RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Parry writes: "Official Washington's many false narratives about Russia and Syria have gotten so tangled that they have become a danger to the struggle against Sunni jihadist terrorism and conceivably a threat to the future of the planet."

President Obama. (photo: Getty)
President Obama. (photo: Getty)


Tangled Threads of US False Narratives

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

20 November 15

 

Official Washington’s many false narratives about Russia and Syria have gotten so tangled that they have become a danger to the struggle against Sunni jihadist terrorism and conceivably a threat to the future of the planet, a risk that Robert Parry explores.

ne way to view Official Washington is to envision a giant bubble that serves as a hothouse for growing genetically modified “group thinks.” Most inhabitants of the bubble praise these creations as glorious and beyond reproach, but a few dissenters note how strange and dangerous these products are. Those critics, however, are then banished from the bubble, leaving behind an evermore concentrated consensus.

This process could be almost comical – as the many armchair warriors repeat What Everyone Knows to Be True as self-justifying proof that more and more wars and confrontations are needed – but the United States is the most powerful nation on earth and its fallacious “group thinks” are spreading a widening arc of chaos and death around the globe.

We even have presidential candidates, especially among the Republicans but including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, competing to out-bellicose each other, treating an invasion of Syria as the least one can do and some even bragging about how they might like to shoot down a few Russian warplanes.

Though President Barack Obama has dragged his heels regarding some of the more extreme proposals, he still falls in line with the “group think,” continuing to insist on “regime change” in Syria (President Bashar al-Assad “must go”), permitting the supply of sophisticated weapons to Sunni jihadists (including TOW anti-tank missiles to Ahrar ash-Sham, a jihadist group founded by Al Qaeda veterans and fighting alongside Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front), and allowing his staff to personally insult Russian President Vladimir Putin (having White House spokesman Josh Earnest in September demean Putin’s posture for sitting with his legs apart during a Kremlin meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu).

Not surprisingly, I guess, Earnest’s prissy disapproval of what is commonly called “man spread” didn’t extend to Netanyahu who adopted the same open-leg posture in the meeting with Putin on Sept. 21 and again in last week’s meeting with Obama, who – it should be noted – sat with his legs primly crossed.

This combination of tough talk, crude insults and reckless support of Al Qaeda-connected jihadis (“our guys”) apparently has become de rigueur in Official Washington, which remains dominated by the foreign policy ideology of neoconservatives, who established the goal of “regime change” in Iraq, Syria and Iran as early as 1996 and haven’t changed course since. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “How Neocons Destabilized Europe.”]

Shaping Narratives

Despite the catastrophic Iraq War – based on neocon-driven falsehoods about WMD and the complicit unthinking “group think” – the neocons retained their influence largely through an alliance with “liberal interventionists” and their combined domination of major Washington think tanks, from the American Enterprise Institute to the Brookings Institution, and the mainstream U.S. news media, including The Washington Post and The New York Times.

This power base has allowed the neocons to continue shaping Official Washington’s narratives regardless of what the actual facts are. For instance, a Post editorial on Thursday repeated the claim that Assad’s “atrocities” included use of chemical weapons, an apparent reference to the now largely discredited claim that Assad’s forces were responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013.

After the attack, there was a rush to judgment by the U.S. State Department blaming Assad’s troops and leading Secretary of State John Kerry to threaten retaliatory strikes against the Syrian military. But U.S. intelligence analysts refused to sign on to the hasty conclusions, contributing to President Obama’s last-minute decision to hold off on a bombing campaign and to accept Putin’s help in negotiating Assad’s surrender of all Syrian chemical weapons (though Assad still denied a role in the sarin attack).

Subsequently, much of the slapdash case for bombing Syria fell apart. As more evidence became available, it increasingly appeared that the sarin attack was a provocation by Sunni jihadists, possibly aided by Turkish intelligence, to trick the United States into destroying Assad’s military and thus clearing the way for a Sunni jihadist victory.

We now know that the likely beneficiaries of such a U.S. attack would have been Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and the spinoff known as the Islamic State (also called ISIS, ISIL or Daesh). But the Obama administration never formally retracted its spurious sarin claims, thus allowing irresponsible media outlets, such as The Washington Post, to continue citing the outdated “group think.”

The same Post editorial denounced Assad for using “barrel bombs” against the Sunni rebels who are seeking to overthrow his secular government, which is viewed as the protector of Syria’s minorities – including Christians, Alawites and Shiites – who could face genocide if the Sunni extremists prevail.

Though this “barrel bomb” theme has become a favorite talking point of both the neocons and liberal “human rights” groups, it’s never been clear how these homemade explosive devices shoved out of helicopters are any more inhumane than the massive volumes of “shock and awe” ordnance, including 500-pound bombs, deployed by the U.S. military across the Middle East, killing not only targeted fighters but innocent civilians.

Nevertheless, the refrain “barrel bombs” is accepted across Official Washington as a worthy argument for launching devastating airstrikes against Syrian government targets, even if such attacks clear the way for Al Qaeda’s allies and offshoots gaining control of Damascus and unleashing even a worse humanitarian cataclysm. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Obama’s Ludicrous ‘Barrel Bomb’ Theme.”]

False-Narrative Knots

But it is now almost impossible for Official Washington to disentangle itself from all the false narratives that the neocons and the liberal hawks have spun in support of their various “regime change” strategies. Plus, there are few people left inside the bubble who even recognize how false these narratives are.

So, the American people are left with the mainstream U.S. news media endlessly repeating storylines that are either completely false or highly exaggerated. For instance, we hear again and again that the Russians intervened in the Syrian conflict promising to strike only ISIS but then broke their word by attacking Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and “our guys” in Sunni jihadist forces armed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the CIA.

Though you hear this narrative everywhere in Official Washington, no one ever actually quotes Putin or another senior Russian official promising to strike only at ISIS. In all the quotes that I’ve seen, the Russians refer to attacking “terrorists,” including but not limited to ISIS.

Unless Official Washington no longer regards Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization – a trial balloon that some neocons have floated – then the Putin-lied narrative makes no sense, even though every Important Person Knows It to Be True, including Obama’s neocon-leaning Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.

The U.S. political and media big shots also mock the current Russian-Iranian proposal for first stabilizing Syria and then letting the Syrian people decide their own leadership through internationally observed democratic elections.

Okay, you might say, what’s wrong with letting the Syrian people go to the polls and pick their own leaders? But that just shows that you’re a Russian-Iranian “apologist” who doesn’t belong inside the bubble. The Right Answer is that “Assad Must Go!” whatever the Syrian people might think.

Or, as the snarky neocon editors of The Washington Post wrote on Thursday, “Mr. Putin duly dispatched his foreign minister to talks in Vienna last weekend on a Syrian political settlement. But Moscow and Tehran continue to push for terms that would leave Mr. Assad in power for 18 months or longer, while — in theory — a new constitution is drafted and elections organized. Even a U.S. proposal that Mr. Assad be excluded from the eventual elections was rejected, according to Iranian officials.”

In other words, the U.S. government doesn’t want the Syrian people to decide whether Assad should be kicked out, an odd and contradictory stance since President Obama keeps insisting that the vast majority of Syrians hate Assad. If that’s indeed the case, why not let free-and-fair elections prove the point? Or is Obama so enthralled by the neocon insistence of “regime change” for governments on Israel’s “hit list” that he doesn’t want to take the chance of the Syrian voters getting in the way?

Reality Tied Down

But truth and reality have become in Official Washington something like Gulliver being tied down by the Lilliputians. There are so many strands of lies and distortions that it’s impossible for sanity to rise up.

Another major factor in America’s crisis of false narratives relates to the demonizing of Russia and Putin, a process that dates back in earnest to 2013 when Putin helped Obama sidetrack the neocon dream of bombing Syria and then Putin compounded his offense by assisting Obama in getting Iran to constrain its nuclear program, which derailed another neocon dream to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran.

It became ominously clear to the neocons that this collaboration between the two presidents might even lead to joint pressure on Israel to finally reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians, a possibility that struck too close to the heart of neocon thinking which, for the past two decades, has favored using “regime change” in nearby countries to isolate and starve Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestinian groups, giving Israel a free hand to do whatever it wished.

So, this Obama-Putin relationship had to be blown up and the point of detonation was Ukraine on Russia’s border. Official Washington’s false narratives around the Ukraine crisis are now also central to neocon/liberal-hawk efforts to prevent meaningful coordination between Obama and Putin in countering ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq.

Inside Official Washington’s bubble, the crisis in Ukraine is routinely described as a simple case of Russian “aggression” against Ukraine, including an “invasion” of Crimea.

If you relied on The New York Times or The Washington Post or the major networks that repeat what the big newspapers say, you wouldn’t know there was a U.S.-backed coup in February 2014 that overthrew the elected Ukrainian government of Viktor Yanukovych, even after he agreed to a European compromise in which he surrendered many powers and accepted early elections.

Instead of letting that agreement go forward, right-wing ultra-nationalists, including neo-Nazis operating inside the Maidan protests, overran government buildings in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, causing Yanukovych and other leaders to flee for their lives.

Behind the scenes, U.S. officials, such as neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, had collaborated in the coup plans and celebrated the victory by Nuland’s handpicked leaders, including the post-coup Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, whom she referred to in an earlier intercepted phone call as “Yats is the guy.”

Nor would you know that the people of Crimea had voted overwhelmingly for President Yanukovych and – after the coup – voted overwhelmingly to get out of the failed Ukrainian state and reunify with Russia.

The major U.S. news media twists that reality into a Russian “invasion” of Crimea even though it was the strangest “invasion” ever because there were no photos of Russian troops landing on the beaches or parachuting from the skies. What the Post and the Times routinely ignored was that Russian troops were already stationed inside Crimea as part of a basing agreement for the Russian fleet at Sevastopol. They didn’t need to “invade.”

And Crimea’s referendum showing 96 percent approval for reunification with Russia – though hastily arranged – was not the “sham” that the U.S. mainstream media claimed. Indeed, the outcome has been reinforced by various polls conducted by Western agencies since then.

The MH-17 Case

The demonization of Putin reached new heights after the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine killing all 298 people onboard. Although substantial evidence and logic point to elements of the Ukrainian military as responsible, Official Washington’s rush to judgment blamed ethnic Russian rebels for firing the missile and Putin for supposedly giving them a powerful Buk anti-aircraft missile system.

That twisted narrative often relied on restating the irrelevant point that the Buks are “Russian-made,” which was used to implicate Moscow but was meaningless since the Ukrainian military also possessed Buk missiles. The real question was who fired the missiles, not where they were made.

But the editors of the Post, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media think you are very stupid, so they keep emphasizing that the Buks are “Russian-made.” The more salient point is that U.S. intelligence with all its satellite and other capabilities was unable – both before and after the shoot-down – to find evidence that the Russians had given Buks to the rebels.

Since the Buk missiles are 16-feet-long and hauled around by slow-moving trucks, it is hard to believe that U.S. intelligence would not have spotted them given the intense surveillance then in effect over eastern Ukraine.

A more likely scenario of the MH-17 shoot-down was that Ukraine moved several of its Buk batteries to the frontlines, possibly fearing a Russian airstrike, and the operators were on edge after a Ukrainian warplane was shot down along the border on July 16, 2014, by an air-to-air missile presumably fired by a Russian plane.

But – after rushing out a white paper five days after the tragedy pointing the finger at Moscow – the U.S. government has refused to provide any evidence or intelligence that might help pinpoint who fired the missile that brought down MH-17.

Despite this remarkable failure by the U.S. government to cooperate with the investigation, the mainstream U.S. media has found nothing suspicious about this dog not barking and continues to cite the MH-17 case as another reason to despise Putin.

How upside-down this “Everything Is Putin’s Fault” can be was displayed in a New York Times “news analysis” by Steven Erlanger and Peter Baker on Thursday when all the “fundamental disagreements” between Obama and Putin were blamed on Putin.

“Dividing them are the Russian annexation of Crimea and its meddling in eastern Ukraine, Moscow’s efforts to demonize Washington and undermine confidence in NATO’s commitment to collective defense, and the Kremlin’s support of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria,” Erlanger and Baker wrote.

Helping ISIS

This tangle of false narratives is now tripping up the prospects of a U.S.-French-Russian-Iranian alliance to take on the Islamic State, Al Qaeda and other Sunni jihadist forces seeking to overthrow Syria’s secular government.

The neocon Washington Post, in particular, has been venomous about this potential collaboration which – while possibly the best chance to finally resolve the horrific Syrian conflict – would torpedo the neocons’ long-held vision of imposed “regime change” in Syria.

In editorials, the Post’s neocon editors also have displayed a stunning lack of sympathy for the 224 Russian tourists and crew killed in what appears to have been a terrorist bombing of a chartered plane over the Sinai in Egypt.

On Nov. 7, instead of expressing solidarity, the Post’s editors ridiculed Putin and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi for not rushing to a judgment that it was an act of terrorism, instead insisting on first analyzing the evidence. The Post also mocked the two leaders for failing to vanquish the terrorists.

Or as the Post’s editors put it: “While Mr. Putin suspended Russian flights on [Nov. 6], his spokesman was still insisting there was no reason to conclude that there had been an act of terrorism. … While Western governments worried about protecting their citizens, the Sissi and Putin regimes were focused on defending themselves. …

“Both rulers have sold themselves as warriors courageously taking on the Islamic State and its affiliates; both are using that fight as a pretext to accomplish other ends, such as repressing peaceful domestic opponents and distracting attention from declining living standards. On the actual battlefield, both are failing.”

Given the outpouring of sympathy that the United States received after the 9/11 attacks and the condolences that flooded France over the past week, it is hard to imagine a more graceless reaction to a major terrorist attack against innocent Russians.

As for the Russian hesitancy to jump to conclusions earlier this month, that may have been partially wishful thinking but it surely is not an evil trait to await solid evidence before reaching a verdict. Even the Post’s editors admitted that U.S. officials noted that as of Nov. 7 there was “no conclusive evidence that the plane was bombed.”

But the Post couldn’t wait to link the terrorist attack to “Mr. Putin’s Syrian adventure” and hoped that it would inflict on Putin “a potentially grievous political wound.” The Post’s editors also piled on with the gratuitous claim that Russian officials “still deny the overwhelming evidence that a Russian anti-aircraft missile downed a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine last year.” (There it is again, the attempt to dupe Post readers with a reference to “a Russian anti-aircraft missile.”)

The Post seemed to take particular joy in the role of U.S. weapons killing Syrian and Iranian soldiers. On Thursday, the Post wrote, “Syrian and Iranian troops have lost scores of Russian-supplied tanks and armored vehicles to the rebels’ U.S.-made TOW missiles. Having failed to recapture significant territory, the Russian mission appears doomed to quagmire or even defeat in the absence of a diplomatic bailout.”

Upping the Ante

The neocons’ determination to demonize Putin has upped the ante, turning their Mideast obsession with “regime change” into a scheme for destabilizing Russia and forcing “regime change” in Moscow, setting the stage for a potential nuclear showdown that could end all life on the planet.

To listen to the rhetoric from most Republican candidates and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, it is not hard to envision how all the tough talk could take on a life of its own and lead to catastrophe. [See, for instance, Philip Giraldi’s review of the “war with Russia” rhetoric free-flowing on the campaign trail and around Official Washington.]

At this point, it may seem fruitless – even naïve – to suggest ways to pierce the various “group thinks” and the bubble that sustains them. But a counter-argument to the fake narratives is possible if some candidate seized on the principle of an informed electorate as vital to democracy.

An argument for empowering citizens with facts is one that transcends traditional partisan and ideological boundaries. Whether on the right, on the left or in the center, Americans don’t want to be treated like cattle being herded by propaganda or “strategic communication” or whatever the latest euphemism is for deception and manipulation.

So, a candidate could do the right thing and the smart thing by demanding the release of as much U.S. intelligence information to cut this Gordian knot of false narratives as possible. For instance, it is way past time to declassify the 28 pages from the congressional 9/11 report addressing alleged Saudi support for the hijackers. There also are surely more recent intelligence estimates on the funding of Al Qaeda’s affiliates and spin-offs, including ISIS.

If this information embarrasses some “allies” – such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey – so be it. If this history makes some past or present U.S. president look bad, so be it. American elections are diminished, if not made meaningless, when there is no informed electorate.

A presidential candidate also could press President Obama to disclose what U.S. intelligence knows about other key turning points in the establishment of false narratives, such as what did CIA analysts conclude about the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin attack and what do they know about the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of MH-17.

The pattern of the U.S. government exploiting emotional moments to gain an edge in an “info-war” against some “enemy” and then going silent as more evidence comes in has become a direct threat to American democracy and – in regards to nuclear-armed Russia – possibly the planet.

Legitimate secrets, such as sources and methods, can be protected without becoming an all-purpose cloak to cover up whatever facts don’t fit with the desired propaganda narrative that is then used to whip the public into some mindless war frenzy.

However, at this point in the presidential campaign, no candidate is making transparency an issue. Yet, after the deceptions of the Iraq War – and with the prospects of another war based on misleading or selective information in Syria and potentially a nuclear showdown with Russia – it seems to me that the American people would respond positively to someone treating them with the respect deserving of citizens in a democratic Republic.



Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+17 # seeuingoa 2015-11-20 18:11
In WW2 the Amaericans and Russians
faught against the biggest enemy,
Hitler.

Please coordinate your effort in fighting
the biggest threat ISIS.
 
 
+30 # guomashi 2015-11-20 18:56
Quoting seeuingoa:
In WW2 the Amaericans and Russians
faught against the biggest enemy,
Hitler.

Please coordinate your effort in fighting
the biggest threat ISIS.


In WW II the Russians kicked Hitler's butt.
After begging the west to open a second front for years, Stalin announced he would march to the Atlantic. Only then did the west re-enter the war to help mop up the remnants of Hitler's army.

There is nothing America could do that would be more stupid than entering into a conflict opposite Russia. It would make the Iraq debacle look like a sandbox. Whatever it takes, that scum that advocates such a thing needs to be removed from positions of power and responsibility.
 
 
-2 # zach 2015-11-21 06:41
After begging the west to open a second front for years, Stalin announced he would march to the Atlantic. Only then did the west re-enter the war to help mop up the remnants of Hitler's army.

You are dangerously confused. Stalin's "March to the Atlantic" spawned the War of 1920. That war, never referred to in US history lessons, was a two pronged assault by Stalin across Central Europe. The southern branch was to march across Czechoslovakia and the northern across northern Poland into Germany.

The southern branch progressed better than the northern, but got mired down. The northern branch made a disastrous mistake when, for lack of any defensive resistance in Poland, they bypassed Warsaw and ignored the Polish Army. They assumed that Poland, having just been reconstituted as a country, was weak and disorganized.
That was anything but the truth. Pilsudski elected to let the northern branch march westward, then came out to cut off its line of supply and implemented a devastating rear guard action. The War of 1920 was over, the March to the Atlantic became history.
 
 
+2 # dascher 2015-11-23 07:55
You are also confused. Stalin was not in charge in 1920 - Lenin was. There was a vast war against the new Russian Communist regime - sometimes referred to as a "Civil War". However, the "White" forces included French, Polish, and various other Western European troops as well as anti-communists from Eastern Europe. Pilsudski was actually engaged in an attack on the new Ukranian Communist regime when he came back to Poland to stop the advancing Red Army with a clever and desperate plan that succeeded in stopping the Red Army at the gates of Warsaw.
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2015-11-24 09:18
Indeed, I don't know where guomashi gets his info, but all the Western powers joined the Whites in attacking the newly established Soviet Union, almost immediately after Trotsky signed the Brest-Litovsk pact removing Russia from the war. As Winston Churchill, one of the primary warmongers, put it, it was necessary to "strangle the Bolshevik baby in its cradle."

The United States, under the messianic totalitarian Woodrow Wilson, also joined in the attack, sending an expeditionary force to attack; Russia lost well into the six figures to the "civil war," in which the Bolshevik forces were primarily rallied under Trotsky, with his famous sealed train.
 
 
+16 # RMDC 2015-11-21 06:29
It is more likely that the American members of the OSS persuaded Hitler to attack Russia. The US would refrain from its attack while Hitler did the work of destroying the USSR.

Same duplicity today. ISIS is the creation of the CIA, the rebranding of the OSS.
 
 
0 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2015-11-25 12:20
Hey RMDC. I love a good story but I prefer it when my fiction isn't served up as fact.

The OSS, Office of Strategic Services, was created by "Presidential military order" by FDR on 22-Jun-1942. Before that, "intelligence” was handled by several different departments that didn’t play well together. State, Treasury, Navy and War operated without coordination or direction. How is it then that the OSS played a part in the German invasion of Russia, Operation Barbarossa, which commenced on 22-Jun-1941, exactly a year before the OSS even came into existence?

Did the precursors to the OSS infiltrate Hitler’s command at the highest levels to talk him into attacking Russia? Possibly but given who they were, unlikely. Such an infiltration would have required years to implement and frankly, US intelligence services of the 1930s were more interested in spying on Americans than Germans. Which of the above Departments could have afforded to pay for such a long-range operation, off the books?
 
 
+7 # harleysch 2015-11-21 11:35
Waiting for Obama to coordinate with Russia will not work. Obama is a pathological narcissist, who believes that Putin is the problem in Ukraine -- because Putin opposed an illegal, U.S.-run coup against a democratically- elected government -- and in Syria, because Putin is supporting the Assad government, which is the last thin line of defense against a Saudi-U.S. backed takeover by barbaric jihadists.

Obama, the drone killer, refuses to believe that he could do anything wrong.

At the APEC summit in Manila, Obama repeated his mantra that the U.S. will not coordinate with Russia until Putin gives up Assad. He then went into a rant against China, as U.S. planes and warships are deliberately engaged in provocations against the Chinese, in areas the Chinese believe are their territorial waters.

While Parry is now coming closer to acknowledging that Obama is a problem, he still seems to be reluctant to identify the "false narrative" of "Official Washington" as Obama administration policy. Who does Parry think the liar Josh Earnest is speaking for?

The easiest way to crush the narrative would be for the President to tell the truth, and reject his administration' s embrace of neo-con "regime change" policy.

Sadly, that will not happen.
 
 
+28 # Radscal 2015-11-20 19:13
Thanks again, Mr. Parry and RSN for an honest examination of US foreign policy.

I just read an excellent article from last January about the "Center for a New American Security," which is the "progressive interventionist " version of the NeoCon "Project for a New American Century."

Now I know what Hillary Clinton meant when she insisted she was a "progressive."

http://www.voltairenet.org/article186381.html
 
 
+14 # zach 2015-11-21 06:47
The doctrine of "progressive intervention" also known as the preventive war, was responsible for World War I. Following that War, various treaty conferences made preventive war a crime. Many Nazis were convicted on the charge of "waging an aggressive war" at Nuremburg because Hitler decided to be a progressive interventionist.
The concept of the preventive war, alive and well in Washington, is still a crime. Just because the United States does it does not make it anything else than a war crime.
 
 
+9 # zach 2015-11-21 06:49
Oh, and by the way, if you do not accept my suggestion below that we are already waging a preventive war, which is a war crime, think about George W. Bush's rallying cry: We will kill them over there before they kill us over here.
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2015-11-21 13:41
I was quite astonished when I saw the following historical comedy act by Robert Newman, "The History of Oil."

I'd been taught the official story that WW I started because Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated, and became a world war due to "tangled alliances." ie. it was all a silly, and tragic mistake.

But after watching that video, and then researching it, I found that the first British troops were not sent to Brussels or France, but to Iraq!

The UK engaged in a "preventative war," and what they prevented was the Germans from completing a railroad line to Mosul which would cut out the British middleman, and bring petroleum straight to Europe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIpm_8v80hw

And yes, engaging in an aggressive war has been ruled the worst war crime, since all others come from that initial crime. And what we can call the Anglo-American- Zionist Empire has been engaging in "preventative wars" for centuries.
 
 
+3 # Douglas Jack 2015-11-21 15:02
The History of Oil is the easiest most informative, funniest 'watch' anyone can enjoy at the same time overcoming a key misinformed worldview which confuses the western US, Canadian, NATO citizen minds starting with the 1st World War but with huge impacts for the 2nd WW & western hegemony ever since.
 
 
+28 # bardphile 2015-11-20 19:17
One of the saddest elements of Parry's counter-narrati ve is the capture of the once great Washington Post by the neo-con / liberal interventionist "bubble" Parry describes. Truly sad.
 
 
+17 # lfeuille 2015-11-20 20:25
Quoting bardphile:
One of the saddest elements of Parry's counter-narrative is the capture of the once great Washington Post by the neo-con / liberal interventionist "bubble" Parry describes. Truly sad.


The Post was fleetingly great in the '70's. I think they scared themselves. They couldn't wait to line up with Reagan in the '80's.
 
 
+13 # RMDC 2015-11-21 06:34
Are you referring to Watergate???? The WaPo published dis-information coming from the worst of the FBI and CIA? The WaPo was a smear machine for the FBI. Woodward and Bernstein were simply tools. Woodward is a tool still today
 
 
+16 # RMDC 2015-11-21 06:33
The Post was never great at all. It was owned by the Graham family. PHilip Graham was OSS during WW II and CIA after. The WaPo was always a CIA front. Graham and Frank Wiesner ran operation Mockingbird from the Wash Post.

See this -- http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmockingbird.htm

Today, the WaPo is owned by Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon. Right after he bought the WaPo, Amazon got a contract from the CIA for 750 million dollars to run the CIA's cloud server. Do you think there's any connection? I do.
 
 
+17 # Douglas Jack 2015-11-20 21:17
Robert Parry, Wonderful research as always cutting through constant lies. Let's look at the founding lie, "it seems to me that the American people would respond positively to someone treating them with the respect deserving of citizens in a democratic Republic." Never been or will be as long as violence is the foundation of extractive colonial-relati ons at home & abroad. The rest of the world know recognize how Americans, Canadians & other colonials carry themselves in interpersonal interactions.

US has always been the playground of oligarch moneys. Oligarchs invested heavily in invading ships & separate military reconnaissance expeditions to bring economic-ecolog ical refugees from war-torn Europe. Priest & minister missionaries spied military-reconn aissance on defence capacities of 1st nation cities. Arriving refugees were still greeted with kindness to be fed, clothed, housed & healed by 1st Nations.

European refugees were beginning to integrate into abundant 1st Nation Polyculture-Orc hard biosphere-econo my, using string-shell (eg. Wampum) & joining in multihome Production-Soci ety economies. Oligarch-hired colony-administ rators freaked out & by 1700 AD went on burning sprees to destroy Wampum in all its accounting & record-keeping forms. America was to be milked to feed the oligarchs of Europe, not integrated into biosphere-nurtu ring economy. As extractive-expl oiters, we colonize earth to destroy. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy
 
 
+18 # Douglas Jack 2015-11-20 21:54
Cont'd. Given origins of who we are under direction of hidden oligarchs, we understand how today, we serve these lords worldwide. Windsor Family of England, Vatican aristocrats of Europe & Rothschild family have amassed 'trillion' (= # seconds in 32,000 years) dollar financial control networks with roughly 1000 billionaire lieutenants, who in turn have ~ 1000 multimillionair e underlings. Institutionaliz ed 2-dimensional linear bully colonized minds can't grasp the 3-D complexity of the world in which we live. They glorify genocide & extractive economies in a Finance-Media-E ducation-Milita ry-Industrial-L egislative-Comp lex over which they've complete command & control.

Israel's invasion of Palestine, creation of millions of refugees & establishment of an apartheid colonial state, financed through leadership of Rothschild moneys, makes perfect oligarch sense. Brutalized-arti ficial minds had no problem with al-Nakba, nor planning & implementation of the Oded-Yinon-Plan for a greater Israel from Euphrates to Nile rivers, which require active destabilization of every majority Middle-east Islamic nation. AIPAC's control of US Congress, Hasbara/Mossad finance & arming of violent foreign-mercena ries (85% of Syrian so-called rebels) throughout the Middle-east & Project-for-a-N ew-American-Cen tury PNAC & New-World-Order neo-con Repugs & neo-Lib Dems, the plan unfolds daily. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/1-converting-social-media-from-mono-to-dialogue
 
 
+14 # Radscal 2015-11-21 01:31
Spot on, Douglas. We who look as far back as the post WW II "New World Order" are far-sighted compared to the short attention span masses.

But you remind us that the oligarch dynasties go back centuries. And these groups who plan a century ahead become ever more difficult to topple, but they are no more invincible than the Roman or Babylonian Empires were.
 
 
+22 # Anonymot 2015-11-20 21:41
People like Brennan & Woolsey who really run this country have the brains of slugs and can't spread their legs.It's like folding your arms on your chest - you are closed to conversation in body language (note that in open casket funerals the arms are traditionally crossed on the chest, closed to communication.)

Unfortunately, our leaders really don't have anything new to add, they busily mouth the old words, repeat the same deeds and block anyone with a new idea, Sanders for one example.

That's what manufactures terrorists and even our own angry people.
 
 
+11 # danireland46 2015-11-20 22:03
The anti-hero character that started coming along in the 60's helped me escape the simplistic Hopalong Cassidy notion of morality, ie. white hats = good guys, black hats = bad guys.
Minds hate the disruptiveness of confusion. People tend to accept easy answers to avoid confusion. Some people cling to the dogmatic bullshit of their upbringings, but I've been happy not to live in a black and white world like Pleasantville - good movie, horrible reality.
 
 
+6 # janie1893 2015-11-21 01:30
This week, we are about three minutes to midnight! When will we learn?
 
 
+4 # zach 2015-11-21 06:53
At 12:05.
 
 
+4 # zach 2015-11-21 06:53
Excuse me. At 0005.
 
 
+12 # RMDC 2015-11-21 06:38
Thanks for this very good analysis. America has become addicted to TV style narratives. The myths America lives by are really rather two-dimensional and always false. This goes way back to the rise of public relations in the per-WW I era when Ivey Lee figured out how the government could spin news media. Corporations also did it. Nothing has changed in 100 years, or rather things have gotten worse.

It is just impossible to hope at all that Americans would become critical readers and actually take the time to learn something about places like Syria and Iraq. They'd rather watch TV and it is a smooth transition from TV to Obama and the evening news or indeed NYTimes of WaPo.

One of the principles for the creation of such narratives is that the enemy is always constructed to be exactly the kind that the US wants to fight. So ISIS is very web savvy, so the US can fight ISIS with its own web war.
 
 
+8 # nancyw 2015-11-21 12:14
The world spins out of control. The spin everywhere. The mind reels. The heart of us sinks. We are in need of alien assistance... A heavenly mandate ... A rescue from ourselves.
 
 
0 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2015-11-25 12:35
@nancyw
"We are in need of alien assistance... A heavenly mandate ... A rescue from ourselves." Already happened. Time for us to rescue ourselves.

You rescue little children, educate older ones, and as they move through their teens, you let them make their own mistakes.
 
 
0 # jazzman633 2015-12-05 16:12
New law: in any military action initiated by America, the families of Congress, lobbyists, and defense contractors are conscripted first. No age limit.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN