The Lies That Lead to War

moyersLogo
.
Full Show: The Lies That Lead to War

June 27, 2014

As the exploding crisis in Iraq spotlights once again the tragic record of American policy in the Middle East, Bill speaks with investigative journalist Charles Lewis, whose new book, 935 Lies: The Future of Truth and the Decline of America’s Moral Integrity details the many government falsehoods that have led us into the current nightmare.

Lewis details the deceptions and illusions that have caused “most Americans and their elected representatives to completely ignore facts, logic and reason in the rush to war.” A complicit partner, he says, is a media intent on preserving the status quo and never offending the ruling elite.

Lewis tells Bill, “An outrageous thing happened. We lost $2 trillion. More than 100,000 people died. Folks are going to be maimed for life in the tens of thousands… And no one has ever acknowledged that this was a war on a lark. It was a complete war of choice, because a certain little faction wanted to do it and they orchestrated it… Did they make statements that weren’t true? The answer is yes.”

This week’s show begins with an essay by Bill on the foresight of the legendary Lawrence of Arabia, who, after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, predicted the trap in which the West would fall attempting to interfere in the Middle East.

Producer: Gina Kim. Segment Producer: Lena Shemel.Editor: Donna Marino. Intro Producer: Lena Shemel.Intro Editor: Sikay Tang.

Featured image: New White House press secretary Josh Earnest speaks to the media during his first briefing as press secretary, Monday, June 23, 2014, in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

APPENDIX
Moyers on the Media
remnants) of American democracy and most of the most horrendous crimes of our age.

On the media and class warfare[edit]

In a 2003 interview with BuzzFlash.com,^[49] Moyers said, “The corporate right and the political right declared class warfare on working people a quarter of a century ago and they’ve won.” He noted, “The rich are getting richer, which arguably wouldn’t matter if the rising tide lifted all boats.” Instead, however, “[t]he inequality gap is the widest it’s been since 1929; the middle class is besieged and the working poor are barely keeping their heads above water.” He added that as “the corporate and governing elites are helping themselves to the spoils of victory,” access to political power has become “who gets what and who pays for it.”

Meanwhile, the public has failed to react because it is, in his words, “distracted by the media circus and news has been neutered or politicized for partisan purposes.” In support of this, he referred to “the paradox of Rush Limbaugh, ensconced in a Palm Beach mansion massaging the resentments across the country of white-knuckled wage earners, who are barely making ends meet in no small part because of the corporate and ideological forces for whom Rush has been a hero. … As Eric Alterman reports in his recent book—a book that I’m proud to have helped make happen—part of the red meat strategy is to attack mainstream media relentlessly, knowing that if the press is effectively intimidated, either by the accusation of liberal bias or by a reporter’s own mistaken belief in the charge’s validity, the institutions that conservatives revere—corporate America, the military, organized religion, and their own ideological bastions of influence—will be able to escape scrutiny and increase their influence over American public life with relatively no challenge.”^[49]

On media bias[edit]

When he retired in December 2004, the AP News Service quoted Moyers as saying, “I’m going out telling the story that I think is the biggest story of our time: how the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee. We have an ideological press that’s interested in the election of Republicans, and a mainstream press that’s interested in the bottom line. Therefore, we don’t have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American people.”^[50]

SOURCE: Wikipedia

Sweden’s Politically Motivated Persecution of Wikileaks’ Assange

By John Goss, NEWS JUNKIE POST

Assange-EcuadorEmb

[F]or more than two years, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been a de facto political prisoner, confined to the grounds of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Back in August 2010, a Swedish press exclusive with the emotionally charged word “rape,” in connection with Julian Assange’s name, spread rapidly across the world like a viral infection. Since then, it has been difficult to change any public misconception that he has been guilty of forcibly having sex with two women, on separate occasions, within the span of a week. This itself should ring alarm bells: two accusations, days apart. Sweden, against all other advanced legal systems, has its own interpretation of what constitutes rape, and this appears to be anything from consensual sexual relations to forced penetration, and judging from the high-profile Assange farce, it is not a country to which single men would be advised to travel.

There are yet more misconceptions in the public domain. To begin with, Assange has not been charged with any crime regarding sexual misconduct. He is only wanted for questioning to see if there is a case to answer. Proof that this is a political issue comes from the overlooked detail that Assange has already answered questions from a former prosecution team and been cleared to leave Sweden, which he did. Only when Claes Borgström, a man close to both Sweden and the United States, got involved, was the prosecution case re-opened and a European arrest warrant issued as though Assange was a common criminal. Assange, though, has always been prepared to answer any allegations. He just does not want to be extradited to the US, which is what would most likely happen if he were to step foot again on Swedish soil.

The arguments revolve around whether or not a condom was used in one case, that claimed by one of the accusers, and if a condom was used whether or not it was torn in the second case, that claimed by the other accuser. In most countries, including Sweden, such accusations would never normally make it to court, but only in Sweden would they be labeled as rape. To request Assange’s extradition on such flimsy pretexts can only be described as being politically motivated. It would be simple for the prosecution team to go to London and interview Assange about the allegations. Swedish prosecutors and police have done so before on much more serious allegations. As previously speculated, if representatives of the prosecution team were to go to London to question Assange, they know full well that they would come back empty-handed because they, more than any, know there is no case to answer.

Most reasonable people, and this includes a number of Swedish lawyers, think the prosecution team should interview Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy. In a speech in Adelaide, Australia, in April 2013 Supreme Court Justice Stefan Lindskog called the whole affair a “mess” and said he has no idea why the prosecutor has not gone to London to interview Assange. Rolf Hillegren, a former Swedish prosecutor has said virtually the same thing, as we noted in an earlier article. Hillegren believes that this injustice has brought shame on the Swedish judicial system, and the prosecution team have backed themselves into a corner. The only reason they are prolonging the affair now is “prestige,” he suggests. Others might argue that it is to get Assange extradited, to serve the interests of Sweden’s masters across the Atlantic.

In a televised debate on Swedish television in early February 2014, on the Agenda program, the prosecution team made themselves look rather foolish. It is bad enough that all these people, who appear to belong to the same political party and have connections with the very highest pinnacles of the Swedish government, are setting their stall on entrapping Assange a second time, because he revealed through Wikileaks the atrocities of US military actions in Iraq and elsewhere. Anne Ramberg, secretary general of the Swedish Bar Association, was another legal representative on the program who could not understand what was wrong with interviewing Assange in London. She called the previous 18 months a “circus.” Elisabeth Massi Fritz, the legal representative of one of Assange’s accusers and whose contacts in the Swedish government go right to the prime minister, was quick to respond to this debate with an interview to please Sweden’s US masters. While Massi Fritz is keen to get publicity, this must be on her own terms. I wrote to her twice but failed to elicit a response. That, of course, is her prerogative. It seems to be the way the prosecution team treats everybody who tries to push this issue to a conclusion.

Eva Joly is a French Green Party MEP and former investigating magistrate for over 25 years at the High Court of Paris. Having dual citizenship from her native Norway, she is ideally placed to understand Scandinavian legal issues which, coupled with her legal expertise and human rights’ campaigns, makes her a formidable international force. One would expect that at least one member of the Swedish prosecution team would be prepared to meet and discuss with her a possible solution to the Assange impasse. Joly’s concern is not only for Assange but also for his accusers. She has made inquiries to speak with Justice Minister Beatrice Ask, overall prosecutor in the case Marianne Ny, and the chief prosecutor Anders Perklev. All have refused her request for an audience.

Together with three colleagues, Rafik Saley, Okoth Osewe, and Dr. Selim Y. Gool, I have reported Ms Fritz to the Swedish Bar Association for bad legal practice in publishing on her law-firm’s web site an inaccurate article to the detriment of Assange and also issuing conflicting statements on the originally-released testimony of her client. We argued that when people are misrepresented, this affects everybody: an argument Eva Joly has used in her petitioning. Because none of us is directly involved in the case, our report to the Bar Association was rejected.

The cost of this affair has been immense to Swedish and British taxpayers. For example, the Assange case is costing the UK taxpayer nearly £10,000 per day, meaning that more than £7 million have already been wasted on this flippancy. Now that there is so much egg on the face of the prosecution team, not only do they choose not to meet with those who might be able to provide a solution, but also they prolong the case indefinitely at taxpayers expense. Of course, these lawyers are being paid all the time, so the longer they can protract the case, the more lucrative it is for them. The solution has always been a trip to London. There was never any need to seek a European arrest warrant — a warrant reserved for the most heinous criminals — for a case that should be handled in a magistrate or police court. Since the prosecution’s case is flimsy, they believe it is in their best interests to please the US authorities by either delivering Assange to them via Sweden, or keeping him in isolation at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

It is unclear how much more taxpayer money will be spent on this case. Like Sweden, the UK is well disposed towards the US, and nowadays US policy becomes its allies’ policy too. Ultimately, this political intrigue will conclude, as it must, and everyone will wonder why it went on for so long. As Swedish Supreme Court Judge Stefan Lindskog said: “At the end of the day, many years from now, I think Assange will not, even in Sweden, be associated with his efforts to escape the laws of Sweden. He will be thought of as the person who made public some pieces of classified information to the benefit of mankind.”

Editor’s Notes: Photographs two and nine by Djandy. Photographs five and seven by Mark Burban. Photograph three by Marshall. Photograph four by Riq. Photograph six by Threthny and photograph eight by Pamela Drew.

Europe fed up with USA’s whims (Video)

From TGP Superstation & Pravda.ru

BOOKS—RECOLLECTION OF THINGS LEARNED: Remembering Socialism

Contemporary, accessible…This is an ideal introduction to socialism for modern readers

RECOLLECTION OF THINGS LEARNED

: Remembering Socialism
[Kindle Edition] Approx. 108 pp
Gaither Stewart (Author)*
$2.99

Publisher: Punto Press Publishing (June 22, 2014)

Reviewed by William Hathaway

This is an excellent book for understanding our times.

