6. Why doesn’t the US government
expose McGovern and Cannistraro?
The hypothesis that the Western mass media is pro-Israel predicts that it will expose McGovern and Cannistraro as liars, not that it will publish their views left and right. The same hypothesis predicts that the media will expose Cannistraro as a trainer of terrorists, not present him as a counter-terrorism ‘expert’ and allow him to publish editorials in which he defends the terrorist enemies of Israel. From the evidence examined here, therefore, it is difficult not to conclude that the Western mass media is anti-Israel.
What about the US government?
The hypothesis that the US government is pro-Israel predicts that the US government will expose McGovern and Cannistraro as liars, even if the anti-Israeli mass media doesn’t. But in fact that US government has not done this, despite the fact that this is terribly easy to do. Why? Could it be because the US government likes the fact that McGovern and Cannistraro are plastered all over the Western mass media making arguments that are harmful to Israel?
If so, that would agree with the hypothesis that the US government is anti-Israel.
And yet a puzzle remains. Because, you see, McGovern and Cannistraro specialize in attacking the US government in the most extreme way. Under what hypothesis would the US government neglect to expose as liars those who attack the same US government left and right all over the Western mass media?
To sharpen this question, allow me to refresh your memory.
As you may recall, Raymond McGovern created VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) in order to bring together a coalition of ‘former CIA’ people who now devote themselves to attacking the US government publicly for misusing the intelligence services, and for outright lying. This is, in fact, Raymond McGovern’s main activity.
If you do a search in the Lexis-Nexis archive, limiting yourself just to the major papers, McGovern has appeared a total of 80 times since 1999. This gives a yearly average of about 13 appearances, which is already impressive and yet deceptive because McGovern’s exposure has been growing over time: in the last year alone (August 2004-August 2005) he has appeared 30 times, which is more than twice a month. Remember, this is just in the major papers that are archived by Lexis-Nexis; his total exposure is more impressive still, for he appears also in papers not archived by Lexis-Nexis, and in radio and television. (And none of this counts appearances of McGovern’s VIPS that do not mention McGovern specifically.) But now, to get a sense for how much of McGovern’s public identity is wrapped up in the ‘anti-Bush’ stance, one may ask the question: What percentage of McGovern’s appearances have to do with his stated opposition to the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq? If you limit the above Lexis search for ‘Ray McGovern’ by adding the term ‘Iraq,’ we get 61 out of 80 total. In other words, over 75% of all McGovern appearances in the major papers concern his anti-invasion stance.
What this means is that Raymond McGovern is most identifiable as “outspoken Bush [Jr.] critic Ray McGovern.” He is in fact the ‘poster boy’ for the anti-invasion movement, which is why the New York Times tells us that Robert Greenwald’s supposedly “sober and meticulous” anti-invasion film has Ray McGovern for protagonist:
“. . .the star of the show is Ray McGovern, an articulate and dryly funny former C.I.A. analyst who now heads the anti-invasion group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.”
Another Lexis search reveals that fully 20% of all McGovern’s anti-invasion appearances concern the accusation that the US government used forged intelligence to make us believe that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Niger for use in nuclear weapons, there to provide themselves with an excuse to attack Iraq.
About this, you may recall that McGovern accuses the ‘neoconservatives’ of being behind the hoax, and one Michael Ledeen, ‘neo-con,’ of being the supposed author of the forgery. But instead of presenting, or even referring us to, any evidence against Ledeen, McGovern simply tells us that Vincent Cannistraro points his supposedly authoritative finger at this man. Ledeen denies having forged anything, but McGovern argues, as we saw, that Ledeen’s denials are not credible because he is associated with the Contra program, and people having anything to do with the Contra program, according to McGovern, should be assumed to be lying. Which is funny because Vincent Cannistraro, whose accusation against Ledeen is all that McGovern has, is who created, trained, and ran the Contra program.
Now, the US government -- under massive attack from McGovern and his VIPS -- could point this out. And it could also point out who Cannistraro is, given that Cannistraro is also a high-profile critic of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq. Consider:
“Critics of the White House include officials who have served in previous Republican administrations such as Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA head of counter-terrorism and member of the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan.”
The above quote is from a Sunday Telegraph article with the following headline:
1) that many people are upset with the Bush administration’s handling of the invasion of Iraq; and
2) that the criticisms of ‘former CIA officials’ such as McGovern and Cannistraro have contributed greatly to feed a relatively large opposition movement,
Why then doesn’t the White House defend itself by pointing out what I have documented concerning McGovern and Cannistraro?
After all, it was terribly easy to do, and it would put “critics of the White House” on the defensive. Attention would be diverted to the hypocrite who threw a stone in his own glass house, and the attack against the Bush administration would look a lot weaker. So why doesn’t the Bush administration expose McGovern and Cannistraro? Could it be that the Bush administration actually smiles on McGovern’s and Cannistraro’s activities?
This possibility must be entertained, because the Bush administration is not defending itself when it easily could.
Just for the sake of argument, suppose for a minute that McGovern’s and Cannistraro’s anti-invasion attacks are carefully designed to harm the Jewish people -- say, by contributing to the widespread belief that ‘the Jews’ supposedly control the US government. How might this be brought about? Easy: just say that the attack on Iraq is all the fault of ‘the Jews.’ Below I will demonstrate that McGovern’s and Cannistraro’s attacks against the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq have precisely this structure. Assuming you find my demonstration below satisfying, the fact that the US government does not defend itself from McGovern’s and Cannistraro’s attacks by exposing them as liars, when it easily could, is consistent with the hypothesis that the US government has an anti-Jewish policy.
Perhaps this is all theater, in other words.
What I mean is this. Given that the best way to attack the Jewish people, in modern times, has been to convince everybody that ‘the Jews’ supposedly run everything in secret and mean to harm non-Jews, the best way to produce this hysteria again today would be to accuse ‘the Jews’ of controlling the US government, because the US is the lone superpower. If the ruling elite in charge of the US government had a desire to attack the Jewish people, it might take steps to generate the accusation, against itself, that it is supposedly controlled by ‘the Jews.’ This would not only mobilize antisemitism but would also place the blame for hated US foreign policy elsewhere. In this scenario, trusty alleged ‘former’ members of US Intelligence would be deployed to attack the US government in the media for supposedly being run by ‘the Jews.’
At this point you may be thinking: Whoa! There are contradictions at every turn. Yes, many contradictions, indeed. But throughout, one unwavering consistency: the Jewish people are always under attack:
1) in the mass media’s reporting of Michael Ledeen’s attacks against the Israeli prime minister;
2) in the mass media’s loud reporting of Michael Ledeen’s absurd Holocaust denying behaviors;
3) in the public figure of Michael Ledeen, as a Jew vilified -- by dishonest darlings of the mass media -- with the accusation that he is a treasonous forger, which the mass media duly plasters everywhere, the better to revive the old and vivid caricature of the ‘scheming Jew’ (compare to the Dreyfus affair in early twentieth century France); and
4) in the representation -- by dishonest darlings of the mass media -- of Michael Ledeen and other Jewish neo-conservatives as ‘evil elders of Zion,’ secretly in control, supposedly, and for Israel’s benefit, of the lone superpower’s nefarious foreign policy.
Can this all be coincidence?
Well at the very least it is enough to make me wonder who really is in control of the Western mass media! I turn to this next.
Continue to part 7:
Footnotes and Further Reading
 A CONSUMMATE BUREAUCRAT ADEPT AT CURRYING FAVOUR, The Independent (London), June 4, 2004, Friday, First Edition; NEWS; Pg. 4, 658 words, ANDREW GUMBEL IN LOS ANGELES
 Revisiting The Road To Iraq War, Step by Step, The New York Times, August 20, 2004 Friday, Late Edition - Final, Section E; PT1; Column 6; Movies, Performing Arts/Weekend Desk; FILM REVIEW; Pg. 6, 684 words, By DAVE KEHR
 The CIA 'old guard' goes to war with Bush 'The intelligence community has been made the scapegoat for the failings over Iraq. It deserves some of the blame, but not all of it', SUNDAY TELEGRAPH(LONDON), October 10, 2004, Sunday, Pg. 33, 789 words, BY PHILIP SHERWELL in WashingtonBY ANNA GIZOWSKA in Sydney
 Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War, The Washington Post, June 17, 2005 Friday, Final Edition, A Section; A06 , WASHINGTON SKETCH Dana Milbank, 855 words, Dana Milbank
[5a] "Bush Jr.'s War on Iraq: A general
introduction"; Historical and Investigative Research; 1 December 2005;
by Francisco Gil-White
 To see just how hard the US has protected the PLO and pushed for a PLO state, and how it twisted Israel’s arm so that she would accept one, see the following sections of HIR's investigation, “Is the US an Ally of Israel?”:
“In 1982, The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis.”
“The 'First Intifada' was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed 'underdogs.'”
“In 1989, with Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the 'only solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict.”
“In 1991, Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza.”
“Perhaps as early as 1994, The CIA trained the PLO, knowing it would use this training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews.
“Mahmoud Abbas, who in 2005 is being given total control over Gaza, is the one who invented the strategy of talking 'peace' the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas.”
 PRESIDENT MOVES TO REIN IN 2 AGENCIES CHANGES, The Boston Globe, November 17, 2004, Wednesday, THIRD EDITION, Pg. A1, 1151 words, By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff
 An ancient dispute renewed daily Bones of contention Palestinians: The last 50 years Big fight over small piece of land, Omaha World Herald (Nebraska), April 18, 2002, Thursday, SUNRISE EDITION, Pg. 10a;, 1669 words, By Jake Thompson, WASHINGTON
 Jewish Conservatives Attack Holocaust Film, The New York Times, January 20, 1998, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Page 14; Column 4; National Desk , 628 words, By JUDITH MILLER
“Hitler’s Pope” by John Cornwell; Vanity Fair,
 Alfred Dreyfus. Born October 19, 1859, Mulhouse,
France; died July 12, 1935, Paris.
French army officer whose trial for treason began a 12-year controversy, known as the Dreyfus Affair, that deeply marked the political and social history of the French Third Republic.
Dreyfus was the son of a wealthy Jewish textile manufacturer. In 1882 he entered the École Polytechnique and decided on a military career. By 1889 he had risen to the rank of captain. Dreyfus was assigned to the War Ministry when, in 1894, he was accused of selling military secrets to the German military attaché. He was arrested on October 15, and on December 22 he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on the infamous penal colony of Devil's Island, off the coast of French Guiana.
The legal proceedings, which were based on specious evidence, were highly irregular. Although he denied his guilt and although his family consistently supported his plea of innocence, public opinion and the French press as a whole, led by its virulently anti-Semitic faction, welcomed the verdict and the sentence. In particular, the newspaper La Libre Parole, edited by Édouard Drumont, used Dreyfus to symbolize the supposed disloyalty of French Jews.
But doubts began to grow. Lieutenant Colonel Georges Picquart found evidence that Major C.F. (Walsin-)Esterhazy was engaged in espionage and that it was Esterhazy's handwriting found on the letter that had incriminated Dreyfus. When Picquart was removed from his post, it was believed that his discovery was too inconvenient for his superiors. The pro-Dreyfus side slowly gained adherents (among them, journalists Joseph Reinach and Georges Clemenceau -- the future World War I premier -- and a senator, Auguste Scheurer-Kestner).
The affair was made absurdly complicated by the activities of Esterhazy in inventing evidence and spreading rumours, and of Major Hubert Joseph Henry, discoverer of the original letter attributed to Dreyfus, in forging new documents and suppressing others. When Esterhazy was brought before a court martial, he was acquitted, and Picquart was arrested. This precipitated an event that was to crystallize the whole movement for revision of Dreyfus's trial. On January 13, 1898, the novelist Émile Zola wrote an open letter published on the front page of Aurore, Clemenceau's paper, under the headline “J'Accuse.” By the evening of that day, 200,000 copies had been sold. Zola accused the army of covering up its mistaken conviction of Dreyfus and of acquitting Esterhazy on the orders of the Ministry of War.
By the time of the Zola letter, the Dreyfus case had attracted widespread public attention and had split France into two opposing camps. The issues were regarded as far exceeding the personal matter of the guilt or innocence of Dreyfus. The anti-Dreyfusards (those against reopening the case), nationalist and authoritarian, viewed the controversy as an attempt by the nation's enemies to discredit the army and saw it as a case of national security against international socialism and Jewry, of France against Germany. The Dreyfusards (those seeking the exoneration of Captain Dreyfus) saw the issue as the principle of the freedom of the individual subordinated to that of national security and as republican civilian authority pitted against a military authority that acted independently of the state.
Amid uproar in the parliament, the government was pressed by the nationalists to bring Zola to justice, while anti-Semitic riots broke out in the provinces. A petition demanding revision of the Dreyfus trial was signed by some 3,000 persons, including Anatole France, Marcel Proust, and a host of other intellectuals. The trial of Zola began on February 7; he was found guilty of libel and sentenced to a year's imprisonment and a fine of 3,000 francs.
From 1898 to 1899 the Dreyfusard cause gained in strength. Major Henry committed suicide at the end of August 1898, after confessing his forgeries. Esterhazy, in panic, fled to Belgium and London. The confession of Henry opened a new phase in the affair, for it ensured that the appeal of the Dreyfus family for a retrial would now be irresistible.
A new ministry, led by René Waldeck-Rousseau, took office in June 1899 and resolved to bring the affair to an end at last. Dreyfus, brought back from Devil's Island for retrial, appeared before a new court martial in Rennes (August 7 -- September 9, 1899). It found him guilty, but the president of the republic, in order to resolve the issue, pardoned him. Dreyfus accepted the act of clemency but reserved the right to do all in his power to establish his innocence.
In 1904 a retrial was granted and in July 1906 a civilian court of appeals (the Cour d'Appel) cleared Dreyfus and reversed all previous convictions. The parliament passed a bill reinstating Dreyfus. On July 22 he was formally reinstated and decorated with the Legion of Honour. After further short service in the army, in which he attained the rank of major, he retired to the reserves. He was recalled to active service during World War I and, as a lieutenant colonel, commanded an ammunition column. After the war he retired into obscurity. The army did not publicly declare his innocence until 1995.
SOURCE: "Dreyfus, Alfred." Encyclopćdia
Britannica from Encyclopćdia Britannica Online. http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:8473/eb/article-9031197
[Accessed January 1, 2006].
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
█ Part 1 - Introduction: The "Protocols of Zion" in the broadest historical perspective.
█ Part 2 - The mainstream Western media loves Raymond McGovern and Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA agents and anti-Israeli propagandists.
█ Part 3 - Should you believe ‘former CIA officials’ such as Raymond McGovern and Vincent Cannistraro?
█ Part 4 - How the mass media covers for Vincent Cannistraro, terrorist, and creator of the Nicaraguan Contras.
█ Part 5 - McGovern and Cannistraro both attack Israel - with lies.
█ Part 6 - Why doesn’t the US government expose McGovern and Cannistraro?
█ Part 7 - Why do people say that ‘the Jews’ control the media? They don’t.
Notify me of new HIR pieces!