|
|||||||||||
________________________________________________________ 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.”[1] 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.”[2] 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.”[3] The above quote is from a Sunday Telegraph article
with the following headline:
So, given 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.’
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
Is this article useful? Help us do
more with a donation . |
|
|
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[11]);
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:
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/mprot7.htm
________________________________________________________
Footnotes and Further Reading
________________________________________________________
[1] 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
[2] 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
[3] 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
[4] 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
[5] “Roosevelt Betrays America”: a Nazi pamphlet by Dr.
Robert Ley; German Propaganda Archive; Calvin: Minds in the Making; Calvin
College.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ley1.htm
[5a] "Bush Jr.'s War on Iraq: A general
introduction"; Historical and Investigative Research; 1 December 2005;
by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/iraq-general-intro.htm
[6] 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.”
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1982“The 'First Intifada' was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed 'underdogs.'”
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1987“In 1989, with Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the 'only solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict.”
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1989“In 1991, Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza.”
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1991“Perhaps as early as 1994, The CIA trained the PLO, knowing it would use this training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1994“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.”
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#2005
[7] 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
[8] 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
[9] 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
[10] “The Pictures Tell the Tale: The Vatican and Nazism in
Germany and Croatia”; Emperor’s Clothes; 22 April 2005; by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm
“Hitler’s Pope” by John Cornwell; Vanity Fair,
October 1999.
http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/hitlers.htm
[11] 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!