r3vliberty

Posts Tagged ‘war on terror

The Inauguration Antidote

leave a comment »

Pentagon clears itself of propaganda violations

leave a comment »

conveniently positioned to be slurped down the weekend memory hole

WASHINGTON (AFP) — An internal investigation has cleared the Pentagon of violating a ban on domestic propaganda by using retired military officers to comment positively about the war in Iraq in the US media.

In a report posted on its website Friday, the Pentagon’s inspector general said “we found the evidence insufficient to conclude that RMA (retired military analysts) outreach activities were improper.”

The report said the controversy, which erupted in April following an expose in the New York Times, warranted no further investigation.

The Times found that the Pentagon laid on special briefings and conference calls for the retired officers, many of whom then repeated the talking points as military experts on television news shows.

It also found that many of the media analysts also worked as consultants or served on the boards of defense contracting companies, but that those ties often went undisclosed to the public.

US law bars government agencies from using funds for domestic propaganda, but the inspector general’s report said the definition of propaganda is unclear.

The report said historically it has been interpreted to mean publicity for the sake of self aggrandizement, partisanship, or covert communications, and that by those standards the evidence did not show a violation of the ban.

FDR's propaganda machine

FDR's propaganda machine


“Further, we found insufficient basis to conclude that (the office of the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs) conceived of or undertook a disciplined effort to assemble a contingent of influential RMAs who could be depended on to comment favorably on DoD (Department of Defense) programs,” it said.

It said the Pentagon invited retired military analysts to 121 meetings, 16 Pentagon briefings, 105 conference calls and nine trips — four to Iraq and five to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“We determined that those activities were conducted in accordance with DoD policies and regulations,” it said.

It said some 70 retired military officers were involved with the program at one time of another.

One, retired general Barry McCaffrey, was not invited back after he criticized the war effort, the report said. Another was blocked from attending, possibly because of a dispute with an unnamed senior military officer, it said.

It said it found no instances where retired officers with ties to military contractors “used information obtained as a result of the … outreach program to achieve a competitive advantage for their company.”

“Of the 70 RMAs that we examined, we found that 20 (29 percent) had some type of corporate association,” it said.

So this is what it comes down to?

leave a comment »

After 13 years of providing the most expansive coverage of anti-imperialistic foreign policy journalism, and proving the manipulating liars wrong on a daily basis with all the best sources, all in one place, regardless of political affiliation and not beholden to the admniistration du jour, this is how much appreciation is shown for their exhaustive efforts?

Oh, I get it. Now that the so-called “peace candidate” has prevailed in the latest Circus of Deceit, you can all go back to sleep and everything will be taken care of for you, even so far as paying your bills and saving your mortgage, as claimed by some such euphoric celebrants. Well, here’s a little reality check for you… this new president’s cabinet is filling up quickly with all the same warmongering, vile murderers from the last democratic administration, the current republican administration and even some from behind the scenes at PNAC. So, if you think there’s going to be some kind of ‘change’ from the outgoing war criminal, to the next one in line to be taking his place, well, better hope you’re not under forty because there’s a good chance you could be dead wrong, just as the millions that have needlessly died at the hands of the last two administrations.

If you’re unaware of Antiwar.com, or have never contributed, or are not on their mailing list, or just take for granted that they’re funded by huge corporations as NPR and the MSM are, you need to read this and please help out if you can. You can’t ‘change’ anything if you don’t know what’s going on.
antiwar_logo

A Personal Appeal From Antiwar.com’s Webmaster

13 Years of Antiwar.com

When I began Antiwar.com in December 1995, a Democrat was in the White House.
His foreign policy was bellicose yet largely supported by the Washington establishment.
As the president bombed Iraq, Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Sudan, it was out of fashion
to be antiwar, and opposing the U.S. empire was left to a tiny minority across the
political spectrum.

Since then I have seen my “hobby” blossom into the most important and widely read
foreign policy site online. We are consistently ranked among the top political news
sites on the Web, reaching up to 100,000 visitors per day with original reportage
and commentary. We also search far and wide to find and publicize news and analysis
that the mainstream media excludes.

Antiwar.com’s popularity boomed in response to George W. Bush’s post-9/11 global
war on terror, especially his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. But remember:
it was U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East in the 1990s and before that led to
the blowback of 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the accompanying assault
on our liberties. We sincerely hope Barack Obama will end the worst excesses of
the Bush administration, but even that will not be enough to secure our peace and freedom
and stop the killing of innocents. The blame for American imperialism and its terrible
consequences transcends party lines. We have no reason to believe these problems
will end on Obama’s watch.

The president-elect has vowed to draw down from Iraq and close Guantanamo, but those
near him have hinted that the changes will not be as dramatic as we have been led
to believe. Meanwhile, he has consistently advocated a bigger military, a surge
in Afghanistan, attacks on Pakistan, and a hardline approach to Iran and Russia.
We also expect a revival of the “humanitarian” interventionism that we saw under
Clinton. On the domestic front, Obama has already caved on surveillance and the
PATRIOT Act. We may hope for the best, but we should prepare for the worst.

Now is not a time for partisanship. The Republicans were handed a deserved rebuke
in the last election. But the unspeakable costs of war are the same regardless of
the party in power. The world needs Antiwar.com as much as ever before, and we need
you to keep us afloat.

We don’t have a huge staff with cushy jobs, living it up on your donations. We appreciate
every penny. We work around the clock. Personally, I work six – sometimes seven – days
a week, from eight in the morning till ten at night. And those are the quiet days…

We don’t take your support for granted. Please don’t take us for granted, either.
Now that most of Bush’s critics have lost their energy and become complacent with
the ascent of Obama, the hard work of watching the War Party falls more heavily
on our shoulders. Please help us carry the load.

Give as much as you can, as soon as you can. Please contribute today.

And thank you.
~ Eric Garris, Webmaster, Antiwar.com

Twist: Eyes of the Insane

leave a comment »

Written by mudshark

September 14, 2008 at 5:28 am

The American Majority

leave a comment »

The American Majority

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.

Carroll Quigley – Author of Tragedy & Hope

The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party’s candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties.

The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.

This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a “wasted” vote. It’s time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one’s vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard.

We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the American world empire. There will be no emphasis in protecting privacy and civil liberties and the constant surveillance of the American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to curtail the rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationship with big banks and international corporations and the politicians.

There is only one way that these issues can get the attention they deserve: the silent majority must become the vocal majority.

This message can be sent to our leaders by not participating in the Great Distraction—the quadrennial campaign and election of an American President without a choice. Just think of how much of an edge a Vice President has in this process, and he or she is picked by a single person—the party’s nominee. This was never intended by the Constitution.

Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess.

Write-in votes should not be discouraged, but the electoral officials must be held accountable and make sure the votes are counted. But one must not be naïve and believe that under today’s circumstances one has a chance of accomplishing much by a write-in campaign.

The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)

Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo—those special interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That can’t be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.

For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.

A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we’ve had enough and want real change than wasting one’s vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.

Ron Paul
Campaign for Liberty

It’s FEAR Season!

leave a comment »

Many, many thanks to ABC News for the opening fesivities to the long-awaited Campaign of FEAR!
I was beginning to think that it would never arrive…

In a recent interview, FBI director Robert Mueller told ABC News of his concerns for homeland security.

“When you have a series of events like this which are very public, where you have a number of people that are congregated together, we take additional precautions,” he said.

“That means identifying, focusing on the intelligence that’s available and scrutinizing it to pieces and running it to ground, to putting in place the precautions to assure the particular events go according to plan and free from terrorist attacks,” he said.

At the moment, the nation’s public threat level will remain at yellow, or “elevated,” but not orange, or “high.”

The reasons: There are no specifics indicating an attack on the U.S. is imminent, and U.S. officials do not want to be accused of trying to inject themselves into the presidential campaign.

“That’s a balancing act,” said Jerry Hauer, former Homeland Security official and ABC News consultant. “They really have to focus on these events and this critical time we’re going through as a nation, but they have to be very careful about the public message to not make it look political or like they’re fearmongering.”

Government officials point to the Sept. 11 attacks, which happened just nine months into a new administration, and the Madrid train bombings, which were carried out just three days before Spain’s 2004 general election.

They say history suggests a need to take potential threats seriously — especially in the very near future.

Bravo, Maestro! Encore, Encore!
Crank it’up, fokker!

Written by mudshark

July 28, 2008 at 9:48 pm