee was established and some of the best propagandists of the day were hired to fire up the American people for war. One of the most effective propagandists was Edwards Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, who later made smoking popular with American women by clever advertising. Another was Ivy Lee, a propagandist for John D. Rockefeller, who helped him cover up some of the damage from the Ludlow massacre of striking coal miners in Colorado. He advised Mr. Rockefeller to give to charities, etc. These propagandists demonized the Germans by calling them Huns, stated they bayoneted babies and made cartoons depicting them as beasts engaged in all sorts of despicable activities. Also, they used a method called repetition, which they are using now, and is not only used to start wars, but also to propagate CIA activities. It is said that a lie stated often enough becomes the truth. Needless to say, the war propaganda for World War 1 worked well and Americans were clamoring for war and war dissenters were sent to prison or deported.

I wrote an article once called the Drums of War and stated that if the United States went to war with Iran a similar propaganda strategy would be used as that with Iraq. That is that all sorts of unfounded assumptions and lies would be made, similar to those used in Iraq, like weapons of mass destruction, uranium from Niger, demonization of the leadership and that these unfavorable articles and TV pieces would grow from a few to an absolute crescendo. Now, one can't turn on any American TV station without tremendous coverage of the elections in Iran and the US wars of aggression on either side of Iran are completely forgotten. I did read of couple of interesting articles yesterday. One said that American and British oil companies were being invited back into Iraq under very favorable terms- 75% of the profits going to the foreign oil companies and only 25% to the Iraqi people. The smoking gun appears at long last. The other story was about a memo leaked to the Observer newspaper in England that illustrated the war planning for Iraq going on between George W. Bush and Tony Blair in 2003, two months before the war started. In the memo Blair and Bush agreed that if the weapons of mass destruction excuse did not work, that another one would have to be devised like having US planes with UN markings fly over Iraq with the probability they would be shot at by the Iraqis or some other provocation would be used.

Remember when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were openly talking about going to war with Iran? Remember when John McCain was singing his little song to Beach Boys music: Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran. There is a disadvantage, however, in going to war with a country with modern missiles that can hit ships and aircraft carriers. The CIA destabilization program is the cheaper and more effective method. Is there anyone out there with a brain who seriously believes that the United States does not want a change of government in Iran? Is there anyone out there with a brain who doesn' t believe that all sorts of US organizations like the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Agency for International Development are not involved behind the scenes in organizing and financing these street demonstrations and protests in Iran? One expects propaganda out of the mainstream media, but one can go to leftist site after leftist site and one would think this is all an example of the Iranian people's desperate desire for democracy. Even Michael Moore, who I thought had more sense, is displaying bloodied protesters on his site. If Iranians are attempting to influence other Iranians, I find it ironic that their street signs are in English and not in Farsi. I saw this in another place, Venezuela, where the signs were in English and not Spanish. Also, I remember an article about a Venezuelan student who claimed he was paid a lot of money by Americans to stir up trouble. Hugo Chavez is not a popular man with the American ruling class because he nationalized the oil and is spending a lot of it on the poor.

It would be one thing if CIA interference had never happened before in countries with governments unpopular with the corporate elite in the United States. It has happened many,many times. I guess I will have to go through a bunch of them because as Gore Vidal says: "It is the United States of Amnesia." Possibly it is the United States of Ignorance, as I am not sure if the American people ever knew of these things. In 1953 the CIA overthrew Mossadegh in Iran and brought the Shah and his secret police, the SAVAK. to power. The Shah immediately privatized the oil and invited the western oil companies back into the country. In 1954 the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Arbenz government in Guatemala. In 1973, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected leader of Chile, Salvador Allende, and brought the brutal dictator Pinochet to power, who proceeded to conduct mass executions of leftists. In 1965, Sukarno was overthrown in Indonesia in a CIA coup, which cost the lives of several million of the Indonesian Communist Party. There were CIA coups against Goulart in Brazil and Cheddi Jagan in British Guiana. The CIA played a pivotal role in executing Patrice Lumumba and bringing Mobutu to power in the Congo. Needless to say, Mobutu was a very bloody dictator.

If coups and election tampering didn't work, the CIA had a third option. That was to organize a mercenary army from outside the country. Does anyone remember the Contras and their invasion of Nicaragua? This is not the only example. The United States and South Africa financed two terrorist armies called UNITA and Renamo to invade and destabilize the leftist governments in the former Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique. Renamo destroyed schools, medical clinics, farm cooperatives and anything which could be considered socialistic in Mozambique. They also cut off arms and legs with machetes so that Mozambique has one of the highest rates of amputees in the world. The death toll in Angola and Mozambique runs into the millions. Of course, this has nothing to do with imperialism. This is so the CIA could bring them democracy. This is evidently what all the geniuses on the left believe about Iran. I'm sure the Pentagon dropped tons of depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan so that it will blow around in the dust storms to bring the Iranian people a better way of life too- some more cancers and deformed babies.

Americans simply can not get it through their thick heads that imperialism, something that has existed for hundreds of years and has example after example, is the real driving force behind US foreign power and not democracy. We don't even have real democracy in the United States. We are under the control of corporations. Just because the ruling class in the United States have found an articulate, intelligent, personable black man to act as President does not mean by any extent that American imperialism has vanished into thin air.



BACKGROUND OF THIS PAGE - BORROWED FROM: http://zogsnightmare.com/camps.htm