By Dee McLachlan
A letter in Monday morning’s Herald Sun sums up the post-September 11 era.
As James O’Neill so eloquently wrote in his article The Case for an Australian Iraq War Inquiry is Compelling:
“(John) Howard essentially argued that it was the “right” decision, taken on the basis of the best available intelligence at that time. The current Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has expressed similar views. Both Howard and Bishop are lawyers… Neither seems to have even a basic grasp of the principles of international law, or indeed even the law of evidence.”
Did our leaders believe that there would be no consequence in destroying an entire country?
Media Watch
I know many Gumshoe readers do not watch mainstream television, but on Monday night Media Watch reported on Sir John Chilcot’s assessment of the media manipulation surrounding the lead up to war in Iraq. And it is encouraging to see, on mainstream (the ABC), the media being exposed for propagated lies that led to war.
In the Media Watch segment “Leading us to war“, the story of media manipulation emerges. (Episode here)
TONY BLAIR: If these weapons fall into their hands and we know that they have both the capability and the intention of using them, then I think we’ve got to act on it, because if we don’t act, we may find out too late the potential for destruction. — Channel Nine, 60 Minutes, 3 March, 2002
Australia joined the US and the UK in invading Iraq one year after Blair’s warning. Media Watch continues:
“Western experts watch as Saddam replenishes his armoury of weapons of mass destruction — The Age, 14 March, 2002
“So Australians were also sold as fact … what turned out to be fiction or a fantasy.
Nor was it just ‘quality’ papers put on the drip. The ‘Iraq Media Strategy’ reveals that the UK government also intended:
… to give papers like The Sun the chance to popularise our case — Iraq Media Strategy, 11 March, 2002
The claim backs US beliefs that President Hussein is providing a safe haven for Osama bin Laden’s terror network — The Advertiser, 26 August, 2002
The claim was a LIE.
“And let’s not forget 175 of Rupert Murdoch’s 176 worldwide mastheads backed the invasion. …Most papers in Australia have blamed our then Prime Minister John Howard. Or Britain’s Tony Blair. Or all the leaders who took us to war. …The Sun also had no doubt about the culprit.
WEAPON OF MASS DECEPTION – TONY Blair led a mass deception of the public over the war in Iraq — The Sun, 7 July, 2016
They expose the biggest weapon of mass deception was the media itself. And the comments on the Media Watch segment, too, are most encouraging.
Was there not a recent gumshoe article on whether the mass media is criminal?
Well, it is certainly confirmed (again) that it is.
There are a million or so dead to haunt the bastards.
In due course the msm 911 lies and deceit will be exposed as is currently underway.
When will ‘our’ ABC expose the msm and the lying politicians?
Do your job media watch, we are paying for you lot.
Attention ABC media watch.
How about completing the report on our government’s lies in regard to the invasions from 2001.
You are dared to broadcast the 2.11 minute video of General Wesley Clark telling Amy Goodman in March 2007 that in the weeks after 911 he was told that the US is going to go to war with Iraq and all up, take down 7 countries in 5 years …… including Syria and Iran.
When media watch has done that, explain to those who pay for the ABC why we are still at war 15 years later and why the ABC has not informed Australians of Clark’s exposure of planned mass killings in the Middle East from prior to the 911 mass murders.
Oh, do not leave out the investigations and no reporting of the silly unscientific official government 911 conspiracy theory.
Jonathon Faie, Derryn Hinch , P Barry, et,al. Are you there?
Put up your mits and do a Hanson; ‘pleeeeae explain’.
At least Perilous Pauline has some spine.
Ned, it’s not just that those bozos fail to report. It’s that “the media” seem to be completely in on the planning of the disasters.
This may be a stretch but yesterday I perused the April 1996 editions of the Launceston Examiner, and lo and behold there was a large article on April 19, nine days before a certain event in Tasmania, memorializing the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. It went on and on about the tragedy and the awfulness for families, etc. (The Murrah Federal Building was chosen by the FBI, we can reasonably assume, because it contained a Daycare Center.)
Sure it may be normal to print these retrospectives, but OKC and Lonnie are not exactly in close touch, are they?
P.S. Today’s Examiner says: “Furious George Pell demands Victoria Police investigation as ABC airs abuse claims.”
I like it, I like it. Let’s see what comes of that.
When is the ABC and politicians like Derryn Hinch going to expose the; killing, orphaning and cruelty to children in the Middle East due to our criminal invasions based on blatant lies and pre-911 criminal warmongering plans?
Message for Ned:
PHILADELPHIA — Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was interrupted by chants of “no more war” during his prime-time speech at the Democratic National Convention Wednesday.
The chants started raining down from sections of delegates from Oregon and Washington, both states won by Sen Berni Sanders during the Democratic presidential primary.
Eventually, other delegates drowned them out with chants of “USA.” But the jeers took the sting out of Panetta’s jab at Republican presidential nominee Trump, just as he was about to criticize Trump for saying he hoped Russia was in possession of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary’s private emails. [!!!]
Panetta appeared flustered as he stood on stage waiting for the chants to end. As Panetta continued to speak, the lights were dimmed over the sections of Sanders supporters, an apparent effort to silence them.
But the protesters were undeterred. The chants undercut a portion of the convention dedicated to promoting Clinton’s national security bona fides. [from The Hill}
One has only to look at the cross ownership between the major media companies and the companies that directly profit from endless war, the weapons manufacturers, to understand why the mainstream media are always supportive of another war. It all boils down to profits.
Then we see that Rupert Murdoch has a stake in a company given a lease by Israel to exploit the oil reserves in the occupied Golan Heights. It helps to understand the unquestioning support that News Corp gives to the Israeli regime.
Remember when we were shown endless pictures of the Berlin Wall? When was the last time our media, including the allegedly “leftist” ABC showed footage of the Israeli wall cutting off Palestinians from their own territory?
The bias runs deep and occasional gestures by the likes of Paul Barry on Media Watch are no more than tokenism.
I disagree that “it all boils down to profits.” The planning of the mind control of the entire human race is a goal in itself. The fact that there is cross-ownership (of everything!) is not to fill the pockets of certain people. It is to prevent creativity, dissent, decency. Here is a quote from Daniel Estulin’s “Tavistock:”
“The development of the CIA has been essentially
directed to the systematic infiltration of all principal existing institutions, with the help of some of the leading families, such as Dupont. Allan Dulles, a prototypical Eastern Establishment figure, is a perfect example of the invisible confluence of fascist interests around the creation of new imperial dominion controlled by Rockefeller through CIA-Tavistock corporate interests…. For instance, Dulles was put in charge of the CIA’s Bluebird mind control project.”
James, my friend Blanche Chavoustie, born 1938, was PERSONALLY tortured by Allen Dulles (her neighbor in Syracuse). Totally out of his mind, and he is the bro of Eisenhower’s Sec’y of State “John Foster Dulles.”‘ Oh little did we know what was really going on.
As for the Du Ponts, please read “Behind The Nylon Curtain” by Gerard Colby. Herewith a snippet from an Amazon review:
“Du Pont lobbying and the active support by Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover assured that the US government would do everything in its power to support American exports—including weapons. In fact the most important interest group represented at the Geneva Armaments Conference was not the peace movement but the weapons manufacturers. Allen Dulles was chief of the Near Eastern Division of the State Department (and later head of the CIA) at the time. …”
Mary, I think it is important to distinguish between the different motives of different groups, although obviously their agendas do overlap at times.
What Eisenhower called the military industrial complex (now broadened to include the intelligence structure) has a strong profit motive, and those profits are strengthened by a state of perpetual war, as Gore Vidal aptly pointed out.
NATO serves multiple such purposes. It guarantees that the members must buy American sourced weaponry, thereby adding to the profits the the aforesaid complex, but it also serves a role of maintaining political subservience by its member states.
The TPP and its Atlantic equivalent similarly serve multiple purposes, giving priority to American corporations and undermine national sovereignty through its dispute resolution procedures. Odd that this attack on our sovereignty barely rated a mention during the recent election campaign.
The other factor that you might have mentioned is Operation Mockingbird, whereby the CIA has infiltrated every mainstream (and many non-mainstream) media outlets to ensure that its version of events is the one that receives favourable coverage. Again, this represents a major threat to our so-called democracy that barely rates a mention.
The points you make about the Dulles brothers and corporations such as du Pont are of course correct.
James, you say (of NATO): “it also serves a role of maintaining political subservience by its member states.”
So who, or what, is NATO?
It can’t be “the US” as the US is one of those subservient states.
Who is the TPP? It won’t quite do to say it is the corporations.
Mary, you ask big questions not easily answered in a comment section. NATO in my view is a military instrument for the perpetuation of US geopolitical power.
The TPP is an agreement between 12 nations (including Australia) that is nominally about trade but is in fact (a) an instrument of the US for the containment” of China; and (b) a vehicle for control by US corporations who in turn dictate what the US government does and does not do.
Any thought that the President is the “decider” to use Bush the Lesser’s phrase, is delusional. Peter Dale Scott uses the term the “deep state” which is as good as any for figuring out how the system is really run,
If Clinton is elected President then we will have more wars, because that is the group(s) that she serves.
Well, our Malcolm is going to have a Royal Commission into the treatment of juveniles in the Northern Territory.
Good.
Now Malcolm, how about a Royal Commission into the treatment and reasons for the killing and injuring the kids in the Middle East?
Not to mention all the refugees .
James, in a few words; (as you imply?) the ABC is bullshit.
Sell it to Murdock and the public can pocket a billion per year.
Ned, I wouldn’t argue that ABC is BS. My main criticism is that they are too timid in tackling some of the big issues. 9/11, the Kennedy(2) and King assassinations, Palestine, our multiple illegal wars, our multiple breaches of UN conventions and of course some of the issues covered in Gumshoe such as Martin Bryant are examples of where they fear to tread outside the false mainstream narrative.
I definitely would not sell it to Murdoch, one of the most insidiously dangerous men in the world. But as long as they are dependent on money from the government of the day they are not going to stray too far off the reservation.
Whatever model is proposed (and a licence fee is one example) it must provide for true independence. Even that is not a guarantee as the sorry history of the BBC in recent years amply demonstrates.
Replying to James’s 1.29 pm July 29 comment below:
Yes, too big for simple comment but here is where you and I differ — and James I realize you may be right. You say:
“NATO in my view is a military instrument for the perpetuation of US geopolitical power.”
I say it’s for “the perpetuation of the power of the cabal.” They are older than the US (birth 1776) by a few years, or maybe by many centuries. I reckon they ran the East India Company from time of the first Queen Eliz.
James, as you know, the Pentagon’s campus is occupied by more private firms than governmental offices. Wow, what a joke the “state” has become! Hey, the state seems to have “withered away” after all.
Here is a tiny clue that the cabal is not US-based. The Bushes were in Skull and Bones — but that came from Germany in the 1800s. Mao Tse Dong was supposedly Chinese acting like a nationalist leader — but he had secret help from folks at Johns Hopkins University (or so I’m told). Japan was nudged into warring against Russia in 1904 — by way of a British nudge. And the 2014 book “Hidden History” pins World War One on Lords Grey and Esher.
I think it is at least worth imagining that there’s a group who are not particularly American who are in charge of everything. At Gumshoe, I relentlessly oppose anyone who says “It’s the Jews.” I would oppose any thesis that it is a group whose membership is based on a nationality or religion. (That’s a trap.)
To my sociobiological mind, the human race was bound to go the way of mammal species in which someone gets to the top and has to work hard to stay there. The good news, in this view, is that the cabal has worn itself out trying to “stay there.” The Rockefellers, for example, have done a fabulous job, mainly in secret. But with 7 billion peeps finding out about them they just can’t continue.
The current situation is absurd. Fancy all those members of Australia’s parliament saying OK to the TPP. And then fancy us letting such traitors “walk free.”
We can put a stop to this.