GOING AFTER THE WORTHLESS AMERICAN MEDIA

"Yes, we will be naming names -- myself included."
~ Sibel Edmonds.

Sibel Edmonds has a new article about the swindling of the American voter:

Despite all the promises Mr. Obama made during his campaign, especially on those issues that were absolutely central to those whose support he garnered, so far the President of Change has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor. Not only that, his administration has made it clear that they intend to continue this trend. Some call it a major betrayal. Can we go so far as to call it a ‘swindling of the voters’?

She goes on to enumerate the Obama flip-flops on NSA warantless wiretapping, accountability on torture, teh revival of the military commission, and the continuation of war--also known as democracy by force--and more. Take a look for more change you can believe in.

She also remarks on the self-censorship of journalists with regard to her case, although she refers to it as "fear-induced censorship":

Yes, I am going to begin with the issue of State Secrets Privilege; because I was the first recipient of this ‘privilege’ during the now gone Administration; because long before it became ‘a popular’ topic among the ‘progressive experts,’ during the time when these same experts avoided writing or speaking about it; when many constitutional attorneys had no idea we even had this "law" - similar to and based on the British ‘Official Secret Act; when many journalists did not dare to question this draconian abuse of Executive Power; I was out there, writing, speaking, making the rounds in Congress, and fighting this ‘privilege’ in the courts. And because in 2004 I stood up in front of the Federal Court building in DC, turned to less than a handful of reporters, and said, ‘This, my case, is setting a precedent, and you are letting this happen by your fear-induced censorship. Now that they have gotten away with this, now that you have let them get away, we’ll be seeing this ‘privilege’ invoked in case after case involving government criminal deeds in need of cover up.’ Unfortunately I was proven right.

Now it looks like she will be leading the charge in exposing the worthless American media with a new project, the Project Expose MSM:

We all have been tirelessly screaming about issues related to Congressional leaders abdicating their main responsibility of 'oversight.' We have been outraged for way too long at seeing 'no' accountability whatsoever in many known cases of extreme wrongdoing. I, and many of you, believe that the biggest reason for this was, and still is, the lack of true journalism and media coverage -- which acts as the necessary pressure and catalyst for those spineless politicians on the Hill and in the Executive branch. Or, at least it's supposed to. So, in our book, the MSM has been the main culprit.

Well, here is a chance to turn the tables.

At my new blog, 123 Real Change, I'm happy to present an experimental project, Project Expose MSM, created to provide readers with specific mainstream media blackout and/or misinformation cases based on the documented and credible first-hand experiences of legitimate sources and whistleblowers.123 Real Change is inviting all members of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), other active (covert or overt) government whistleblowers, and even reporters themselves, to publish their experiences in regard to their own first-hand dealings with the media, where their legit disclosures were either intentionally censored, blacked out or tainted.

Yes, we will be naming names -- myself included.

For an initial example of naming names, check the rest of her post.

Recently there has been much crying and hand-wringing, mainly from journalists, who worry about the fact that newspapers in the US are folding. The problem that these journalists fail to acknowledge is that they are the main cause of their own demise for many of the very reasons that Sibel discusses in her post. It boils down to a betrayal of public trust. They do not investigate to expose corruption and alert the public to the wrongdoing of those the public have elected. The death of professional journalism as we know it in the US is richly deserved.

Here are the comments of an old-school American journalist on the problem:

. . . Unfortunately, a few huge corporations now dominate the media landscape. And the news business is at war with journalism. Virtually everything the average person sees or hears outside of her own personal communications is determined by the interests of private, unaccountable executives and investors whose primary goal is increasing profits and raising the company's share price. One of the best newspaper groups, Knight Ridder - whose reporters were on to the truth about Iraq early on - was recently sold and broken up because a tiny handful of investors wanted more per share than they were getting.

Almost all the networks carried by most cable systems are owned by one of the major media conglomerates. Two-thirds of today's newspaper markets are monopolies, and they're dumbing down. As ownership gets more and more concentrated, fewer and fewer independent sources of information have survived in the marketplace. And those few significant alternatives that do survive, such as PBS and NPR, are under growing financial and political pressure to reduce critical news content.

[ , , , ]

At the same time we have seen the rise of an ideological partisan press that is contemptuous of reality, serves up right-wing propaganda as fact, and attempts to demonize anyone who says otherwise. Its embodiment is Rush Limbaugh. Millions heard him take journalists to task for their reporting on the torture at Abu Ghraib, which he attempted to dismiss as a little necessary sport for soldiers under stress. He said: "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation. . . . You ever heard of people [who] need to blow some steam off?"

So we can't make the case today that the dominant institutions of the press are guardians of democracy. They actually work to keep reality from us, whether it's the truth of money in politics, the social costs of "free trade," growing inequality, the resegregation of our public schools, or the devastating onward march of environmental deregulation. It's as if we are living on a huge plantation in a story told by the boss man.

There is no difference between right-wing propaganda and so-called left-wing propaganda in the US, despite the fact that there are those who ignorantly refer to Obama and his administration as "socialist"; there is no left wing in the American political arena.

In these issues of the media and the one-party system lie the two main differences between the US and the old Soviet Union: in the Soviet Union, there was dissent and everyone knew that the state lied to them. Not so in the US, not so.

I TOLD YOU SO

"We have made the Reich by propaganda."
~ Joesph Goebbels.

Same shit. Different day.

UPDATE ON İSMAİL BEŞİKÇİ

"A good teacher is like a candle - it consumes itself to light the way for others."
~ Author Unknown.

A little more than a month ago there was some "news" about an unnamed group of intellectuals who charged that HPG had published on its website two articles that threatened, insulted, and denigrated İsmail Beşikçi.

A search for the alleged articles revealed nothing, not even in Google's cache. The group of intellectuals remains unnamed. In fact, the group doesn't even have a name or, at least, not a name that has been named in Turkish media. My guess is that the intellectuals in question sit on the Turkish general staff.

In the meantime, an article by one of the writers named in Bianet's article, Adil Kurtay, appeared on Özgür Gündem. It's a long one but there is never any insult, denigration, threat, or blackmail of Beşikçi. On the contrary, Beşikçi is addressed as "sayın hocamız" right off the bat and Kurtay continues to address him as "hocamız" or "hocam" throughout the article. Kurtay also uses "siz"--the polite and formal pronoun--in speaking to Beşikçi throughout. It's hard to see how that would be construed as "insulting" or "denigrating".

Kurtay uses a quote from Beşikçi, in which Beşikçi says that free criticism is not only a condition of science, but also a basic condition of democracy. Beşikçi asks if there will be democracy without free criticism. For this reason, according to Beşikçi, PKK must be able to criticize Abdullah Öcalan.

Kurtay uses Beşikçi's own notion of "free criticism" against him by replying to various quotes Beşikçi has made regarding Öcalan and the PKK and someone doesn't like the idea that there is a response to what amounts to the Ankara regime's official stance on Öcalan and the PKK. In other words, "free criticism" is not free.

Most of the criticisms that Beşikçi makes, which Kurtay responds to, are the same old ridiculous criticisms that have been going around in anti-apocular circles--including among the Kurdish members of those circles--for some time. What would be truly interesting would be to trace how the very same criticisms flow from Beşikçi's pen or mouth to the eyes or ears of those who really have no connection to Turkish-occupied Kurdistan and how they jump so easily from one language to many others.

