- America's "newspaper of record" makes painful
reading for alternative media consumers, knowledgeable about what Times
correspondents, opinion contributors and editorial writers misreport, conceal,
or lie outrageously about.
- For example, writer CJ Chivers' August 12 "Notes
From the Front Lines" piece practically lionized cutthroat rebels,
embedded with them to present their point of view only, saying:
- "Just who are the rebels who have taken up arms
against (Gaddafi), and how do they fight?" Instead of explaining accurately,
Chivers discusses a battle, reading more like bad fiction than reality,
pitting recruited NATO killers against a sitting government most Libyans
support and will fight to save it.
- But don't expect Chivers to explain. Instead, he enlists
reader sympathy for a wounded insurgent, saying:
- "Rebels fire rifles to suppress (Gaddafi's) soldiers...One
of the rebels - his name is Hamid Shwaili - falls. He calls for help. Other
rebels at a nearby building fire machine guns....as the wounded man's friends
drag him back up (an) alley, to what appears to have been a small garage,
where doctors try to administer immediate aid."
- "Near death, Mr. Shwaili is soon rushed to an ambulance,
bound for a hospital, no doubt."
- Wringing maximum emotion from his readers, he highlighted
his bloodstained clothing and "dark puddle" near where he fell,
saying "you will see his blood loss has been extreme."
- But there's more, saying Shwaili "was an unemployed
mechanic caught up in the turmoil for Libya's future, and met his end holding
a rifle in a battle for Misurata's once quiet streets."
- It's to arouse maximum support for a lawless insurgency
to provide Washington with another imperial trophy, at the expense of all
Libyans, including most damn fool paramilitaries fighting for the wrong
side. But don't expect Chivers to explain, reporting like others "in
bed with" NATO for their livelihoods, instead of telling the truth.
Their job description prohibits it.
- In his very lengthy piece, Chivers presents a scenario
right out of a Pentagon-funded Hollywood sound stage, complete with photos
from the firefight video, including Shwaili (or a convenient stand-in)
calling for help on the ground.
- Completing his account, he also lionized the filmmaker,
a man named Liohn, praising his courage for "put(ting) himself into
the midst of the fighting to make this record."
- Or did he invent it to enlist support for NATO, a destructive
missile aimed at the heart of free people everywhere, never for defense
and democratic principles.
- It wasn't discussed or Liohn's paymaster, ensconced at
Pentagon high-command headquarters in Washington or its NATO Brussels office,
depriving Americans of vitally needed revenue for homeland needs by spending
it for death and destruction.
- Not a mention in Chivers' pure propaganda piece, reading
like bad fiction.
- Neither did Times writers David Kirkpatrick and Chivers
again headlining, "Tribal Rifts Threaten to Undermine Libya Uprising,"
pretending its a nobel cause instead of a lawless Pentagon-backed insurgency,
- "(T)he six-month-old rebel uprising against (Gaddafi)
is showing signs of sliding from a struggle to overthrow an autocrat into
a murkier contest between factions and tribes....The infighting could also
erode support for the rebels among members of the NATO alliance."
- In fact, rebel forces are in disarray. The corrupted
National Transitional Council (NTC) leadership is falling apart. Its head,
Mustafa Abdul Jalil, a shameless opportunist, sacked his entire executive
committee, and rebel assassins murdered their field commander, Gen. Abdul
Fatah Younis and two of his aides for allegedly holding reconciliation
talks with Gaddafi officials.
- Yet Kirkpatrick and Chivers said rebels "sought
to maintain a clean image to portray themselves as fighting to establish
a secular democracy," but infighting "could disintegrate into
(counterproductive) tribal tensions...."
- Moreover, they're harming "the moral clarity of
six months ago, when (Gaddafi) forces were bearing down on Benghazi and
he was threatening to wipe out anyone who dared oppose him there...."
- In fact, Gaddafi didn't incite hostilities. He responded
to them, saying repeatedly he wants peace, reconciliation, and a united
Libya. Moreover, he said if rebels laid down their arms, they'd be no recriminations.
