On Dec 15, 7:58 am, "The Patriot" <xxx...@charter.net> wrote:
"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."<scie...@zzz.com> wrote in message
news:8d4e139b-a905-4e06-8a95-f5b7d87e8f44@z17g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 14, 6:26 am, Global Research E-Newsletter
<crgedi...@yahoo.com>
wrote:> Having trouble viewing this email?
Click
herehttp://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=o8b4necab&v=001rfH...
Who is Behind Wikileaks?
Even prior to the launching of the project, the
mainstream media
had contacted Wikileaks.
Request to let your wiki leak is denied. You need to
purchase Depends.
"World bankers, by pulling a few simple levers that control the
flow of money, can make or break entire economies. By controlling
press releases of economic strategies that shape national trends,
the power elite are able to not only tighten their stranglehold on
this nation's economic structure, but can extend that control world
wide. Those possessing such power would logically want to remain
in the background, invisible to the average citizen." (Aldus Huxley)
Wikleaks is upheld as a breakthrough in the battle against media
disinformation and the lies of the US government.
Unquestionably, the released documents constitute an important and
valuable data bank. The documents have been used by critical
researchers since the outset of the Wikileaks project. Wikileaks
earlier revelations have focussed on US war crimes in Afghanistan
(July 2010) as well as issues pertaining to civil liberties and the
"militarization of the Homeland" (see Tom Burghardt, Militarizing
the "Homeland" in Response to the Economic and Political Crisis,
Global Research, October 11, 2008)
In October 2010, WikiLeaks was reported to have released some 400,000
classified Iraq war documents, covering events from 2004 to 2009
(Tom Burghardt, The WikiLeaks Release: U.S. Complicity and Cover-Up
of Iraq Torture Exposed, Global Research, October 24, 2010). These
revelations contained in the Wikileaks Iraq War Logs provide "further
evidence of the Pentagon's role in the systematic torture of Iraqi
citizens by the U.S.-installed post-Saddam regime." (Ibid)
Progressive organizations have praised the Wikileaks endeavor. Our
own website Global Research has provided extensive coverage of the
Wikileaks project.
The leaks are heralded as an immeasurable victory against corporate
media censorship.
But there more than meets the eye.
Even prior to the launching of the project, the mainstream media
had contacted Wikileaks.
There are also reports from published email exchanges that Wikileaks
had entered into negotiations with several corporate foundations
for funding. (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).
The linchpin of WikiLeaks's financial network is Germany's Wau
Holland Foundation. ... "We're registered as a library in Australia,
we're registered as a foundation in France, we're registered as a
newspaper in Sweden," Mr. Assange said. WikiLeaks has two tax-exempt
charitable organizations in the U.S., known as 501C3s, that "act
as a front" for the website, he said. He declined to give their
names, saying they could "lose some of their grant money because
of political sensitivities."
Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks gets about half its money from modest
donations processed by its website, and the other half from "personal
contacts," including "people with some millions who approach us...."
(WikiLeaks Keeps Funding Secret, WSJ.com, August 23, 2010)
At the outset in early 2007, Wikileaks acknowledges that it was
"founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company
technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South
Africa".... [Its advisory board] includes representatives from
expat Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former
US intelligence analyst and cryptographers." (Wikileaks Leak email
exchanges, January 2007).
Wikileaks formulated its mandate on its website as follows: [Wikileaks
will be] "an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass
document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive
regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the
Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the
west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments
and corporations," CBC News - Website wants to take whistleblowing
online, January 11, 2007, emphasis added).
This mandate was confirmed by Julian Assange in June 2010 interview
in the New Yorker:
"Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China,
Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance
to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior
in their own governments and corporations. In an invitation to
potential collaborators in 2006, he wrote, Our primary targets are
those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia,
but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who
wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments
and corporations...." (quoted in WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange
: The New Yorker, June 7, 2010, emphasis added)
Assange also intimated that "exposing secrets" "could potentially
bring down many administrations that rely on concealing realityincluding
the US administration." (Ibid)
From the outset, Wikileaks' geopolitical focus on "oppressive
regimes" in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and Central
Asia was "appealing", i.e. consistent with US foreign policy.
The composition of the Wikileaks team, not to mention the methodology
of "exposing secrets" of foreign governments, were in line with the
practices of US covert operations geared towards triggering "regime
change".
The Role of the Corporate Media: The Central Role of the New York
Times
Wikileaks is not a typical alternative media initiative. The New
York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel are directly involved in
the editing and selection of leaked documents. The Economist and
Time Magazine have also played an important role.
While the project and its editor Julian Assange reveal a commitment
and concern for truth in media, the recent Wikileaks releases of
embassy cables have been carefully "redacted" by the mainstream
media in liaison with the US government. (See Interview with David
E. Sanger, Fresh Air, PBS, December 8, 2010)
This collaboration between Wikileaks and selected mainstream media
is not fortuitous; it was part of an agreement between several major
US and European newspapers and Wikileaks' editor Julian Assange.
The important question is who controls and oversees the selection,
distribution and editing of released documents to the broader public?
What US foreign policy objectives are being served through this
redacting process?
Is Wikileaks part of an awakening of public opinion, of a battle
against the lies and fabrications which appear daily in the print
media and on network TV?
If so, how can this battle against media disinformation be waged
with the participation and collaboration of the corporate architects
of media disinformation.
Julian Assange has enlisted the architects of media disinformation
to fight media disinformation: An incongruous and self-defeating
procedure.
America's corporate media and more specifically the New York Times
are an integral part of the economic establishment, with links to
Wall Street, the Washington think tanks, the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR).
Moreover, the US corporate media has developed a longstanding
relationship to the US intelligence apparatus, going back to
"Operation Mocking Bird", an initiative of the CIA's Office of
Special Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s.
Even before the Wikileaks project got off the ground, the mainstream
media was implicated. A role was defined and agreed upon for the
corporate media not only in the release, but also in the selection
and editing of the leaks. In a bitter irony, the "professional
media" to use Julian Assange's words in an interview with The
Economist, have been partners in the Wikileaks project from the
outset.
Moreover, key journalists with links to the US foreign policy-national
security intelligence establishment have worked closely with
Wikileaks, in the distribution and dissemination of the leaked
documents.
In a bitter irony, Wikileaks partner, The New York Times which has
consistently promoted media disinformation is now being accused of
conspiracy. For what? For revealing the truth? Or for manipulating
the truth? In the words of Senator Joseph L. Lieberman:
I certainly believe that WikiLleaks has violated the Espionage Act,
but then what about the news organizations including The Times
that accepted it and distributed it? Mr. Lieberman said, adding:
To me, The New York Times has committed at least an act of bad
citizenship, and whether they have committed a crime, I think that
bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department. (WikiLeaks
Prosecution Studied by Justice Department - NYTimes.com, December
7, 2010)
This "redacting" role of The New York Times is candidly acknowledged
by David E Sanger, Chief Washington correspondent of the NYT:
"[W]e went through [the cables] so carefully to try to redact
material that we thought could be damaging to individuals or undercut
ongoing operations. And we even took the very unusual step of showing
the 100 cables or so that we were writing from to the U.S. government
and asking them if they had additional redactions to suggest." (See
PBS Interview; The Redacting and Selection of Wikileaks documents
by the Corporate Media, PBS interview on "Fresh Air" with Terry
Gross: December 8, 2010, emphasis added).
Yet he also says later in the interview:
"It is the responsibility of American journalism, back to the
founding of this country, to get out and try to grapple with the
hardest issues of the day and to do it independently of the
government." (ibid)
"Do it independently of the government" while at the same time
"asking them [the US government] if they had additional redactions
to suggest"?
David E. Sanger cannot be described as a model independent journalist.
He is member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Aspen
Institute's Strategy Group which regroups the likes of Madeleine
K. Albright, Condoleeza Rice, former Defense Secretary William
Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, Robert.B. Zoellick (president
of the World Bank), and Philip Zelikow (formerly executive director
of the 9/11 Commission) (among other prominent establishment figures).
(See also F. William Engdahl, Wikileaks: A Big Dangerous US Government
Con Job, Global Research, December 10, 2010).
Several American journalists, members of the Council on Foreign
Relations interviewed Wikileaks, including Time Magazine's Richard
Stengel (November 30, 2010) and The New Yorker's Raffi Khatchadurian.
(WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 11, 2007)
Historically, The New York Times has served the interests of the
Rockefeller family in the context of a longstanding relationship.
The current New York Times chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is a
member of the Council on Foreign Relations, son of Arthur Ochs
Sulzberger and grandson of Arthur Hays Sulzberger who served as a
Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation. Ethan Bronner, deputy foreign
editor of The New York Times as well as Thomas Friedman among others
are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
In turn, the Rockefellers have an important stake as shareholders
of several US corporate media. (Membership Roster - Council on
Foreign Relations)
The Embassy and State Department Cables
It should come as no surprise that David E. Sanger and his colleagues
at the NYT centered their attention on a highly "selective"
dissemination of the Wikileaks cables, focussing on areas which
would support US foreign policy interests: Iran's nuclear program,
North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's support of al Qaeda, China's
relations with North Korea, etc. These releases were then used as
source material in NYT articles and commentary.
The Embassy and State Department cables released by Wikileaks were
redacted and filtered. They were used for propaganda purposes. They
do not constitute a complete and continuous set of memoranda.
From a selected list of cables, the leaks are being used to justify
a foreign policy agenda. A case in point is Iran's alleged nuclear
weapons program, which is the object of numerous State Department
memos, as well Saudi Arabia's support of Islamic terrorism.
Iran's Nuclear Program
The leaked cables are used to feed the disinformation campaign
concerning Iran's Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the leaked
cables are heralded as "evidence" that Iran constitutes a threat,
the lies and fabrications of the corporate media concerning Iran's
alleged nuclear weapons program are not mentioned, nor is there any
mention of them in the leaked cables.
The leaks, once they are funnelled into the corporate news chain,
edited and redacted by the New York Times, indelibly serve the
broader interests of US foreign policy, including US-NATO-Israel
war preparations directed against Iran.
With the regard to "leaked intelligence" and the coverage of Iran's
alleged nuclear weapons program, David E. Sanger has played a crucial
role. In November 2005, The New York Times published a report
co-authored by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad entitled "Relying
on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims".
The article refers to mysterious documents on a stolen Iranian
laptop computer which included "a series of drawings of a missile
re-entry vehicle" which allegedly could accommodate an Iranian
produced nuclear weapon:
"In mid-July, senior American intelligence officials called the
leaders of the international atomic inspection agency to the top
of a skyscraper overlooking the Danube in Vienna and unveiled the
contents of what they said was a stolen Iranian laptop computer.
The Americans flashed on a screen and spread over a conference table
selections from more than a thousand pages of Iranian computer
simulations and accounts of experiments, saying they showed a long
effort to design a nuclear warhead, according to a half-dozen
European and American participants in the meeting.
The documents, the Americans acknowledged from the start, do not
prove that Iran has an atomic bomb. They presented them as the
strongest evidence yet that, despite Iran's insistence that its
nuclear program is peaceful, the country is trying to develop a
compact warhead to fit atop its Shahab missile, which can reach
Israel and other countries in the Middle East."(William J. Broad
and David E. Sanger Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's
Nuclear Aims - New York Times, November 13, 2005)
These "secret documents" were subsequently submitted by the US State
Department to the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, with a
view to demonstrating that Iran was developing a nuclear weapons
program. They were also used as a pretext to enforce the economic
sanctions regime directed against Iran, adopted by the UN Security
Council.
While their authenticity has been questioned, a recent article by
investigative reporter Gareth Porter confirms unequivocally that
the mysterious laptop documents are fake. (See Gareth Porter,
Exclusive Report: Evidence of Iran Nuclear Weapons Program May Be
Fraudulent, Global Research, November 18, 2010)
The drawings contained in the documents leaked by William J. Broad
and David E. Sanger do not pertain to the Shahab missile but to an
obsolete North Korean missile system which was decommissioned by
Iran in the mid-1990s. The drawings presented by US State Department
officials pertained to the "Wrong Missile Warhead":
In July 2005, ... Robert Joseph, US undersecretary of state for
arms control and international security, made a formal presentation
on the purported Iranian nuclear weapons program documents to the
agency's leading officials in Vienna. Joseph flashed excerpts from
the documents on the screen, giving special attention to the series
of technical drawings or "schematics" showing 18 different ways of
fitting an unidentified payload into the re-entry vehicle or "warhead"
of Iran's medium-range ballistic missile, the Shahab-3. When IAEA
analysts were allowed to study the documents, however, they discovered
that those schematics were based on a re-entry vehicle that the
analysts knew had already been abandoned by the Iranian military
in favor of a new, improved design. The warhead shown in the
schematics had the familiar "dunce cap" shape of the original North
Korean No Dong missile, which Iran had acquired in the mid-1990s.
... The laptop documents had depicted the wrong re-entry vehicle
being redesigned. ... (Gareth Porter, op cit, emphasis added)
David E, Sanger, who worked diligently with Wikileaks was also
instrumental in the New York Times "leak" of what Gareth Porter
describes as fake intelligence.(Ibid)
While this issue of fake intelligence received virtually no media
coverage, it invalidates outright Washington's assertions regarding
Iran's alleged nuclear weapons.
In a bitter irony, the selective redacting of the embassy cables
by the NYT has usefully served not only to dismiss the issue of
fake intelligence but also to reinforce Washington's claim that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons. A case in point is a November
2010 article co-authored by David E. Sanger, which quotes the
Wikileaks cables as a source;
"Iran obtained 19 of the missiles from North Korea, according to a
[Wikileaks] cable dated Feb. 24 of this year.... (WikiLeaks Archive
Iran Armed by North Korea - NYTimes.com, November 28, 2010).
These missiles are said to have the "capacity to strike at capitals
in Western Europe or easily reach Moscow, and American officials
warned that their advanced propulsion could speed Irans development
of intercontinental ballistic missiles." (Ibid, emphasis added).
Wikileaks, Iran and the Arab World
The released wikileaks cables have also being used to create divisions
between Iran on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States
on the other:
"After WikiLeaks claimed that certain Arab states are concerned
about Irans nuclear program and have urged the U.S. to take [military]
action to contain Iran, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
took advantage of the issue and said that the released cables showed
U.S. concerns regarding Irans nuclear program are shared by the
international community." Tehran Times : WikiLeaks promoting
Iranophobia, December 5, 2010)
The Western media has jumped on this opportunity and has quoted the
State Department memoranda released by Wikleaks with a view to
upholding Iran as a threat to global security as well as fostering
divisions between Iran and the Arab world.
"The Global War on Terrorism"
The leaks quoted by the Western media reveal the support of the
Gulf States and Saudi Arabia to several Islamic terrorist organization,
a fact which is known and amply documented.
What the reports fail to mention, however, which is crucial in an
understanding of the "Global War on Terrorism", is that US intelligence
historically has channelled its support to terrorist organizations
via Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. REF These are covert intelligence
operations using Saudi and Pakistani intelligence as intermediaries.
The use of the Wikleaks documents by the media tend to sustain the
illusion that the CIA has nothing to do with the terror network and
that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are "providing the lion's
share of funding" to Al Qaeda, the Taliban Lashkar-e-Taiba, among
others, when in fact this financing is undertaken in liaison with
their US intelligence counterparts.
"The information came to light in the latest round of documents
released Sunday by Wikileaks. In their communiques to the State
Department, U.S. embassies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states
describe a situation in which wealthy private donors, often openly,
lavishly support the same groups against whom Saudi Arabia claims
to be fighting." ( Wikileaks: Saudis, Gulf States Big Funders of
Terror Groups - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National
News)
Similarly, with regard to Pakistan:
The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number
of news organizations, make it clear that underneath public
reassurances lie deep clashes [between the U.S. and Pakistan] over
strategic goals on issues like Pakistan's support for the Afghan
Taliban and tolerance of Al Qaeda,..." (Wary Dance With Pakistan
in Nuclear World, The New York Times December 1, 2010
The corporate media's use and interpretation of the Wikileaks cables
serves to uphold two related myths:
1) Iran has nuclear weapons program and constitutes a threat to
global security.
2) Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are state sponsors of Al Qaeda. They
are financing Islamic terrorist organizations which are intent upon
attacking the US States and its NATO allies.
The CIA and the Corporate Media
The CIA's relationship to the US media is amply documented. The New
York Times continues to entertain a close relationship with not
only with US intelligence, but also with the Pentagon and more
recently with the Department of Homeland Security.
"Operation Mocking Bird" was an initiative of the CIA's Office of
Special Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s. Its objective
was to exert influence on both the US as well as foreign media.
From the 1950s, members of the US media were routinely enlisted by
the CIA.
The inner workings of the CIA's relationship to the US media are
described in Carl Bernstein's 1977 article in Rolling Stone entitled
The CIA and the Media:
[M]ore than 400 American journalists who [had] secretly carried out
assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to
documents on file at CIA headquarters. [1950-1977]Some of these
journalists relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were
explicit. ... Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors
shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize
winners,... Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found
that their association with the Agency helped their work....;
Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were
Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of
Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry
Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier?Journal, and James Copley of
the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with
the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National
Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International,
Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps?Howard, Newsweek magazine, the
Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday
Evening Post and New York Herald?Tribune. The CIA and the Media by
Carl Bernstein
Bernstein suggests, in this regard, that "the CIAs use of the
American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials
have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of
Congress" (Ibid).
In recent years, the CIA's relationship to the media has become
increasingly complex and sophisticated. We are dealing with mammoth
propaganda network involving a number of agencies of government.
Media disinformation has become institutionalized. The lies and
fabrications have become increasingly blatant when compared to the
1950s. The US media has become the mouthpiece of US foreign policy.
Disinformation is routinely "planted" by CIA operatives in the
newsroom of major dailies, magazines and TV channels:
"A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the scoops,
that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources,
where the parameters of debate are set and the "official reality"
is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain."(Chaim
Kupferberg, The Propaganda Preparation of 9/11, Global Research,
September 19, 2002)
Since 2001, the US media has assumed a new role in sustaining the
Global War on Terrorism and camouflaging US sponsored war crimes.
In the wake of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld created the
Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation"
as it was labeled by its critics: "The Department of Defense said
they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories
that were false in foreign countries -- as an effort to influence
public opinion across the world. (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox
News, 26 December 2002, see also michel Chossudovsky, War Propaganda,
January 3, 2003).
Today's corporate media is an instrument of war propaganda, which
begs the question as to why the NYT would all of a sudden promote
transparency and truth in media, by assisting Wikileaks in "spreading
the word"; and that people around the World would not pause for one
moment and question the basis of this incongruous relationship.
On the surface, nothing proves that Wikileaks was a CIA covert
operation. However, given the corporate media's cohesive and
structured relationship to US intelligence, not to mention the links
of individual journalists to the military-national security
establishment, the issue of a CIA sponsored PsyOp must necessarily
be addressed.
Wikileaks Social and Corporate Entourage
Wikileaks and The Economist have also entered into what seems to
be a contradictory relationship. Wikileaks founder and editor Julian
Assange was granted in 2008 The Economist's New Media Award.
The Economist has a close relationship to Britain's financial elites.
It is an establishment news outlet, which has consistently supported
Britain's involvement in the Iraq war. It bears the stamp of the
Rothschild family. Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild was
chairman of The Economist from 1972-1989. His wife Lynn Forester
de Rothschild currently sits on The Economist's board. The Rothschild
family also has a sizeable shareholder interest in The Economist.
The broader question is why would Julian Assange receive the support
from Britain's foremost establishment news outfit which has
consistently been involved in media disinformation?
Are we not dealing with a case of "manufactured dissent", whereby
the process of supporting and rewarding Wikileaks for its endeavors,
becomes a means of controlling and manipulating the Wikileaks
project, while at the same time embedding it into the mainstream
media.
It is also worth mentioning another important link. Julian Assange's
lawyer Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), a major
London elite law, happens to be the legal adviser to the Rothschild
Waddesdon Trust. While this in itself does prove anything, it should
nonetheless be examined in the broader context of Wikileaks' social
and corporate entourage: the NYT, the CFR, The Economist, Time
Magazine, Forbes, Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), etc.
Manufacturing Dissent
Wikileaks has the essential features of a process of "manufactured
dissent". It seeks to expose government lies. It has released
important information on US war crimes. But once the project becomes
embedded in the mould of mainstream journalism, it is used as an
instrument of media disinformation:
"It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent
and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not
threaten the established social order. The purpose is not to repress
dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest
movement, to set the outer limits of dissent. To maintain their
legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms
of opposition... To be effective, however, the process of
"manufacturing dissent" must be carefully regulated and monitored
by those who are the object of the protest movement " (See Michel
Chossudovsky, "Manufacturing Dissent": the Anti-globalization
Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites, September 2010)
What this examination of the Wikileaks project also suggests is
that the mechanics of New World Order propaganda, particularly with
regard to its military agenda, has become increasingly sophisticated.
It no longer relies on the outright suppression of the facts regarding
US-NATO war crimes. Nor does it require that the reputation of
government officials at the highest levels, including the Secretary
of State, be protected. New World Order politicians are in a sense
"disposable". They can be replaced. What must be protected and
sustained are the interests of the economic elites, which control
the political apparatus from behind the scenes.
In the case of Wikileaks, the facts are contained in a databank;
many of those facts, particularly those pertaining to foreign
governments serve US foreign policy interests. Other facts tend,
on the other hand to discredit the US administration.
All these facts are selectively redacted, they are then "analyzed"
and interpreted by a media which serves the economic elites.
While the numerous facts contained in the Wikileaks data bank are
accessible, the broader public will not normally take the trouble
to consult and scan through the Wikileaks databank. The public will
read the redacted selections and interpretations presented in major
news outlets.
A partial and biased picture is presented. The redacted version is
accepted by public opinion because it is based on what is heralded
as a reliable source, when in fact what is presented in the pages
of major newspapers and on network TV is a carefully crafted and
convoluted distortion of the truth.
Limited forms of critical debate and "transparency" are tolerated
while also enforcing broad public acceptance of the basic premises
of US foreign policy, including its "Global War on Terrorism". With
regard to a large segment of the US antiwar movement, this strategy
seems to have succeeded: "We are against war but we support the
"war on terrorism".
What this means is that truth in media can only be reached by
dismantling the propaganda apparatus, --i.e. breaking the legitimacy
of the corporate media which sustains the broad interests of the
economic elites as well America's global military design.
In turn, we must ensure that the campaign against Wikileaks in the
U.S., using the 1917 Espionage Act, will not be utilized as a means
to wage a campaign to control the internet.
Please support Global Research Global Research relies on the financial
support of its readers.
Your endorsement is greatly appreciated
Subscribe to the Global Research e-newsletter Disclaimer: The views
expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on
Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility
of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not
be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements
contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research
articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title
are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be
displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or
other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
crgedi...@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.cacontains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available to our readers under the
provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding
of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If
you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair
use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgedi...@yahoo.com
Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2010
The url address of this article is:www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22389
Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx
Multimedia ) Copyright 2005-2007