Besides, as Kurtay's response shows, many of those claims are, in fact, falsehoods, while others, from notes of Öcalan's meetings with his lawyers, are taken entirely out of context.

The main point of contention is that Öcalan, the PKK, the DTP, and the great majority of Northern Kurds do not want a separation from Turkey. Yeah, I know that little spray of cold water will be painful for many to hear, but it's the truth and that's why PKK has stated over and over again that it does not seek a solution outside the borders of Turkey. Beşikçi, on the other hand, push for a state. Conveniently, that point of view plays into the hands of the TSK.

Kurtay makes an observation that is usually ignored by the so-called "experts" on the Kurdish question, and that is that in the immediate aftermath of Öcalan's capture by international forces, while some thousands of Kurds took to the streets in protest of the international conspiracy and thousands were arrested, where was Beşikçi? This long-time observer of the Kurdish question, who had written books and spent 17 years in prison for his work; this sociologist who was trained to observe and comment in context said absolutely nothing about the global Kurdish reaction. Why?

The only others who refrained from either protesting or condemning were the KDP.

And now that I have mentioned the 17 years that Beşikçi spent in Turkish prisons it's time to recall something that Beşikçi said in a Milliyet interview from 2006:

M: Are you thinking that Öcalan, after he went to Imralı, is his era finished?

İB: He is a man in the hands of the state. He is under the supervision of the state.

M: Can't he speak comfortably?

İB: Yeah, he talks a lot but when he talks he only talks about the state. I know this myself. In 1985 I had written a letter from prison to my friend. It was about the Kurdish question. They returned that letter to me and said, "You are also committing a crime in prison. We will ask for disciplinary proceedings". A situation like that, where you talk about a very innocent thing, like the Kurds . . . But Öcalan, for example, "Declares war!" The state didn't take any step. "Again resort to arms." Under such high control, how can he state such things? Then the state also had a demand for it.

Indeed, the same can be said for Beşikçi. He is a man in the hands of the state, under the supervision of the state, and the state has a demand for the continued fantasy of separatism and for alleged threats, insults, and denigration of Beşikçi from HPG. That makes for excellent propaganda. Yes. Indeed.

Later, KCK Executive Committee member Mustafa Karasu made a statement regarding the Beşikçi incident:

PKK criticizes Besikci, but never blackmails him.

We have criticized Ismail Besikci's approach to our leadership. We stressed that the remarks he had made about PKK and its struggle are not true. We stated that it is being done wrong both to PKK and Leader Apo regarding this issue. Naturally our ideological approaches and paradigms are different than Ismail Besikci's perspective. Our perspective on the state is ideological. We see every kind of state against democracy and freedom. About this issue, the Kurdish people's leader has a comprehensive analysis. Of course, naturally, we did not find it correct for Besikci to make different kinds of remarks rather than criticizing Leader Apo and PKK's approach to the state on an ideological basis. Especially his approach to the leadership is not ethical. We conveyed openly our view and criticisms to him through media.

It has been said that a writing showed up on HPG's site that had blackmailed Ismail Besikci. We didn't read it. We don't think blackmail would be done. Maybe it was a knee-jerk reaction. Maybe an inappropriate tone had been used; however as a movement we do not have neither such an attitude or approach to blackmail Ismail Besikci. It is not true that our movement blackmailed Ismail Besikci. There are associations that make evaluations on behalf of the movement. In addition to that, there are friends who talk on behalf of the movement whose speech binds the movement. For this reason we see the phrase, "Ismail Besikci has been blackmailed" as a provocation. It has been said that signatures have been collected. We haven't received them yet. But we want those people who signed that paper to know this.

I don't blame Beşikçi. He is old now and I'm sure he doesn't want to see the inside of a prison again. It appears to me that the state is using him, conjuring up imaginary "insults" by HPG and then conjuring up imaginary "intellectuals" to become chagrined at the imaginary "denigration". Beşikçi has done his part and helped to make the world aware of the Kurdish situation at a time when it was extremely dangerous to speak out. Sayın hocamız may rest with honor now, and let us sincerely hope that he does so.

KURDISH PHONES, "TERRORISM", PROPAGANDA

"The enormous US support for the massive atrocities of the 1990s in this region, which are some of the worst in the world in this period, is based on the role of Turkey within the US system of domination of the region. It’s not out of love of the Turks. It is out of love for the services that Turkey can perform in the region."
~ Noam Chomsky.

The next time you're in Amed (Diyarbakır), check out the Kurdish phones. From Hürriyet (Thanks to Gordon Taylor for the link):

New mobiles phones for the first time featuring Kurdish as a language option have been an instant hit.

[ . . . ]

"We started selling the mobile phones in Diyarbakır today and we were surprised as the Kurdish mobiles have proven very popular." [Employee Uğur] Akar also said that they could apply the Kurdish menu to any type of mobile phone and the D550 and D530 models of TTN Mobile also feature a Turkish menu selection. Akar said the price range for the Kurdish menu mobile phones varied from 210 to 250 Turkish liras. Akar announced the opening of the sale of Kurdish phones on a poster in Kurdish on the door of his store that read:"Mizgin, Mizgin, Mizgin, Çave We Roni Derket Telefona Kurdi," (Good news, good news, good news, Kurdish phones are out).

You know that any phone that's advertisement starts out "Mizgîn, Mizgîn, Mizgîn" has got to be good.

Also stop by Hevallo's place because he's got a post up announcing that Turkey tops the list of human rights abusers, according to the ECHR. According to the report, 57% of the applications to the ECHR were filed against four countries--Turkey, the Russian Federation, Romania, and Ukraine--while applications from 43 other EU countries made up the balance of the total. The ECHR made 257 judgements against Turkey in 2008. Surprise, surprise, surprise! Not.

Gordon Taylor also has a new post at The Pasha and The Gypsy, a re-write of an earlier post about a PKK şehîd named Aynur, "The Mona Lisa of Kurdistan".

Although I have no love for Hezbollah, you should also take a look at something The Saker posted today regarding First Amendment (i.e. free speech, free expression) rights, or the growing lack thereof. I have to concur with much of The Saker's commentary:

Commentary: needless to say, the Justice Department under President Obama could drop the charges, but the sad, and frightening, reality is that it will not. So much for Obama's "yes we can" and promises of change crap. Equally frightening is the silence surrounding this case. With the possible exception of people with severe brain damage, it is plainly clear to anyone that the US list of "terrorist organizations" is purely a political tool to brand some groups and not others, depending on their stance towards the USA and Israel.

[ . . . ]

Phase one: any organization worldwide the US government does not like, it can brand as "terrorist". Phase two: spreading any information about this organization becomes a federal crime. Phase three: Anyone challenging this risks being jailed.

Oh, yeah, change we can believe in!

There was also this today:

The United States accused a Kurdish group operating in the border region between Iraq and Iran of being controlled by terrorists and moved to financially isolate the group.

The Treasury Department leveled the allegation Wednesday against Free Life Party of Kurdistan, or PJAK, saying it is controlled by the terrorist group Kongra-Gel, or KGK, which also goes by the name of Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK.

The action means that any bank accounts or other financial assets found in the United States belonging to PJAK must be frozen. Americans also are forbidden from contributing money or doing business with the organization.

Again: Surprise, surprise, surprise!

So I guess that's why these fuckers showed up around here today:

Domain Name treas.gov (U.S. Government)
IP Address 63.167.255.# (Sprint)
ISP Sprint
Location
Continent North America
Country United States (Facts)
Lat/Long 38, -97 (Map)
Language unknown
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; GTB5; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

Internet Explorer?? Losers.

Bianet has a story--and I do mean a story--about Turkish intellectuals who claim that HPG's website has issued "threats" against Turkish sociologist İsmail Beşikçi by "insulting and denigrating" him. How insults or denigration equal "threats" I haven't figured out yet, but a similar campaign was promoted a few years ago with Serok as the target. However, the Bianet story does not provide a link to any article by any HPG writers who've written anything about Beşikçi. My own search of HPG-Online, which is not available in Turkey, revealed nothing about Beşikçi nor anything about Beşikçi by the accused, Adil Kurtay or Kasım Engin.

It's another nice try by the propagandists but as far as I'm concerned, either put up or shut up.

FALSE FLAG OPERATION PLANNED FOR 2009

"I personally think that everyone - journalists, professors, politicians - must think about the implications of the strategy if tension and the false flag. Here we are, indeed, in presence of phenomena that escape from every kind of agreement. That is why, every time that there are terrorist attacks, we must ask questions and try to understand what that implies."
~ Daniele Ganser.

It sounds to me like the Washington regime is planning another, major, false flag operation like it did seven years ago to initiate the corporate-friendly "Global War on Terror, Inc."

From 20 October:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

From Colin "Saddam-Has-Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction" Powell:

From Madeleine "One-Million-Dead-Iraqi-Kids-Are-Definitely-Worth-It" Allbright:

Coincidentally, or not, the Pentagon and its consultants are all ready to act:

Veteran Pentagon consultant Michael Bayer, chairman of the Defense Business Board, told his fellow panelists that the new president's inner circle should "set aside time in transition to identify the planning, gravitas and interagency process necessary to respond to a likely first-270-day crisis."

Because the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act weren't enough, Congress is looking into creating a domestic "intelligence" agency:

The United Kingdom has MI-5, which roots out spies and terrorists in the British Isles.

Canada has CSIS -- the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Now Congress is asking: Should the U.S. have its own domestic intelligence agency?

On Monday, at the request of Congress, the RAND Corporation outlined the pros and cons of establishing a domestic intelligence agency. It also discussed different ways to organize a new entity, either as part of an existing department or as a new agency.

Also--again because the PATRIOT Act and Military Commissions Act weren't enough--NORTHCOM became operational on 1 October:

On October 1, the Pentagon, for the first time ever, dedicated an Army force specifically to NorthCom, which is in charge of securing not some foreign region but the United States of America.

The unit it assigned is the 3rd Infantry, First Brigade Combat Team, which has spent three of the last five years in Iraq. It was one of the first units to get to Baghdad, and it was active in retaking and patrolling Fallujah. One of its specialties is counterinsurgency.

This marks a change for NorthCom, which was established on October 1, 2002. Its website still says it “has few permanently assigned forces,” and that “the command is assigned forces whenever necessary to execute missions, as ordered by the President and the Secretary of Defense.”

Leahy “asked for a briefing from his staff” on this development and “wants to monitor the situation,” an aide to Leahy said.

Leahy was instrumental in getting Congress to repeal the “Insurrection Act Rider” in the 2006 defense appropriations bill. That rider had given the President sweeping power to use military troops in ways contrary to the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act. The rider authorized the President to have troops patrol our streets in response to disasters, epidemics, and any “condition” he might cite.

Meanwhile, can it be that the US Joint Chiefs of Staff have already been coordinating the upcoming false flag operation with the general staffs of other nations?

Will that upcoming false flag operation have anything to do with biowarfare? Were the recent anthrax-wannabe mailings a dry-run for all of this?

Just in case, the Department of Homeland Security will be opening a new bio-"defense" lab in Maryland.

Inquiring minds want to know.

MANUFACTURING CONSENT FOR WHOM?

"I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world — in the field of advertising - and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency ... Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious ... I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours ... and we tend to disbelieve ours."
~ Soviet correspondent based five years in the US.

More, from Luke Ryland, on America's Newspaper of Record, the spinning of yarns, and Sibel Edmonds:

************

A front page article "In Nuclear Net’s Undoing, a Web of Shadowy Deals" in last Monday's New York Times by David Sanger and William Broad details the destruction of evidence by the US government in a case involving the nuclear black market.

The article highlights again that the New York Times continues to engage in 'Judy Miller reporting' by warmongering and acting as a mouthpiece for the government.

This is the third article in a multi-part series. This article will focus on the NY Times' appalling reliance on government-friendly sources, the lack of any actual investigative reporting, the lack of supporting evidence, and the absence of any dissenting views. (The first piece of the series focused on the players in the AQ Khan / BSA Tahir nuclear smuggling ring, the second article focused on the countries involved.)

Given the New York Times recent history of being used and abused by their anonymous government sources you might think they ought to be a little more diligent when reporting a story such as this, but apparently they haven't learnt their lesson from the recent debacles such as Iraq/WMD or Anthrax/Hatfill.

David Sanger and William Broad need look no further back than their early reporting on this same story to see how badly they are getting spun - although given their performance, it appears that they don't even care.

As just one example, that previous article was a transparent attempt to spin the story away from the fact that the US government bailed out members of the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network. The article noted that the AQ Khan had nuclear "blueprints" which are "rapidly reproducible for creating a weapon that is relatively small and easy to hide" which makes these weapons "attractive to terrorists."

Now Sanger and Broad tell us in their current article that these plans are "sketchy and incomplete" which have "little or no value for a terrorist..." There was no correction, no apology, no remorse or embarrassment, and apparently no lessons learned.

Despite this history, Broad and Sanger again spoke to "five current and former Bush administration officials" - presumably the same sources as their previous article - and gave them the cover of anonymity to again spread transparent nonsense. Apparently Sanger and Broad didn't even wonder why a handful of Bush administration officials were willing to talk to them about these 'classified' operations, and it surely won't occur to them to ask why the Bush administration hasn't opened up a leak investigation either.

Corroboration?

Last month, investigative journalist Joe Lauria joked that American journalists need five sources for something personally witnessed by the journalist. This is true for whistle-blowers, but there is a double-standard when it comes to official government sources. This kid-glove treatment of US officials is remarkable given the lies that we have been fed, particularly over the past seven years.

Did Sanger and Broad actually do anything to corroborate the story apart from speak to the five Bush officials who were all singing off the same hymn-sheet? Did they interview Richard Barlow, expert on Pakistan's nuclear program for his thoughts? Did they ask decorated British customs agent Atif Amin whether the story made any sense? Or former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds? Of course not.

Perhaps Sanger and Broad could have, for example, asked 'Dr Brian Jones, a former defence intelligence WMD specialist,' for his opinion. He was quoted in the Guardian on this very story back in June saying that he was "suspicious that the disclosure might be politically motivated." But that sort of thing would never get published in a US newspaper - unless it was a government source trying to undermine a whistle-blower.

Standard of Proof

If a whistle-blower tries to shed some light on government wrongdoing, then the Corporate Press in the US demands documents and multiple points of corroboration, and even then often don't run the story. They will question his or her motives, or they will argue that it is too difficult to establish the legitimacy of the whistle-blower case, or simply accept the government's denials.

In many cases, this standard of proof is legitimate, but it is applied so inconsistently that it turns the newspapers into organs of the government. The US corporate media will publish just about anything the government says, despite the Bush administration's documented history of lying to the press and the public. On the other hand, it is nearly impossible to get the US press to write about important matters that are not government-approved.

