-   Soap Box (
-   -   Establishment Media Witch (

ewmayer 2017-10-21 00:36

o []No, NYTimes, US Didn’t ‘Stand By’ Indonesian Genocide—It Actively Participated[/url] |

o [url=]CIA says mistakenly ‘shredded’ Senate torture report then did not[/url] | Reuters

And we are to believe that there were/are not multiple digital copies floating around, as well, not even on the sekrit-data-hoovering servers at the NSA, erm, I mean the Deplorable Rooskie intelligence services? The CIA wouldn’t lie to us, would they?

Speaking of the Deplorable Rooskies, the following story - though not with the latest fine-level details - has been making the rounds in the blogosphere for years but been getting studiously ignored by the MSM until very recently, perhaps as a consequence of FBI director Mueller's Trump-administration-Russia-ties fishing expedition having instead uncovered evidence of US-democracy-hacking by Boris and Natasha which goes back just a few years further:

o []Bill Clinton sought State’s permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium decision[/url] | The Hill
[quote]As he prepared to collect a $500,000 payday in Moscow in 2010, Bill Clinton sought clearance from the State Department to meet with a key board director of the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom — which at the time needed the Obama administration’s approval for a controversial uranium deal, government records show.

Arkady Dvorkovich, a top aide to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and one of the highest-ranking government officials to serve on Rosatom’s board of supervisors, was listed on a May 14, 2010, email as one of 15 Russians the former president wanted to meet during a late June 2010 trip, the documents show.

“In the context of a possible trip to Russia at the end of June, WJC is being asked to see the business/government folks below. Would State have concerns about WJC seeing any of these folks,” Clinton Foundation foreign policy adviser Amitabh Desai wrote the State Department on May 14, 2010, using the former president’s initials and forwarding the list of names to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s team.

The email went to two of Hillary Clinton’s most senior advisers, Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills.

The approval question, however, sat inside State for nearly two weeks without an answer, prompting Desai to make multiple pleas for a decision.

“Dear Jake, we urgently need feedback on this. Thanks, Ami,” the former president’s aide wrote in early June.

Sullivan finally responded on June 7, 2010, asking a fellow State official “What’s the deal w this?”

The documents don’t indicate what decision the State Department finally made. But current and former aides to both Clintons told The Hill on Thursday the request to meet the various Russians came from other people, and the ex-president’s aides and State decided in the end not to hold any of the meetings with the Russians on the list.
Bill Clinton instead got together with Vladimir Putin at the Russian leader’s private homestead.
“Requests of this type were run by the State Department as a matter of course. This was yet another one of those instances. Ultimately, President Clinton did not meet with these people,” Angel Urena, the official spokesperson for the former president, told The Hill.[/quote]
Riiiight ... they talked about the same kinds of stuff Bill and Loretta Lynch talked about in their famous "completely casual, spur-of-the-moment-kind-of thing" airpot-tarmac meeting last year, you know, how're-the-kids-oh-wait-do-you-even-have-any-kids-so-sorry-well-I-have-one-and-she's-married-to-a-Wall-Street-hedge-fund-guy-and-loves-yoga.

Unlike the 2016-election-stolen-by-Putin-who-personally-induced-Hillary-to-blow-off-campaigning-in-the-Rust-Belt hysterical inanity, this one has a wealth of actual facts supporting it, not "consensus assessment of unnamed top intelligence officials" and similar BS. So of course it's being strenuously pooh-poohed via ad hominem argumentation and outright lies, e.g.
[quote]A spokesman for Secretary Clinton said Thursday the continued focus on the Uranium One deal smacked of partisan politics aimed at benefiting Donald Trump.

“At every turn this storyline has been debunked on the merits. Its roots are with a project shepherded by Steve Bannon, which should tell you all you need to know,” said Nick Merrill. “This latest iteration is simply more of the right doing Trump’s bidding for him to distract from his own Russia problems, which are real and a grave threat to our national security.”[/quote]
Funnily, Nick, I see very little 'debunking on the merits' in The Hill piece. Perhaps you got your talking-points memos confused and were referring to your own boss's campaign of Russia scaremongering, the one designed to deflect attention from how The Most Qualified Presidential Candidate Ever™ ended up losing to the The Least Qualified Presidential Candidate Ever?

kladner 2017-10-24 16:55

[QUOTE]o [URL=""]No, NYTimes, US Didn’t ‘Stand By’ Indonesian Genocide—It Actively Participated[/URL] |[/QUOTE]
We just returned from a ship largely staffed by Indonesian and Filipino workers in food and drink service. This story not only calls to mind the Indonesian slaughter, but highlights the ongoing atrocities in the Philippines.

Nick 2017-10-25 15:45

[QUOTE=kladner;470284]We just returned from a ship largely staffed by Indonesian and Filipino workers in food and drink service. This story not only calls to mind the Indonesian slaughter, but highlights the ongoing atrocities in the Philippines.[/QUOTE]
We have occasionally found crew members willing to drop the professional smile for a few minutes and chat openly about their own lives.

Hope you had a good holiday!

kladner 2017-10-25 20:32

[QUOTE=Nick;470332]We have occasionally found crew members willing to drop the professional smile for a few minutes and chat openly about their own lives.

Hope you had a good holiday![/QUOTE]
Thanks, Nick. I thought of you while aboard Oosterdam. I remembered your remark about riding up and down the glass elevators. I will say more in a more appropriate venue; not sure which.

ewmayer 2017-12-10 00:25

o [url=]The U.S. Media Yesterday Suffered its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages: Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened[/url] | Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

Someone should send each of the lying liars in the MSM [url=]one of these[/url] as a year-end holiday president. The specific ebay-auction link therein shows the going price at a hefty £24.99, 50% higher than the £15.99 cited in the The Sun piece, but I found many similar items on each of ebay USA, UK and Australia simply by searching for "putin 2018 calendar" on each. Just ordered a slightly different 2018 Putin wall calendar as an amusing Xmas gift for a friend, only $8.99 including shipping from Russia to Oz. С РОЖДЕСТВОМ!

o I suggest treating Greenwald's above-linked piece as an appetizer, because it's actually a little repetitive and not one of his best - by way of a main course I recommend this gem of piece by CJ Hopkins, which brilliantly and funnily reviews the year of post-election establishment media hysteria:

[url=]The Year of the Headless Liberal Chicken[/url] | Counterpunch
[quote]Th[e] initial post-election propaganda was understandably somewhat awkward, as the plan had been to be able to celebrate the “Triumph of Love over the Forces of Hate,” and the demise of the latest Hitlerian bogeyman. But this was the risk the ruling classes took when they chose to go ahead and Hitlerize Trump, which they wouldn’t have done if they’d thought for a moment that he had a chance of actually winning the election. That’s the tricky thing about Hitlerizing people. You need to be able to kill them, eventually. If you don’t, when they turn out not to be Hitler, your narrative kind of falls apart, and the people you’ve fear-mongered into a frenzy of frothing, self-righteous fake-Hitler-hatred end up feeling like a bunch of dupes who’ll believe anything the government tells them. This is why, normally, you only Hitlerize foreign despots you can kill with impunity. This is Hitlerization 101 stuff, which the ruling classes ignored in this case, which the left poor liberals terrified that Trump was actually going to start building Trump-branded death camps and rounding up the Jews.

Fortunately, just in the nick of time, the ruling classes and their media mouthpieces rolled out the Russian Propaganda story. The Washington Post (whose owner’s multimillion dollar deal with the CIA, of course, has absolutely no effect on the quality of its professional journalism) led the charge with [url=]this McCarthyite smear job[/url], legitimizing the baseless allegations of some random website and a think tank staffed by charlatans like [url=]this “Russia expert,”[/url] who appears not to speak a word of Russian or have any other “Russia expert” credentials, but is available both for television and Senate Intelligence Committee appearances. Numerous [url=]similar smear pieces[/url] followed. Liberals breathed a big sigh of relief … that Hitler business had been getting kind of scary. How long can you go, after all, with Hitler stumbling around the White House before somebody has to go in there and shoot him?[/quote]

kladner 2018-01-02 00:19

Russiagate Is Devolving Into an Effort to Stigmatize Dissent
Paging George Soros. :drama: Ooh..wait...which of those prominent pro-Russian businessmen are they referring to?

[QUOTE]According to the 14 former officials, Russia’s active-measure campaign relies “on intermediaries or ‘cut outs’ inside a country,” which are rather broadly defined as [U]“political organizers and [B]activists[/B], [B]academics[/B], [B]journalists[/B], [B]web operators[/B], shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and [B]prominent pro-Russian businessmen.[/B]” [/U]

Such “intermediaries” can range from “the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is his best interest, to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced to directly advance Russian operations and objectives.”
In other words, a Russian “cut out” (or fifth columnist) [U]can be defined as those “activists, academics, journalists, [or] web operators” who dissent from the shared ideology of the 14 signatories of the amicus brief. [/U]

ewmayer 2018-01-02 01:57

[url=]NYT Trumpwashes 70 Years of U.S. Crimes[/url] | Alternet
[quote]There’s lots of ideology to unpack here, but let’s start with the empirically false assertion that the “world” viewed the United States as a “reliable anchor of the liberal, rules-based international order.” Poll (Guardian, 6/15/06) after poll (Pew, 3/14/07) after poll (PRI, 1/3/14) throughout the years has shown that much of the world views the United States as threat to peace, often taking the top spot as the single greatest threat. What evidence Landler has for the world viewing the US as a sort of good-natured global babysitter is unclear, as he cites nothing to support this hugely important claim (since if Trump’s cynical disregard for “human rights” is nothing new, then there’s no real story here). It’s just thrown out with the assumption the Times readership is sufficiently nationalistic and/or amnesiac to either not notice or not care. It’s designed to flatter, not to elucidate.
The second dubious assertion is the idea that the US is “viewed” as being (or, by implication, objectively is) concerned with “liberal, rules-based international order.” Perhaps Landler missed the part where the US runs offshore penal colonies for untried political prisoners, and a decade-long drone war that’s killed thousands—both entirely outside the scope of international law. Or the time the US invaded and destroyed Iraq without any international authorization, killing hundreds of thousands. Or perhaps he missed the part where the United States refuses to sign “liberal, rules-based international order” treaties such as the International Criminal Court or the ban on bombs and or a prohibition on nuclear weapons. Or the part where [b]the US not only doesn’t recognize the International Criminal Court, but has a law on its books (dubbed “the Hague Invasion Act,” passed in 2002) that if an American is ever held by the ICC for committing war crimes, the US is obligated to literally invade the Hague and free them.[/b][/quote]

Nick 2018-01-02 10:07

Yes, at the time that law was passed in the US, I was working in the building opposite the ICC in The Hague, and my company fitted toughened glass in all the windows on that side.
I believe the US ambassador (to the Netherlands) was summoned to explain this planned invasion.

kladner 2018-01-02 22:56

NYT Writes Epic Cover For Comey's FBI - Its Sole Source: "Officials Said"
I will mostly let Moon of Alabama speak for themselves. This is just another example of the rampant boondoggling and hornswoggling involved in the so-called "Russiagate" story.
[QUOTE]The Australian diplomat heard from a drunk Papadopoulos that some weird professor claimed to have heard from Russian sources that the Kremlin had dirt on Clinton. Two month later the Aussies tell their U.S. colleagues of that claim. It is fourth degree hearsay when it it reaches the FBI:[INDENT]Once the information Mr. Papadopoulos had disclosed to the Australian diplomat reached the F.B.I., the bureau opened an investigation that became one of its most closely guarded secrets.[/INDENT]Are we really to believe that the FBI opens highly political investigations based on mere drunken rumors? That sounds implausible to me.
In early July 2016 the former British agent Steele had given the first parts of his dossier to an FBI agent in Rome. ([URL=""]Here[/URL] is a cheat sheet on the dossier and its content timeline.) The dossier at that time included an alleged wild night in the Ritz Moscow which the Kremlin could use to blackmail Trump. It also included a trip one Carter Page had made to Moscow. The FBI opened its investigation after Steele had shown his claims to an FBI agent. But the NYT claims that the Steele dossier was not what tripped the investigation. It claims that a rumor that some Aussie diplomat had picked up from a drunken Trump campaign aid was the decisive point.
On what grounds does the NYT make that implausible claim?[INDENT]A team of F.B.I. agents traveled to Europe to interview Mr. Steele in early October 2016. Mr. Steele had shown some of his findings to an F.B.I. agent in Rome three months earlier, [B]but that information was not part of the justification to start an counterintelligence inquiry, [U]American officials said[/U][/B].[/INDENT][/QUOTE]

gophne 2018-01-03 00:39

Good idea.

Perhaps the acronymn MSM some should be changed to LSM, Lame Steam Media, as many people have suggested.

ewmayer 2018-01-03 02:31

Invaluable inconvenient-truth-teller Robert Parry of [i]Consortium News[/i] announces that he had a stroke on Christmas Eve:

[url=]An Apology and Explanation[/url]
[quote]The hatred of Trump and Putin was so intense that old-fashioned rules of journalism and fairness were brushed aside. On a personal note, I faced harsh criticism even from friends of many years for refusing to enlist in the anti-Trump “Resistance.” The argument was that Trump was such a unique threat to America and the world that I should join in finding any justification for his ouster. Some people saw my insistence on the same journalistic standards that I had always employed somehow a betrayal.

Other people, including senior editors across the mainstream media, began to treat the unproven Russia-gate allegations as flat fact. No skepticism was tolerated and mentioning the obvious bias among the never-Trumpers inside the FBI, Justice Department and intelligence community was decried as an attack on the integrity of the U.S. government’s institutions. Anti-Trump “progressives” were posturing as the true patriots because of their now unquestioning acceptance of the evidence-free proclamations of the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Hatred of Trump had become like some invasion of the body snatchers – or perhaps many of my journalistic colleagues had never believed in the principles of journalism that I had embraced throughout my adult life. To me, journalism wasn’t just a cover for political activism; it was a commitment to the American people and the world to tell important news stories as fully and fairly as I could; not to slant the “facts” to “get” some “bad” political leader or “guide” the public in some desired direction.

I actually believed that the point of journalism in a democracy was to give the voters unbiased information and the necessary context so the voters could make up their own minds and use their ballot – as imperfect as that is – to direct the politicians to take actions on behalf of the nation. The unpleasant reality that the past year has brought home to me is that a shockingly small number of people in Official Washington and the mainstream news media actually believe in real democracy or the goal of an informed electorate.

Whether they would admit it or not, they believe in a “guided democracy” in which “approved” opinions are elevated – regardless of their absence of factual basis – and “unapproved” evidence is brushed aside or disparaged regardless of its quality. Everything becomes “information warfare” – whether on Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, MSNBC, the New York Times or the Washington Post. Instead of information provided evenhandedly to the public, it is rationed out in morsels designed to elicit the desired emotional reactions and achieve a political outcome.[/quote]
One quibble with this otherwise-excellent post is that RP omits mention that the Obama-birth-certificate nonsense [url=]was first pushed by Hillary Clinton supporters[/url] during her failed 2008 presidential campaign. Also amusing is FactCheck's [url=]later attempts to walk back the story[/url], via what is sometimes referred to as "lawyerly parsing". Compare the wording in the two linked pieces:

FactCheck, 2008:
[quote]Of all the nutty rumors, baseless conspiracy theories and sheer disinformation that we’ve dealt with at during campaign 2008, perhaps the goofiest is the claim that Barack Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” and therefore not eligible to be president under the constitution.
This claim was first advanced by diehard Hillary Clinton supporters as her campaign for the party’s nomination faded[/b], and has enjoyed a revival among John McCain’s partisans as he fell substantially behind Obama in public opinion polls.[/quote]

FactCheck, 2016:
[quote]As we wrote last year, [b]there’s no evidence that Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with bogus claims that Obama wasn’t born in the United States[/b] and thus was ineligible to be president.
In 2011, Politico did publish an article on the origins of “birtherism” that said that it began with Democrats, not Republicans.
Politico, April 22, 2011: The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama.
But one of the authors of the Politico story, Byron Tau, now a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, told via email that “we never found any links between the Clinton campaign and the rumors in 2008.”

The other coauthor of the Politico story, Ben Smith, now the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, previously told MSNBC during a 2013 interview that the conspiracy theories traced back to “some of [Hillary Clinton’s] passionate supporters.” But he said the theories did not come from “Clinton herself or her staff.”[/quote]
Let's say you were running a presidential campaign and wanted to smear an opponent with allegations you knew were bogus. Would you make them yourself, or perhaps arms-length farm them out to some well-placed of your "passionate supporters"? Nor is there any evidence of "the campaign" - as in the official one - attempting to quash the smear campaign by said supporters.

All times are UTC. The time now is 23:20.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.