- His offers, however, went unanswered or spurned because
NATO wants war, death and destruction, its usual scheme against every country
it attacks, intending to rape and pillage them one by one or in multiples.
- Kirkpatrick and Chivers were silent, instead quoting
Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman,
acknowledging "disturbing" infighting, but saying TNC leaders
(themselves in disarray) took swift steps to correct things.
- At the same time, an unnamed Obama official expressed
doubts, saying: "I think the jury is out on how unified the command
will be" after Jalil sacked his entire executive committee, a clear
sign of rebel leadership trouble.
- Kirkpatrick and Chivers, however, stressed alleged Gaddafi
crimes, saying to "re-establish control of the capital" he never
lost, his forces "fir(ed) live ammunition into unarmed crowds, as
the (in bed with) International Criminal Court attested," based on
Western corporate media reports, not non-existant hard evidence.
- "The rebel leadership in Benghazi (unconfirmed reports
say they fled for their safety) continue to insist that it can reconcile
the differences among Libyan factions and tribes. (Moreover, TNC leaders)
pledged to form a new broadly representative unity government based in
Tripoli if (Gaddafi) leaves power."
- In fact, no such plan exists because Washington and its
NATO partners intend to carve up the Libyan corpse profitably, at the expense
of ordinary Libyans they'll exploit, not help, if gain control.
- Excluding that reality, Kirkpatrick and Chivers blame
Gaddafi, maligning him more by quoting Professor Diederik Vandewalle, "a
Libya expert," saying:
- "(T)he real tragedy of (his) system....leaves virtually
everyone open to retribution."
- Then hammering him more with Cambridge University's George
Joffe (another "Libya expert") saying, "(T)he longer this
struggle continues, the more likely and bitter that will become."
- Reality on the ground is far different than what Times
writers, other corporate hacks, and complicit "experts" report
- seeing one thing firsthand or through their own analysis, then reporting
another for their bosses (or sworn mandates), wanting no part of the truth.
- A Final Comment
- Another Times article also missed the mark, written by
Ravi Somaiya headlined, "After British Riots, Conflicting Answers
as to 'Why,' " saying:
- National debate "puzzle(s) over what drove even
some previously law-abiding people to steal. (It's) divided people into
- Prime Minister David Cameron called it "mindless
violence and thuggery," despite knowing what's going on but won't
say. Others accurately blame a "culture of greed and impunity,"
as well as festering social injustice, also omiting what's key and unreported
anywhere in the mainstream as expected.
- Somaiya also quoted so-called experts, providing the
usual explanations, stopping short of what's most important. For example,
social psychologist Clifford Stott said bystanders often blame police,
not rioters, and Pamela Rutledge noted that hammers can be used "to
build something or destroy it. It's just a tool."
- Somaiya's article left unmentioned what readers most
need to know. A previous article explained, accessed through the following
- Indeed it's about poverty, unemployment, inequality,
and social injustice, but much more. It's about:
- -- Big Money orchestrating everything;
- -- preventing Blacks, Whites, and other deprived groups
from uniting powerfully for a common cause;
- -- inciting race and class wars to divide and subdue;
- -- using provocateurs to ignite them;
- -- having complicit media report regime friendly accounts;
- -- destroying things because it's more profitable than
- It's also about testing command and control systems for
eventual larger riots as economic conditions grow more intolerable, as
well as diverting public attention from conditions harming their welfare.
- Moreover, it's about weakening resistance to state repression
supporting corporate, not popular, interests and causing serious human
consequences in the process. It's about wrong over right and keeping people
from knowing what's really going on and why.
- It's about a far more sinister type social injustice
than most observers realize. It's why exposing and denouncing it is vital,
so people harmed can fight back for what government won't address otherwise.
- It's their only chance to get out from under the repressive
yoke suffocating them. What more important reason to react than that!
- Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
- Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and
listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive
Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central
time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy