Media Prostitutes Defend The Indefensible

By Stephen Lendman
3-21-14

They're propagandists. They masquerade as journalists. They make street whores look respectable by comparison.

A previous article said they're paid to lie, distort, and misinform. They blame imperial victims for horrendous crimes committed against them.

They support powerful monied interests. They cheerlead US imperial aggression. They call ravaging and destroying one country after another humanitarian intervention.

They ignore fundamental rule of law principles. They back wrong over right. They do it unapologetically. When America goes to war or intends to, they march in lockstep.

They beat up relentlessly on Washington's enemies. They bash them mindlessly. They do so irresponsibly.

Russia is in the eye of the storm. Putin is public enemy number one. Thankfully words can't kill. Media scoundrels use them like daggers.

Readers and viewers are carpet bombed with misinformation garbage. It's malicious. It rages nonstop daily. It's no surprise.

Russian blogger/Putin critic Alexey Navalny is gravely compromised. He masquerades as an anti-corruption activist.

He's a convicted embezzler. He was found guilty of misappropriating about $500,000.

He did so from state-owned Kirovles timber company. He's tied to Western monied interests. He's a US imperial stooge.

He was sentenced to five years in prison. He was fined about $15,000. He's currently under house arrest. He's an unrelenting Putin basher. He assails him irresponsibly.

New York Times editors gave him feature op-ed space. He headlined "How to Punish Putin," saying:

"…Russian people would soon weary of (his) empty promises." According to February poll numbers, nearly 68% of Russians approve his policies."

Reuters said his "popularity at home has been boosted by his action on Crimea." It's now 75%. Russians overwhelmingly support reunification. They back Putin's geopolitical forthrightness.

No Western politician approaches his popularity. None come close. Obama's approval rating hovers around 40%. Given his disdain for public interests, maybe it'll plunge before his second term ends.

Navalny lied saying "Russia sent troops to Ukraine…I underestimated Mr. Putin's talent for finding enemies," he added.

He's "dedicat(ed) to ruling as 'president for life," he railed. He wants "powers on par with the czars."

Russian democracy shames America's sham process. In 2012, pre-election polls predicted a 60% Putin majority. He won a 63.7% majority.

Among five presidential aspirants, his closest competitor got 17.2%. Putin won fair and square. Independent international monitors checked voting in over 30 Russian regions.

They called the process calm and orderly. "Elections were held in a normal mode and without serious violations," they said. Electoral law was scrupulously followed.

Don't expect Navalny to explain. He ludicrously calls himself a "patriot." He urged tougher sanctions. He wants Putin's "inner circle" targeted.

Punish his "war cabinet," he said. Putin wages war on no one. He respects other nations' sovereignty. Navalny lied suggesting otherwise.

Go after Gazprom, Rosneft, and other Russian businessmen, he urged. Target his "TV spin doctors, compliant Duma members and apparatchiks of (his) United Russia Party."

Go after "major cases of graft." He ignored his own grand theft. Polls show around 92% of Russians favor Crimean reunification.

Not according to Navalny. "(E)ven among the most nationalist and pro-Soviet of our people, a longing to restore Crimea to Russian rule faded years ago," he claimed.

Times editors didn't challenged his misinformation. They featured it. They highlighted his litany of lies. They publish plenty of their own.

They proliferate daily. They infest reports, commentaries and editorials. They mock real news and information. News they call "fit to print" is rubbish.

They let Navalny lie claiming Putin made "imperial annexation (a) strategic choice to bolster his regime's survival."

He's "motivated by the desire for revenge against the Ukrainian people revolting against a Kremlin-friendly government."

Navalny bashes Russian democracy. He supports Kiev putschist lawlessness. He's in lockstep with US imperial rampaging.

Lies infested his diatribe. He unconscionably said Crimean reunification (was) achieved at the end of the barrel of a gun…" He ignored near Crimean unanimity endorsing it.

He turned a blind eye to overwhelming support among Russian nationals at home. He accused Putin of "malign intent."

He's no democrat. He's no populist. He's ideologically driven. He's way over-the-top.

He's a Western media darling. Time magazine once ludicrously called him Russia's Erin Brockovich.

BBC once said he's "arguably the only major opposition figure to emerge in Russia in the past five years." In 2012, the Wall Street Journal called him "the man Vladimir Putin fears most."

Former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller said he's a "potential political leader." He's "young, thoughtful, politically astute, crowd-pleasing, and apparently unafraid."

He's a political opportunist. He's self-serving. He's involved for his own benefit. He's a Western stooge. So are Boris Nemtzov, Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Ryzhkov, and others like them.

Nemtzov and Kasparov met personally with Obama. They get State Department funding. So does Navalny. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) provides it.

It's part of Washington's anti-Russian policy. NED wages war on democracy worldwide. It advances US interests.

It ruthlessly targets Putin. It finances political initiatives opposing him. It meddles in Russia's presidential and parliamentary elections.

NED, its National Democratic Institute (NDI) arm, the International Republican Institute (IRI), and similar organizations are destabilizing US foreign policy tools.

They support pro-Western and/or regime change initiatives worldwide. They're CIA alter egos. They covertly fund opposition groups. They're actively anti-Putin.

Navalny and likeminded ideologues are convenient US imperial stooges. Don't expect Times editors to explain. Don't expect apologies for featuring them.

A same day Times editorial headlined "Post-Crimea Relations With the West," saying:

"Vladimir Putin's annexation of Crimea (showed) disdain for the West and its sanctions and threats." Doing so reversed a historic wrong. Times editors didn't explain.

They're right for the wrong reasons saying reunification may prove "a watershed in post-Soviet East-West relations." Indeed so if confrontation follows.

Putin has no imperial ambitions. He doesn't attack regional countries. He fiercely defends Russia's interests. He has every right to do so. He does it diplomatically. He does it responsibly.

He's not "emboldened to contemplate a similar takeover in Southeast Ukraine," as Times editors suggest.

He supports the right of sovereign people to make their own choices freely. He's ready to help Russian nationals abroad if their lives are endangered.

He's ready to do it  according to rule of law principles. Repeated Washington aggressive wars masquerade as humanitarian interventions.

Putin supports the real thing. He abhors war. He supports peace. He wants conflicts resolved diplomatically. He wants violence avoided at all costs.

He opposes partitioning Ukraine. He supports democratic governance. He rejects putschist illegitimacy. He does so responsibly. Don't expect Times editors to explain.

They support Kiev neo-Nazi power-grabbers. They do so disgracefully. They ignored the most brazen coup since Mussolini's 1922 march on Rome.

They turn a blind eye to the gravest geopolitical crisis since WW II. They're silent about Washington's full responsibility.

They wrongfully blamed democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych for Euromaidan sniper shootings. Putschist elements were involved. They enjoy full Western backing.

Times editors want Putin painfully punished. They want European dependence on Russian gas reduced. They want Western taxpayer money bolstering Kiev's illegitimate government.

They want Russia weakened and isolated. Perhaps they want WW III. They're in lockstep with all US imperial wars.

They ludicrously said "Mr. Putin should be made to understand that his authoritarian rule and imperial illusions are the problem, and not some perceived slights from the West."

Their editorial policy is upside down. It reinvents history irresponsibly. They disgrace themselves in the process. They betray their readers at the same time.

Washington Post anti-Putin wars rage. On March 19, WaPo editors headlined "Obama doesn't grasp Putin's Eurasian ambitions."

They lied accusing him of "mendacious charges that (Ukraine was) highjacked by 'nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites."

They support what demands condemnation. They endorse putschist illegitimacy. They ludicrously call it democratic governance.

They ignore US imperial lawlessness. They outrageously accused Putin of "threat(ening) European and global security." He goes all-out to secure it.

WaPo editors reinvent history. They support wrong over right. They endorse might is right. They ignore fundamental rule of law principles.

They make stuff up. They suggested Putin has imperial ambitions. They turn a blind eye to Washington's global ones.

They outrageously accused Putin of Crimean "aggression." They ludicrously said he's "bent on upending the post-Cold War order in Europe and reversing Russia's loss of dominion over Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia."

They ignore US-backed police state lawlessness. They call hugely exploited, impoverished former Soviet Bloc states model democracies.

They want all former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries incorporated within NATO. They want US bases on Russia's borders.

They're militantly pro-war. It bears repeating what previous articles said. Perhaps they want WW III.

Wall Street Journal editors match the worst of their Western counterparts. On March 19, they headlined "Ukraine and Nuclear Proliferation."

They lied claiming "world order" damage "from Vladimir Putin's invasion of Crimea…" What didn't occur "will echo for years," they said.

They ludicrously alleged "nuclear proliferation. One lesson to the world of Russia's cost-free carve-up of Ukraine is that nations that abandon their nuclear arsenals do so at their own peril."

They cite Ukraine as Exhibit A. Before Soviet Russia dissolved, it had hundreds of short and long-range nuclear weapons. It had "air-launched cruise missiles and bombers."

Under 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security

Assurances, Ukraine signed NPT. It returned its nuclear weapons to Russia. It did so for its own security. It did the right thing.

According to JournalThink, Ukraine worried most about potential "Russian aggression." Nothing whatever suggested it. None does now.

Ridding nations of nuclear weapons is an important step in the right direction. Potential mushroom cloud denouement freedom won't happen until all nuclear weapons are eliminated.

Washington and Israel pose the world's greatest threats. They have powerful arsenals. They have long-range delivery systems. They have imperial ambitions. They threaten humanity.

According to Journal editors, Iran and North Korea pose nuclear threats. Nothing whatever suggests it.

Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful. It has no military component. Claims otherwise are false. North Korea's nuclear capability is unknown. Speculation substitutes for verifiable facts.

Journal editors twist truth. They ludicrously cited "Ukraine's fate." They claimed it'll deter Iran and North Korea from "giv(ing) up their nuclear facilities or weapons."

They suggested "nonnuclear powers and even close US allies (will) wonder if they can still rely on America's security guarantees."

None exist. Washington rules apply. Independent nations are targeted for regime change. War is America's bottom line option.

Don't expect Journal editors to explain. They prioritize concocting new lies. They ludicrously said when US "assurances are called into question, the world becomes a far more dangerous place."

Rogue Washington policies threaten everyone. World peace hangs in the balance. Permanent war is longstanding US policy. Waging one after another may extinguish planetary life entirely.

No greater threat exists. Journal editors pretend otherwise. They mock legitimate journalism. They support wrong over right.

They do so unapologetically. They prostitute themselves for power. They have plenty of scoundrel media company.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour