rense.com



The Day Of Record -
For The Rag Of Record

By Ted Lang
6-16-5
 
Considering that it was the fifteenth day of the month, precisely the middle of June, 2005, we derive the additional benefit of a date which can easily be memorized. Recall the soothsayer in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar: "Beware of the ides of March." The ides on the Roman calendar do not apply to June; but this particular day could well be defined as "the ides of Bush."
 
Several things have happened in the MSM: first, on the night of June 14th, Tuesday to be exact, and on NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams, the Internet-notorious "Downing Street Memo," as well as the more recently discovered additional documents concerning the Bush/Blair-manufactured phony intelligence used to set up the invasion of Iraq, were not only reported upon, but followed right after the headlined Iraqi story at the top of the program; secondly, posted on Drudge on June 15th and originated by UPI, the bombshell news release by Morgan Reynolds, yet another Bush insider, detail his astonishing accusation stating that the Bush explanation of 9-11 was "bogus."
 
What a day! References to those "back alley" undisciplined, unauthorized, unlicensed, non-gatekeeper "unprofessional" news and opinion websites of the Internet are now proven as the only true sources of real news in America today. And because of it, a real American patriot, Congressman John Conyers, Jr., of Michigan, won't have to go it alone. Sure he had 88 co-signers to his letter to Bush, but Bush didn't even bother to respond. Mighty Mouth McClellan dismissed Conyers' memo as absurd, and not worthy of a response.
 
Although many Internet websites took up the cause of the Downing Street Memo, Conyers was right all along - without the mainstream media, there would be no public outcry. But what the criminal Bush regime didn't count on was the most dangerous malady for criminals who lie and deceive: the truth. Combined with the technology of the Internet, Bush victim survivors and families emerging from his two major criminal acts, 9-11 and Iraq, were able to communicate, lent support and credibility to those Internet websites that had both the decency and the courage to tell the truth, and finally gave Congressman Conyers the support he so badly needed.
 
I saw it coming! I knew the Times was tinkering with disaster, and now it's here. And we should never let these complicit bastards off the hook. And this is precisely what I mean by the term: "the day of record." As of June 15, 2005, it is established that 1,700 American service personnel have died in the war in Iraq. Approximately 12,000 of our troops have been maimed and injured, and 100,000 innocent civilians in Fallujah were needlessly murdered by Bush in retaliation for the murders of four highly-paid contractors who chose money over life, just like Bush.
 
This is the day of record because any additional military personnel still needlessly in harm's way that are killed, wounded, maimed and dismembered, will have suffered such fate because of the corrupt, irresponsible and unprofessional "journalism" of the Times and their subservient stooges in network television news in protecting the Bush regime from its rendezvous with the truth. The Times has been identified as the "gatekeeper" and "newspaper of record" by one of the MSM's own in the two books he wrote about the subject: Bernard Goldberg.
 
The Times has finally conceded and tossed in the towel, albeit shrouded in the same unapologetic "who cares" demeanor similarly offered by Tony Blair: "This is old news." And of course, it was only some loose mud from a British political campaign that caused this exposé thereby negating totally its horrific message and impact.
 
The Times' backdoor after-the-fact article was handled by Todd Purdum in his June 14th article published six full weeks after the Sunday London Times broke the story, "A Peephole to the War Room: British Documents Shed Light on Bush Team's State of Mind." Purdum backs into the story reactively and then diminishes his facts to get the Times caught up in what Internet journalists have been dealing with over the last month and a half. The second paragraph is intended to both explain the Times' late arrival tied to the non-importance of the shocking facts uncovered.
 
Purdum begins: "The disclosure of British government memorandums portraying the Bush administration as bent on war with Iraq by the summer of 2002, and insufficiently prepared for post-invasion problems, has caused a political stir on both sides of the Atlantic, in part because opponents of President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair see the documents as proof that both men misled their countries into war." Got that? In large part, it is only "opponents" of Bush that arrive at such horrific conclusions. This explains why the Times didn't jump on the story the way the unprofessional Internet did.
 
So now after capsuling the facts so brilliantly, albeit justifying its late entry, the Times then uses the most powerful three-letter word in "journalism": "But." Here's the disclaimer in the second paragraph: "But the documents are not quite so shocking." See fools - why all the fuss? "Three years ago, the near-unanimous conventional wisdom in Washington held that Mr. Bush was determined to topple Saddam Hussein by any means necessary. Plenty of people - chief among them Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state - were also warning in public and private that the Pentagon was ill prepared for prolonged occupation."
 
Why these observations? What is being offered as proof of irrelevance by the Times is mere insider opinion ["everybody already knew all this"] and that the Pentagon was "ill prepared." What do the warnings of Colin Powell and the Pentagon's ill preparedness have to do with the Downing Street Memo? The issue here is not only that of planning a war for no other reason than Bush's private desire to topple Saddam, but that there was never any intention to find evidence on his part to tie this to 9-11! And remember the revelations of Paul O'Neill and Richard Clark, which couldn't be substantiated because of a lack of evidence and corroboration.
 
Considering the Memo in the context of O'Neill, Clark, and now Reynolds, wouldn't it serve to effectively reinforce growing suspicions resultant of the mounting evidence that the Bush regime was extremely complicit in 9-11 in order to capitalize on America's anger? Isn't it obvious that evidence of Saddam's link to 9-11 was manufactured? Can the Times and Purdum make these connections? Obviously not!
 
And now, The New York Times' complete vindication of both themselves and the Bush regime in pleading their case to America: "The so-called Downing Street memo, a summary of a prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, does not put forward specific proof that Mr. Bush had taken any particular action, only a general sense that 'it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.' It describes the impression of Britain's chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, that 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy,' but does not elaborate."
 
So there you have it! The Times accepts the fiction of Walter Duranty and Josef Stalin, and the Pulitzer Prize that was presented for that deadly fiction, accepts and then tries to protect the fiction writing of Jayson Blair costing it their two top executives, but won't simply pass along to the American people information possibly incriminating the worst, most despotic, secret criminal regime to ever occupy the White House, and all because there was no proof. What a hoot!
 
 
Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.
c. 2005 Ted Lang - All Rights Reserved
 

Disclaimer






MainPage
http://www.rense.com


This Site Served by TheHostPros