Again, take the case of Sibel Edmonds. Despite the fact that senators from both major parties reported that the case is credible, despite the fact that the FBI confirmed a lot of the case, despite the Justice Department's Inspector General's report, despite the State Secrets Privilege, despite the fact that there has not been a single substantial denial, despite the corroboration by Phil Giraldi, a CIA agent based in Turkey, despite the corroboration from veteran FBI agents John Cole and Gilbert Graham, the US media still can't report on the story.

I asked Sibel for a quote on this story, she said:

"You see this over and over again, and I'm not just talking about my case. As you know, my organization represents nearly 150 National Security whistle-blowers, and dealing with the US mainstream media, both the networks and print, we have faced the same double standards and bias consistently. Even if you get a high-ranking National Security whistle-blower with an impeccable record and no agenda, the response from the US media is "We need at least 2 or 3 more independent witnesses, as well as hard documents."

The same media reports the government propaganda & agenda-driven leaks as undisputed fact, based on a statement from a spokesperson from one of the agencies; no request for documents, no request for independent witnesses...

Another interesting thing with the whistle-blower cases is that the MSM always use words such as 'allegations' but when they act as government mouthpieces, you rarely see any evidence of doubt or phrases like that."

We've heard from numerous sources that the US government warned reporters off writing about Sibel's story earlier this year after the UK's Times published their series on the case. The reporters were told that they would be compromising a sting operation and harming national security if they published any information about this case - and they all fell for it! The same is true of the alternate media including the blogosphere to a large extent. Steve Clemons, respected by many, apparently spoke to some of his State Dept friends before deciding that Sibel must have been only seen the ""raw intel", unprocessed, or coordinated" communications of a sting operation - despite the corroboration of the FBI agents involved in the operation.

US Press vs Foreign Press

Sibel has another example involving the nuclear black market and the US press:

"Let me give you one other example, Luke. In 2004 when Josh Meyer of the LA Times did a long but incomplete story on the Karni case, it was reported to him that one of the most important actors and angles in his article was that of Zeki Bilmen & Giza Technology. Bilmen's role and nationality were conveniently censored in the article.

Despite my efforts to get Meyer to report the relevance and significance of the Bilmen angle, and the FBI's files on him, Meyer bought in to the government's protection of Turkey and the Turkish angle. Of course, later, other outlets (mostly foreign) picked up Bilmen's significance, but still not a peep or follow-up to this day from the LA Times on this important story."

Somehow, in the logic of the US corporate press, it is more legitimate to print unsubstantiated claims of a warmongering administration, with a history of lying in order to go to war, than the substantiated claims of Sibel Edmonds who has consistently demonstrated a clean, agenda-free, non-partisan, track record of trying to expose high-level officials whose activities endanger us all.

The foreign press is much better in these matters. The Guardian's reporting on the nuclear black market has been way ahead of the pack. Their May 31 article on the destruction of evidence in the Tinner case was 3 months ahead of this latest nonsense from the NY Times (which also calls into question the timing of this later Sanger/broad article), they have also reported on the case of Atif Amin, and shown appropriate skepticism regarding the leaks and spin on the Tinner case. Germany's Der Spiegel has also done great reporting on this nuclear black market ring.

"Make-Believe Journalism

For this article, I also interviewed Joe Lauria who was co-author of the UK's Sunday Times series on Sibel's case. I'll quote him extensively here:

"Obviously I believe that government sources must be held up to the same scrutiny as critics of government. Both need supporting evidence to back up their claims. When an official says something it might be "official" but it's not necessarily true. The role of corporate media as stenographer for government has grown in recent years, with Judy Miller's case being the most prominent. But I believe the dictates of careerism and the desire to be included in the "inner circle", especially in Washington, coupled with a vicarious sense of power, leads mainstream journalists to uncritically report the statements of government officials...

There was a brief period when American journalism fulfilled its promised, during the Watergate scandal. But today the vast majority of corporate reporters essentially fulfill the role of a state-owned press. Since we live in a corporatist state, it's not far off from the truth. I also think there is an element of naivete here. Many journalists really believe that government officials are working in the people's interests and not, more often, working for their own interests and those of their elite backers...

The result of all this is that American news reporting creates a "make-believe", almost childish view of America’s role in the world. It transmits the American myth of the nobility of America’s foreign policy and use of the military to spread democracy, or look for weapons of mass destruction, never entertaining that America could be the aggressor. The media is still rooted in America’s role in the Second World War as liberator, not explaining that that has diametrically changed. The reason for this is simple: it is a corporate press providing this "make-believe" cover for corporate and government agendas. Behind this media-created buffer or curtain between the people and the power is US involvement in the shadows with drug dealing, nuclear proliferation and terrorism. Even a suspicion of these dealings never gets through the curtain of news and entertainment distraction to reach the American people. The leading presidential candidates and the conventions of both parties of course uphold these myths, never leveling with the American people. Therefore they do not know that there is only so much money to pay for a military empire or for social services at home. And the press never explains it in these stark terms."

Summary

David Sanger & William Broad continue to promote the "make-believe" view of American foreign policy, hiding anything of significance from the American people.

They might serve a useful purpose for their government masters, but their function certainly isn't as 'journalists.' Whatever the reason for the Times to provide the government's preferred spin on this case, David Sanger and William Broad have earned their place in the Judy Miller Hall of Fame.

************

Cross-posted at Let Sibel Edmonds Speak and DailyKos.

The primary thoughts that I have on this article are those from Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's book, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. According to them, and backed up by copious examples--indicating research, that with which bullshit American media journalists (BAJ) are so loathe to engage--there are five filters to the modern Propaganda Model. These include:

1. Size, ownership, and profit orientation of the mass media

2. The advertising license to do business

3. Sourcing mass media news

4. Flak and the enforcers

5. Anticommunism as a control mechanism [these days, one can substitute "terrorism" for "anticommunism", although that old, phoney, bogeyman does occasionally still rear its ugly head]

According to Herman and Chomsky, the bullshit American media is "drawn into a symbiotic relationship with powerful suorces of information by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest". In other words, big, "reliable" sources, like the government is able to provide a steady flow of information, the details of which BAJs don't have to substantiate. And these BAJs don't want to. It makes a lot of work and their editors are not going to give the okay for the funds such research would require. Besides, you might find out your masters are lying to you and you'd catch "flak" from "the enforcers", and this would block the flow of advertising cash. It's so much easier all around just to ignore Truth, as we see in the matter of Sibel Edmonds.

To finish, I have to mention a long quote from Manufacturing Consent, because I feel it's most appropriate to the information contained in Luke's article:

In effect, the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access by their contribution to reducing the media's costs of acquiring the raw materials of, and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become "routine" news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers. It should also be noted that in the case of the largesse of the Pentagon and the State Department's Office of Public Diplomacy, and the subsidy is at the taxpayers' expense, so that, in effect, the citizenry pays to be propagandized in the interest of powerful groups such as military contractors and other sponsors of state terrorism.

Because of their services, continuous contact on the beat, and mutual dependency, the powerful can use personal relationships, threats, and rewards to further influence and coerce the media. The media may feel obligated to carry extremely dubious stories and mute criticism in order not to offend their sources and disturb a close relationship. It is very difficult to call authorities on whom one depends for daily news liars, even if they tell whoppers. Critical sources may be avoided not only because of their lesser availability and higher cost of establishing credibility, but also because the primary sources may be offended and may even threaten the media using them.

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, second edition, page 22.

"[T]he citizenry pays to be propagandized in the interest of powerful groups such as military contractors and other sponsors of state terrorism." A shitty state of affairs but obviously true.

AMERICAN MEDIA CONTINUES THE COVER-UP

"We have made the Reich by propaganda."
~ Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda.

Luke Ryland has another article out about Sibel Edmonds' case and nuclear blackmarketing, including the role of Turkish businessmen in supplying materials for A.Q. Khan's nuclear smuggling ring, as he picks apart a recent NYTimes pro-Washington regime propaganda piece on the subject.

Luke mentions Judy Miller-style reporting, and the fact that the two media lapdogs, William Sanger and David Broad, co-authored a book with Miller. Judy Miller was one of the major propagandists who helped spread Bush regime lies that led to the current Iraq War. She also helped the Bush regime out former CIA operative Valerie Plame, who was investigating the Pakistani nuclear blackmarketing ring through fine, upstanding institutions such as the American Turkish Council.

It's sufficient to say that if Judy Miller is mentioned, you'd better believe a big load of shit is coming your way.

You may also want to reference yesterday's post and how the bullshit American media constantly works to cover up or under-report Turkish involvement in a lot of very dirty business.

Now why is that?

************

A front page article "In Nuclear Net’s Undoing, a Web of Shadowy Deals" in Monday's New York Times by William Sanger and David Broad details the destruction of evidence by the US government in a case involving the nuclear black market.

The article highlights again that the New York Times continues to engage in 'Judy Miller reporting' by warmongering and acting as a mouthpiece for the government.

In the article, Sanger and Broad (who co-wrote a book, Germs, with Judy Miller):

1. Provide an incomplete and misleading story by conveniently withholding pertinent, established facts.

2. Spin the story towards Iran, and away from other governments, fulfilling the government's propaganda needs again.

3. Carry out no investigation, relying on government spokespeople without checking facts, relying on documents, or agenda-free sources.

In this article, I will focus on the way that the New York Times cherrypicked details, excluding key, relevant information resulting in a misleading story which coincidentally fits the government's agenda like a glove. In the coming days, I'll return to some of the other problems with the article.

The NY Times article focuses on selected, cherrypicked elements of the Tinner family who were key suppliers in one ring of AQ Khan's nuclear proliferation network, while mostly ignoring the other key players who worked with the Tinners in the ring. The New York Times again does the government's bidding, selectively sanitizing the article, in order to hide the fact that US allies are key proliferators.

Der Spiegel, which has done great work covering this story, described the hierarchy of the network, noting that the Tinners were just one of four division managers:

"At the top of the hierarchy was a confidant of Khan's, Sri Lankan businessman Buhary Seyed Abu Tahir, who acted as a business manager of sorts, responsible for payments and contracts. He also appointed several division managers, who may not even have known of each other's existence. They were comprised of the Swiss Tinner family of engineers, including Friedrich Tinner and his sons Urs and Marco, who were apparently responsible for centrifuge parts; Briton Peter Griffin, a specialist in the procurement of tool-making machines; and (Gotthard) Lerch, whose job, as the prosecution claims, was to obtain the pipes that connect the centrifuges. Lerch's source for the pipes was Gerhard Wisser, a German national living in South Africa, with whom he had been doing business for decades."

Here is a more complete list of known actors in the nuclear proliferation ring that the Tinners were involved with:

BSA Tahir

Tahir, based in Dubai, was AQ Khan's Chief Operating Officer and right hand man. Tahir began working with Khan in 1995. In 2002, Tahir recruited Urs Tinner to help produce centrifuge parts, supplied in part by his brother and father. Tahir's involvement in the network was documented in a Malaysian Police Report in 2004, soon after a ship called the BBC China was intercepted on the way to Libya, filled with products from AQ Khan.

Interestingly, Tahir was released from prison two months ago in Malaysia because he is no longer considered a 'national security threat.'

Selim Alguadis, Gunes Cire & Hank Slebos

Turkish businessmen Alguadis and Cire were also key suppliers to the Tahir-Tinner ring. Alguadis' company, EKA, and Cire's company ETI Elektroteknik were both caught supplying hardware for Libya's nuclear program when the BBC China was intercepted.

Hank Slebos, a supplier to Khan's network for decades, was also a part owner of Gunes Cire's ETI Elektroteknik.

Despite their role supplying BSA Tahir, neither Alguadis nor Cire were ever convicted, and their companies continue to operate freely in Turkey. Slebos was sentenced to 12 months prison (8 months suspended, 4 months served) in 2005 for his role.

Turkey has a key role in the nuclear black market. In fact, IAEA investigators noted that the nuclear hardware supplied by Turkey to the AQ Khan ring - including 7000 centrifuge motors - "could be used in manufacturing enough enriched uranium to produce 7 nuclear weapons a year."

Asher Karni and Zeki Bilmen

Karni is an Israeli businessman based in South Africa. Zeki Bilmen is a Turkish businessman and CEO of Giza Technologies, headquarted in New Jersey. Karni purchased 200 spark-gaps in the United States from Giza Technologies n 2003 and then re-exported it to Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI.

Prior to 2002 Bilmen was also overheard on wiretaps translated by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds.

Zeki Bilmen was never charged. Karni was released on $100,000 bail and is now a free man.

Peter Griffin

Peter Griffin is a Dubai-based British man who was said to have a "central role" in Libya's nuclear bomb program.

Griffin also supervised Tahir's project to build a manufacturing facility in Libya. A four-year British investigation into Griffin which spanned a dozen countries and cost millions of dollars was "quietly dropped" earlier this year. Griffin is currently living "scot-free.".

Gerhard Wisser

Wisser was a German national, based in South Africa, who supplied the pipes required for centrifuges. According to prosecutors, he was the South African "conduit" to the Tahir-Tinner ring. He was "given 18 years -- not in prison, but of nighttime house arrest in his mansion in a luxury neighborhood in Johannesburg."

Could it be...?

Why did the New York Times cherrypick facts, while obscuring and ignoring important, pertinent facts? Could it be that they are simply lazy? Could it be that they see their role as supporting the government's objectives, whether to protect allies such as Turkey and Dubai, or still chasing the dream of an invasion of Iran? Could it be that they want to sanitize Turkey and Turkish actors from the Tinners case in order to bolster President Bush's recently signed Executive Order giving Turkey access to nuclear technology?

Any of these possibilities might be accurate, but all of them are far from innocent, and none of them exonerate the New York Times propaganda machine.

Summary

By only reporting selectively on the Tinner case, quoting only more-than-eager government agency press officers, and by spinning the story toward Iran, the NY Times once again cements its reputation as a mouthpiece for the US government, even when it relates to important matters of true national security, that involves not only the US, but the entire world.

Whatever the reason for the Times to provide the government's portrait of the Tinner case, David Sanger and William Broad will remain in the Judy Miller Hall of Fame.

************

You can find the original at Let Sibel Edmonds Speak or at DailyKos.

THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH

"The successor to politics will be propaganda. Propaganda, not in the sense of a message or ideology, but as the impact of the whole technology of the times."
~ Marshall McLuhan.

If you ever wondered how the media became the lapdog of capitalist corporate interests instead of the watchdog of the powerful that it's supposed to be, watch Orwell Rolls In His Grave. Run time 1 hour 43 minutes.

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE GLARINGLY OBVIOUS

"The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity — much less dissent. . . Of course, it is possible for any citizen with time to spare, and a canny eye, to work out what is actually going on, but for the many there is not time, and the network news is the only news even though it may not be news at all but only a series of flashing fictions..."
~ Gore Vidal.

In case there was still any doubt in your mind about who the ringmasters really are:

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

[ . . . ]

Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.

[ . . . ]

Over time, the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers, although some participated only briefly or sporadically. The largest contingent was affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN, the other networks with 24-hour cable outlets. But analysts from CBS and ABC were included, too. Some recruits, though not on any network payroll, were influential in other ways — either because they were sought out by radio hosts, or because they often published op-ed articles or were quoted in magazines, Web sites and newspapers. At least nine of them have written op-ed articles for The Times.

The group was heavily represented by men involved in the business of helping companies win military contracts. Several held senior positions with contractors that gave them direct responsibility for winning new Pentagon business. James Marks, a retired Army general and analyst for CNN from 2004 to 2007, pursued military and intelligence contracts as a senior executive with McNeil Technologies. Still others held board positions with military firms that gave them responsibility for government business. General McInerney, the Fox analyst, for example, sits on the boards of several military contractors, including Nortel Government Solutions, a supplier of communication networks.

Several were defense industry lobbyists, such as Dr. McCausland, who works at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, a major lobbying firm where he is director of a national security team that represents several military contractors. “We offer clients access to key decision makers,” Dr. McCausland’s team promised on the firm’s Web site.

Dr. McCausland was not the only analyst making this pledge. Another was Joseph W. Ralston, a retired Air Force general. Soon after signing on with CBS, General Ralston was named vice chairman of the Cohen Group, a consulting firm headed by a former defense secretary, William Cohen, himself now a “world affairs” analyst for CNN. “The Cohen Group knows that getting to ‘yes’ in the aerospace and defense market — whether in the United States or abroad — requires that companies have a thorough, up-to-date understanding of the thinking of government decision makers,” the company tells prospective clients on its Web site.

Read it. This is also why both the Washington Post and the LA Times sat on the conflict of interest inherent in the appointment of Lockheed Martin's Joseph Ralston as "PKK coordinator". Then there was this, from Playboy:

[Robert J.] Stevens has boasted that Lockheed Martin not only creates the technology, it makes military policy as well. He told The New York Times in November of 2004 that Lockheed stands at "the intersection of policy and technology," which, he observed, "is really a very interesting place to be. We are deployed, entirely in developing daunting technology" that "requires thinking through the policy dimensions of national security as well as technology." He acknowledges "this is not a business where in the purest economical sense there's a broad market of supply and demand."

If there's not a "broad market of supply and demand," for your product, then what's a good capitalist to do? Create a market:

The Pentagon is paying Lockheed Martin to try to predict insurgencies and civil unrest like the weather. It's part of a larger military effort to blend forecasting software with social science that has some counterinsurgency experts cringing.

Lockheed recently won a $1.3 million, 15-month contract from the Defense Department to help develop the "Integrated Crises Early Warning System, or ICEWS. The program will "let military commanders anticipate and respond to worldwide political crises and predict events of interest and stability of countries of interest with greater than 80 percent accuracy," the company claims. "Rebellions, insurgencies, ethnic/religious violence, civil war, and major economic crises" will all be predictable. So will "combinations of strategies, tactics, and resources to mitigate [against those] instabilities."

Watch for a lot more false flag operations in the future.

In case you missed it, last month at Wired, there was a short report on a Pentagon study to "recruit or hire bloggers":

A study, written for U.S. Special Operations Command, suggested "clandestinely recruiting or hiring prominent bloggers."

Since the start of the Iraq war, there's been a raucous debate in military circles over how to handle blogs -- and the servicemembers who want to keep them. One faction sees blogs as security risks, and a collective waste of troops' time. The other (which includes top officers, like Gen. David Petraeus and Lt. Gen. William Caldwell) considers blogs to be a valuable source of information, and a way for ordinary troops to shape opinions, both at home and abroad.

This 2006 report for the Joint Special Operations University, "Blogs and Military Information Strategy," offers a third approach -- co-opting bloggers, or even putting them on the payroll. "Hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message may be worth considering," write the report's co-authors, James Kinniburgh and Dororthy Denning.

Lt. Commander Marc Boyd, a U.S. Special Operations Command spokesman, says the report was merely an academic exercise. "The comments are not 'actionable', merely thought provoking," he tells Danger Room. "The views expressed in the article publication are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, policy or position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, USSOCOM [Special Operations Command], or the Joint Special Operations University."

In light of the glaringly obvious, whole-hearted co-opting of the mainstream media with the Pentagon's Propaganda Plan, it's impossible to accept US Special Ops Command comments that the idea of recruiting bloggers as merely a "thought-provoking" academic exercise.

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE MEDIA

"An important operational characteristic of the system, which facilitates general adherence to the party line without overt coercion, is the assurance and speed with which the line is established as a consensus truth, so that deviations and dissent quickly take on the appearance of foolishness or pathology, as well as suspiciously unpatriotic behavior. "
~ Edward Herman.

I found an old interview with Edward Herman, who co-authored Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media with Noam Chomsky. What follows is a description of the five media filters that, working all together, creates the extreme bias in the media. These filters serve to bring you the information that The System's elites want you to have, in the way they want you to hear it. It is through these filters that you are taught which victims are "worthy" and which are "unworthy".

The whole purpose of the media is to manufacture public support for the special interests that dominate government.

Here's your media lesson for the day:

The propaganda model argues that the way the media works is based on the underlying structural conditions under which the media operates.

It consists of five elements that can be looked at as filters of the news. Whether a news item is going to be used by the media or not is going to depend on whether it passes through these filters.

The first filter is ownership. Very wealthy people and corporations, like General Electric, own and control the dominant media. This is obviously going to give an elite bias to the media. You must assume that the people who control the media are going to dominate it. They're going to select people that they want, and they are not going to let subordinates get out of bounds.

[ . . . ]

The second filter is advertising. The media depend on advertising as their funding source. Newspapers probably get 70 percent of their revenue, on average, from advertising. Television gets over 95 percent from advertisers. The TV stations and networks all have people who go around and try to sell advertisers on their programs. They have to convince them of the merit of the programs in which they want to advertise.

What do the advertisers want? They not only want a large audience, they want an elite audience-the more money the audience has the better. They don't want to upset the audience. They want what is called "a favorable selling environment" for their products. So the advertisers have to be competed for, and they're the underlying funding source. There's no question that they influence what the media will do. They don't interfere all the time. They don't call the media up and discipline them; that's not the main way they work. The main influence they have is that they have to be competed for by the media, and the media has to convince them that their programming meets advertisers needs.

Some advertisers actually have explicit conditions on programming. For example, Proctor and Gamble, one of the biggest advertisers, has an advertising rule that's written down. It will not support programs that insult the military, or that suggests that the business community is not a good and spiritual community.

[ . . . ]

The third filter in our propaganda model is what we call sourcing. The media needs sources of news. The big media want sources that will supply them with news on a daily basis that's credible, reliable and doesn't cost too much. Where do you get that kind of news? You get it at the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon, or you get it at the local city mayor's office, the police department, or the General Motors Corporation. These are the prime decision makers who make news.

There's a strong tendency for the media, especially the big media, to get close to sources that are powerful, who can give them news that's believable and news that doesn't cost a lot to get. So a lot of the news outlets have people stationed permanently at the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon, and so on. When they do this, they develop a certain relationship with these institutions. They become friendly with the people who provide them with the news, who are nice to them, and in doing that, they may occasionally get inside information, and so a symbiotic relationship develops between these big sources and the media.

[ . . . ]

The fourth filter is what we call flack, which means negative feedback. We can all produce flack. We can all call the paper or write a letter to the paper and complain, but the complaints that really affect the media are the ones that can really threaten them seriously, like the government, big advertisers, the Pentagon and other organized groups. So flack has its effect mainly from powerful groups, and some of these groups are already the ones that provide the news. This tends to further consolidate the power of these dominant sources.

The fifth filter is what we call ideology. In the American ideology, the one element in which Noam Chomsky and I think is important in the propaganda model is anti-communism. The anti-communist ideology was very important until the Soviet Union fell, but even now it still has some residual importance. The other ideological filter is the idea that the market can do everything, that it is the proper way of solving all our problems. These ideologies are really imbedded in the System, and they affect journalists, media editors, and how the media views the world.

Nowadays the primary ideology is the Global War on Terror, Inc., especially since all the lies about the primacy of the "free market" are pushing the American economy right over the edge--and dragging all the rest of the world with it.

What to do to learn the truth:

Actually, if you read the mainstream media, and if you have some advance knowledge of what to look for, there's a lot in there that you can find, but you have to know what to look for. In other words, you have to have frames of reference and an analysis that allows you to look at the media critically. This is where a guy like Noam Chomsky is so incredibly valuable-he's very smart-but he's also a very good producer of frames of reference. When you read his books you realize you're looking at a different world. You're learning to look at these things in a totally different light. So even when you're looking at the mainstream media, it becomes a little more illuminating because you can see what they've put at the bottom of the article that should be at the top.

[ . . . ]

Another important thing people can do if they have access to the web is to just surf around. If you go to Znet and fiddle around with sites on the different media groups, very soon you'll be in networks that'll give you a lot of alternative information. Getting into email and getting friendly with websites is enlightening. It's a wonderful alternative to reading the mainstream media.

I also mentioned the foreign press. On something like the Afghanistan war, even Britain-which is a close ally of the United States-even in Britain, you can read the Guardian, The Independent, The Mirror, or even the Daily Herald, which are all better than the New York Times. The U.S. media system has become so closed to alternative materials on issues where the government has strong positions and where lobbies are important, like in the Middle East, that even mainstream media in our allied countries provide a real option.

See the whole article, read an excerpt and then buy the book.

To see the application of the propaganda model to the Kurdish situation, see ZNet.

KURDISH REFORM IN FOUR PIECES

"These dams, highly profitable projects for US and European multi-nationals, are deeply connected to the US-led war on the Middle East. With Turkey’s recent bombing and now land invasion (both backed by the US) of the villages in Northern Iraq, and the power struggles over who will control Kurdistan, the Turkish, US and international dam-building hand is strengthened."
~ Maggie Ronayne.

I hope no one's getting excited about the NYTimes article in which Katil Erdoğan is shown as the savior of the Kurds, the bearer of reform. It's already been translated for Turkish media. Several Western media sources are helping to spread it. Headlines would lead the ignorant to believe that the Ankara regime, particularly the AKP government, is actually going to invest in The Southeast in order to help Kurds. It's offering "reforms" for the Kurdish minority. It's going to create better "relations" with Kurds.

And it's all bullshit.

First piece of bullshit:

As part of the push, the government will dedicate a state television channel to Kurdish language broadcasting . . .

This must be a rewrite of a 2002 article from the same NYTimes, in which it was announced that Turkey would allow Kurdish-language broadcasting. As we all know, this little farce churned out pre-recorded programs, censored by the state, in a dialect that has not been comprehensible to the Kurdish population of Turkey. Live Kurdish language TV is absolutely forbidden, as are children's and educational programs. Thus TIME summed up the need for real reform:

Ankara now has two choices: guns — which have never managed to eliminate Kurdish rebellion — or else a bold new policy designed to address Kurdish grievances, encourage economic growth in the region and move forward. Not just a token law allowing one hour of Kurdish language TV and radio broadcast a day (as was passed three years ago). Real, comprehensive reform.

Even now, a director of one of those Kurdish-language stations had to appear in court:

Until now, only heavily regulated local stations have been permitted to broadcast in Kurdish, but for no more than 45 minutes a day and only with Turkish subtitles. Gün TV is one of those stations. Its commissioning editor, Diren Keser, 29, recently appeared in court because the word "Kurdistan" was used in one of the station's programs. The misstep could cost him €50,000 ($75,000).

Kurdish is forbidden in any political or official discourse. The letters W, X, and Q are still forbidden to Kurds (but not to Westerners in Turkey). Private Kurdish language schools that were finally permitted by the regime had to close down because it was difficult for many people to pay tuition in that part of Turkey which has an unemployment rate averaging between 60 and 70%--and higher in some areas.

Second piece of bullshit:

The state will invest between $11 billion and $12 billion over five years to build two large dams and a system of water canals . . .

This is nothing more than GAP, a boondoggle that's been promoted since the 1970s. And since it's been around that long, you would think that some of the alleged benefits would have accrued to the Kurds of Turkey by now . . . but what we have instead is that 60 to 70% unemployment rate. Not only is Turkey, and the AKP in particular, using GAP to reduce the water supplies of Syria and Iraq, but it's also using GAP to continue the state policy of cultural genocide of the Kurdish people:

. . . [O]pponents believe it will devastate the area's environment and cultural heritage, as well as displacing more than 50,000 people.

Among hundreds of sites to be flooded would be the ancient town of Hasankeyf, considered an archaeological treasure and home to at least 3,800 people.

[ . . . ]

. . . [P]rotesters' biggest concern is what they see as inadequate plans for resettling and compensating an estimated 55,000 to 78,000 people displaced by the waters.

Some 199 settlements would be affected by the dam, Ms Ayhan said, but the consultants who drew up the resettlement plans had had access to only limited information.

Many of those displaced would be likely to head for nearby Batman and Diyarbakir, both of which have seen clashes between security forces and Kurdish protesters in recent months.

What about that alleviation of poverty song-and-dance?

The dam builders and assessors finally now mention women in the reports – but only as victims whose poverty is used an excuse for the dam to go ahead. If you believed these documents, the dam would do wonders for women especially.

Of course the promises are not backed up by any concrete plans or funding, there are few local benefits of the dam. As women from Suçeken (Kurdish name Şikefta) village say: ‘our question is: will it be harmful to us?’ But they have not received a truthful answer or even any substantial information about these reports.

There is no evaluation in the report we reviewed of women’s contribution to society through their caring work, I found no evidence that carers would benefit, and in all likelihood they would have to undertake an even greater burden of work in conditions of increased poverty if the dam went ahead. Proposals for ‘training’ and ‘income generation’ projects for women displaced by the dams are not properly budgeted for and the way the report speaks about involving the private sector and NGOs, it seems likely that any money for these programmes would go to professionals for ‘helping the poor’ rather than to women themselves.

The effects of the conflict are hardly mentioned even though, as village women from Suçeken recently informed us: ‘the main problem is war. This is the main reason for our poverty. The first thing we want is an end to war.’

More on that, again from Maggie Ronayne.

Of course, an end to the war is very easy to achieve, if only AKP and its partners, the Paşas, had the will for it.