Gaither Stewart is a man of passions. In the Europe Trilogy he shared with us his passion for international espionage and intrigue. In Voices from Pisalocca he shared his passion for village life in his adoptive country, Italy. In The Fifth Sun he shared his passion for Native-American mythology. Now in Recollection of Things Learned he shares his passion for socialism, both the complexity of its theory and the clash of its praxis.

In his new book Stewart shows how capitalism inevitably divides humanity through wars, racism, sexism, and class antagonism. He defines the key aspects of socialism and gives us an historical overview of its development, including critiques of the attempts to achieve it. He presents socialism not as an idealistic panacea but as a sensible process of overcoming humanity’s divisions and building economic and social democracy, where the resources and productive capacity of the world belong to its people, who use them to meet human needs rather than to generate private profits for a few owners. He argues convincingly that reforms can never achieve this goal; the system must be overthrown, and that requires revolution.

Stewart inspires us that, yes, this can be done and we are the ones to do it. He calls us to revolution in prose that is clear, graceful, and always impassioned. Recollection of Things Learned is an excellent book for understanding our times … and changing them.

I wager his closing words will resonate with you for quite some time, as they do with me:

Equality has become the major criterion between the rich and the poor, between the Right and the Left. The Left, though in disarray, struggles for equality. The greedy Right in its drive for endless accumulation strives for ever more inequality. Right and Left are therefore at permanent war.

The social-political-economic war between the two classes of rich and poor, of Right and Left, has been going on since the emergence of private property many civilizations ago. Since the poor are getting poorer and endless war is so good for business, war is destined to continue until the day the 99% rise up and crush the entire system of the 1% and create from the bottom up a new form of society.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Peace activist William Hathaway is a man of many talents. He began his writing career as a newspaper reporter in San Francisco, then joined the Green Berets to write a book about war. A World of Hurt (Taplinger and Avon) won a Rinehart Foundation Award for its portrayal of the psychological roots of war: the emotional blockage and need for patriarchal approval that draw men to the military. CD-RING (Lobster Press) is a young-adult novel about a boy learning the futility of violence and the need for peaceful communication. Summer Snow (Avatar) tells of an American warrior in Central Asia who falls in love with a Sufi Muslim and learns from her an alternative to the military mentality. Radical Peace: People Refusing War (Trine Day) presents the true stories of war resisters and deserters in the USA, Europe, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

__________________________

This book is published by Punto Press, a publishing imprint of The Greanville Post. Purchasing this book will count as an indirect donation to our efforts. And if you like the book, please consider posting a review with Amazon!

*DISCLOSURE: Gaither Stewart serves as Senior Editor and European Correspondent for The Greanville Post, and Cyrano’s Journal Today.

Wikileaks Cables: Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in Washington’s Pocket Since 2006

Wikileak Cables Poroshenko in Washington's Pocket

It turns out that Ukraine’s new president, Petro Poroshenko, has been working for the U.S. government since at least 2006 and they knew he was corrupt.

There’s not much point in staging a coup if you don’t influence who is placed in power in the aftermath. Of course in order for a puppet government to be effective, they can’t be perceived as such. You wouldn’t want the natives to get restless would you?

The evidence that the U.S. was behind the toppling of the Ukrainian government early this year is so overwhelming at this point that the subject really isn’t up for debate, however initially it was unclear how the election of Petro Poroshenko fit in. The ecstatic response by Washington when he was declared the winner, and their unbending support in spite of his ongoing military assault against civilians in the east,made it clear that he was the chosen one, but the paper trail wasn’t immediately obvious.

As it turns out, the evidence that Poroshenko is in the pocket of the U.S. State Department has been available all this time, you just had to know where to find it. In a classified diplomatic cable from 2006 released by Wikileaks.org, U.S. officials refer to Poroshenko as “Our Ukraine (OU) insider Petro Poroshenko”.

A separate cable also released by Wikileaks makes it clear that the U.S. government was considered Poroshenko corrupt.
“Poroshenko was tainted by credible corruption allegations, but wielded significant influence within OU; Poroshenko’s price had to be paid.”

The U.S. government knew Poroshenko was dirty, but he was influential, and arguably their most dependable mole.

Perhaps the most interesting revelation comes from a 2009 cable where Poroshenko told then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton he supported “the opening of a U.S. diplomatic presence in Crimea” and “He emphasized the importance of Crimea, and said that having U.S. representation there would be useful for Ukraine.” Poroshenko’s role as an informant for the U.S. government continued in cables in 2010 as well.

Reading through the cables, I have to wonder if Poroshenko was actually breaking Ukrainian law by sharing the kind of strategic information that he did. Considering that this information was certainly used when planning the coup against Yanukovich, one could argue that he committed treason.

Poroshenko, however, isn’t the only Ukrainian politician mentioned. For example, the cables mention the scandal surrounding Oleksandr Turchynov’s destruction of SBU documents tying Julia Tymoshenko to organized crime, and note that the accusation that Tymoshenko wanted Turchynov get the Interior Minister position so that she could gather damaging information on her enemies. The cable refers to this accusation as “not farfetched”. Turchynov went on to be installed as the acting president of Ukraine in the provisional government.

In order to grasp the extent of the U.S. government’s tinkering in Ukraine it is worth reading the documents for yourself.