Third piece of bullshit:

. . . complete paved roads . . .

They're doing that for the military, and only for the military.


Fourth piece of bullshit:

. . . and remove land mines from the fields along the Syrian border . . .

But Turkey has to do that anyway, according to the requirements of the Ottawa Treaty:

Under Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty, Turkey must destroy all antipersonnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control as soon as possible, but no later than 1 March 2014. In September 2006 Turkey confirmed its commitment to the Mine Ban Treaty and informed States Parties that its mine action plan will allow it to meet the 2014 treaty deadline.[59]

This is what's called making a virtue of necessity.

According to Landmine Monitor's 2007 report on Turkey, the most casualties come from the following areas: Bingöl, Şırnak, Hakkari, Diyarbakır, Elazığ, Tunceli, Ağrı, Siirt, Van, Sivas, and İzmir. That means that Turkey has a bigger problem than just landmines along the Syrian border, especially because the regime does not mark mines or close off minefields in Kurdish areas.

Since Sabrina Tavernise, the author of the NYTimes piece, has reported extensively from Turkey, she should know the situation better and should have pointed out the chasm that exists between Katil Erdoğan's fantasies and the Kurdish reality.

Atma, Recep, din kardeşiyiz! Küçük at da civcivler de yesin!

REUTERS LIES ABOUT PKK STATEMENT

"I wouldn't call it fascism exactly, but a political system nominally controlled by an irresponsible, dumbed down electorate who are manipulated by dishonest, cynical, controlled mass media that dispense the propaganda of a corrupt political establishment can hardly be described as democracy either."
~ Edward Zehr.

Bahoz Erdal, HPG Headquarters Commander (photo stolen from Özgür Gündem)

Reuters has a couple of reports out today that seem to be making all the rounds of the blogosphere. The problem is that Reuters falsified their report by not translating accurately. Here's what they wrote:

Rebels from the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), fighting for an independent homeland in southeastern Turkey, said on Friday they are moving back into Turkey from northern Iraq.

Reuters quotes a Firat News article. In the paragraph titled, "GERİLLA GÜNEY'E DEĞİL KUZEYE GİDİYOR," Bahoz Erdal, HPG Headquarters Commander, says:

"Herkesi kandırmaya çalışıyorlar. Bu savaşın kaynağı Kuzey Kürdistan'dır. Gabar'daki güçlerin Güney Kürdistan'a gitmesini engellemek için sınırda top atışları yaptıklarını söylediler. Bu doğru değil, gerillalar Güney'e doğru değil aksine Dersim'e, Amanos'a ve kuzeydeki diğer yerlere doğru gidiyor. Türk devletinin saldırılarına karşı gerilla kendini bu şekilde konumlandırıyor" . . .

Translation:

"They [AKP] are trying to cheat everyone. The source of this war is North Kurdistan. They said they carried out a bombardment at Gabar in order to prevent [our] forces from going to South Kurdistan, but this is not true. The gerîlas are not going to the South; on the contrary, they are going to Dersim, Amanos, and other nothern locations. The gerîlas are positioning themselves against Turkish attacks in this way.

Erdal goes on to say to the Turkish people that this is the war of the poor, meaning that the poor must fight it and that the children of Kurdistan are pushed to it, while the children of Turkish officials receive their education in the US and pour money into their weddings.


I should take a moment to note here that Erdoğan obtained a waiver for his son's otherwise compulsory military service.

Reuters also states that PKK is "fighting for an independent homeland in southeastern Turkey," in complete contradiction to KCK's stated objectives for a democratic solution:

We would like as a movement to emphasize once again that the right solution is a democratic autonomy within the borders of Turkey. We believe that a solution in the unity of Turkey will be for the benefit of firstly the Kurdish people and all the people of the region.

Therefore, we cannot excuse Reuters' execrable reporting as a simple mistranslation or misunderstanding; instead, it is, in fact, an outright lie.

Another Reuters propaganda piece from later in the day quoted Bahoz Erdal correctly:

"The guerrillas are not moving to the south (northern Iraq); on the contrary they are moving to ... places in the north," the PKK said in a statement published on Firat news agency.

But, of course, the damage had already been done and Reuters has made no retraction to correct its earlier lie.

On the other hand, Reuters again misquoted Erdal:

Kurdish separatist rebels said on Friday they were crossing back into Turkey to target politicians and police after Ankara said it was preparing to attack them in the mountains of northern Iraq.

Referencing the Firat statement (also carried on Özgür Gündem), in the paragraph titled, "AKP VE CHP KURUMLARI HEDEFTE," Bahoz Erdal says that the Turkish state went crazy because of its failure toward HPG and is implementing state terrorism as it did in the 1990s. For all of this, AKP bears the responsibility. Erdal stresses that "if Kurds and their institutions are targeted, AKP must know that there are AKP and CHP, and state insitutions in Kurdistan, and their attacks will not be without a response."

Bahoz Erdal's comments are a far cry from "crossing back into Turkey to target politicians and police." HPG is already inside Turkey. It is not "crossing back into Turkey," as claimed by the propagandists at Reuters.

Reuters also presents Erdoğan as the ass he is:

"We don't need anyone's advice on northern Iraq and the operation to be carried out there," Erdogan told a cheering crowd in Istanbul, after saying that the United States "came tens of thousands of kilometers and attacked Iraq without asking anyone's permission".

This would be an extreme case of monkey see, monkey do. Since the Ankara regime used Israel's invasion of Lebanon last year as an excuse for it's own "hot pursuit" BS vis-a-vis Kurds, everyone should see clearly that there is no original or creative thinking on the part of anyone within the Ankara regime's political elite. It should also be clear that only a criminal regime, like the one in Ankara, would use criminal examples to justify its own potential criminal behavior.

A cross-border operation into South Kurdistan presents several outcomes, all of which benefit Kurdistan. The overall outcome would be utter failure for the Ankara regime in general and the AKP in particular. The regime has invaded South Kurdistan in the past in vain attempts to annihilate the Kurdish freedom movement, all of which spiked the body count for the TSK and did very little damage to PKK.

The regime has created heightened tensions and expectations among the Turkish people. Another invasion of South Kurdistan, with its accompanying rise in body counts, withdrawal due to military failure, and the resiliency of the Kurdish freedom movement will ensure that the wrath of the Turkish people turns on the AKP.

As the people call for AKP leaders' heads on pikes, so the opposition parties will turn on AKP like a pack of dogs moving in on wounded prey. DTP will be able to say, "We told you so!" thus proving that no military or "security" solution will solve the Kurdish situation. Only a political answer can solve a political question.

Turkey's EU accession will come to an abrupt halt but--even better for Kurds--the Kurdish situation will appear on the international stage once again. Such an appearance will be the opportunity to do that which Öcalan tried to do when he went to Europe--present both sides of the Kurdish struggle in Turkey and demand a political solution from the international community which has aided and abetted the Ankara regime in its genocidal policies.

Invasion will cause repercussions in both Syria and Iran. Turkey and Iran have enjoyed warm relations since 2003, but Iran will not stand for the shift in power that a Turkish invasion of South Kurdistan will bring to the region,

Lastly, a cross-border invasion into South Kurdistan will work wonders for pan-Kurdish unity. We'll all have Erdoğan, Gül, and Büyükanıt to thank for a unified Kurdistan.

Let them come.


Hevallo has a scientific test to determine who is the terrorist: Turkey or the PKK?