Bush Propaganda: 'Liberal Media' Myth Finally Put To Rest

In what can only be considered an unfolding scandal, in the last two weeks three supposed journalists have been exposed as propagandists, hired by the Bush Administration and paid for with taxpayer money to promote Bush policies under the guise of journalism.

Bush and the right-wing pundits have popularised the myth of a 'liberal media' over the years. Bush has continually claimed that the media is reporting only the bad news from Iraq, for example, and not the good news. Curiously, not even far-right propagandists like FauxNews can come up with this alleged 'good news.'

But, as we have seen in the last 2 weeks, the instances of Bush Administration payola to several different journalists by the Office of National Drug Policy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the closely-related use of government personnel in the Social Security Administration.

One of the worst things that any believer in democracy can imagine is that we cannot trust what we are being told. Propagandised news is a symptom of tyranny, not democracy. Nazi Germany perfected the art of propaganda. The current PBS documentary on Auschwitz features Nazi concentration camp guards who tell how they believed in the extermination of Jews due to the 'news' they had heard, telling them that the Jews were responsible for all the ills of thei nation.

Famously, the Soviet Union produced two newspapers: Pravda [which means 'truth'] and Izvestia [which means 'news']. The Soviet population used to say 'There is no news in Pravda, and no truth in Izvestia.'

Now, we are seeing that the American media being is turned into a propaganda machine. This appears to be a systemic policy of payola for propaganda, all uder the guise of news, that cannot be acceptable in a free democracy. The policy itself is so distasteful that Bush himself decried his own Administration's practices in a news conference this week. There is no way of denying the strategy when it is spread across four different goverenment agencies so far, with undoubtedly more to come.

In fact, one must wonder whether past instances, such as Robert Novak's outing of an undercover CIA operative, were reporting or a government-funded operation.

All Americans should demand not only the misuse of their taxes for propaganda purposes, but an investigation into the practice. Our Founding Fathers were vehement in their determination that a free press was one of the strong pillars in keeping America free from tyranny. It is highly disturbing that just days after Bush denounced tyranny and declared a virtual war against it, it is discovered that his own Administration practices a policy that is virtually the exclusive practice of tyrannical regimes.

Bush Declares War Against Tyranny

For those who have wondered whether President Bush was stupid or crazy, his inaugural speech removed all doubt. President Bush is obviously quite mad.

While embroiled in two wars, Bush chose the time of his inauguration, arguably the most important speech of his second term, to roll out a brand new initiative never hinted in his campaign, a campaign against tyrannical regimes around the world. A War Against Tyranny. Here is a sample:

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.
The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.

Now, fighting tyranny is not all bad. In fact, tyranny itself IS bad. Unless it is practiced by a friend. You know, like our key allies in the all-but-forgotten War Against Terrorists: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Egypt,

Here is what the current assessment by the US State Department says about Bush's close friends, the House of Saud:

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy without elected representative institutions or political parties.

That's only the first line. Sounds like tyranny to me. Read on:

The Government's human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained. Citizens did not have the right or the legal means to change their government. Security forces continued to abuse detainees and prisoners, arbitrarily arrest and detain persons, and hold them in incommunicado detention. Security forces committed torture. In 2001 the Council of Ministers approved a new law regarding punitive measures that would forbid harming detainees and to allow those accused of crimes to hire a lawyer or legal agent. On May 1, the new Saudi Criminal Procedural Law went into effect. Prolonged detention without charge was a problem. Security forces committed such abuses, in contradiction to the law, but with the acquiescence of the Government. The Mutawwa'in continued to intimidate, abuse, and detain citizens and foreigners. Most trials were closed, and defendants usually appeared before judges without legal counsel. The Government infringed on citizens' privacy rights. The Government prohibited or restricted freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, religion, and movement. However, during the year, the Government continued to tolerate a wider range of debate and criticism in the press concerning domestic issues. Discrimination and violence against women, discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, and strict limitations on worker rights continued.

The Government continued to detain Christians, at times for holding services and at times apparently arbitrarily (see Section 2.c.).

The authorities may detain without charge persons who publicly criticize the Government, or may charge them with attempting to destabilize the Government

The sanctity of family life and the inviolability of the home are among the most fundamental of Islamic precepts. The Government infringed on these rights.

The Government severely limited freedom of speech and the press....

Shari'a does not address freedom of assembly, but the Government strictly limited freedom of assembly in practice.

Freedom of religion did not exist. Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims.

Now, if this is from one of our closest 'allies' in the War Against Terrorism, how can they be our ally and also be our enemy. Once again, from Bush's inaugural speech:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

As you see, the House of Saud cannot be both. If Bush is to impliment the War Against Tyranny, he obviously cannot support the House of Saud any longer. The report on Pakistan is quite similar:

The Government's human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained.

Now, Pakistan creates an unusual conundrum that clearly puts the War Against Terrorists and the War Against Tyranny in opposition. Pakistan's government is assisting, however spottily, our War Against Terrorists. The reason they cannot assist us more is that the Pakistani population [ie: the ones Bush pledged to stand with in the War Against Tyranny] are strongly pro-al Qaeda. In fact, it is presumed that bin Laden escaped to Pakistan and remains to this day his most likely current residence. Pakistanis routinely try to kill their President Musharahaf. And Pakistan has the distinction of being the only Islamic nation to have been confirmed to have atomic weapons. In essence, the government Bush pledged to stand stand against is the only institution keeping al Qaeda from obtaining functioning nuclear warheads.

While Bush's speach sounded so nice and inspiring, presumably written to ensure it will go down in history, if Bush meant anything that he said, it should be the most terrifying inaugural speech of all time. Americans should be frightened by its expressed meaning. The United States cannot continue its War Against the enemies who attacked our nation 41 months ago, the leaders of which [bin Laden, Mullah Omar, et al.] remain free, and start this new War Against Tyranny. In fact, Americans remain highly suspicious and apathetic to this new Bush War. In fact, a survey taken last month shows that only 7% of Americans think our primary foreign policy goal should be imposing democracy on other nations.

And the speech appears to have played as badly overseas as can be imagined. In fact, even Bush's lapdog Tony Bliar [sic] had nothing good to say about it. In fact, he has taken the Fifth and refused to comment on it. Good thing.

Oh, and Condi Rice appears to have also telegraphed this shift in focus by the ADHD Bush Administration with her Senate confirmation hearings this week. In a portion of her testimony that received little coverage, she mentioned 'six outposts of tyranny:' Belarus, Burma, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe. Will the US invade Cuba? Zimbabwe? Burma??? [I thought they were Myanmar now]. Actually, since Iran and North Korea made the Axis of Evil and the new Outposts of Tyranny, maybe they will be next.

One thing was certain from listening to the Madness of King George yesterday: he has learned nothing from the WMDebacle in Iraq, and appears to be sending signals to Americans and the world that our two current wars are not the only wars that Bush has in store for us. If that is true, God help us!

Bush's Strange Pre-Inaugural Comments

Bush gave the Washington Post a pre-inaugural interview, published in today's edition. The whole interview is so bizarre, and Bush's comments so disturbing, it is hard to know where to start.

A good place to start is Bush screwing the 'values voters' who are credited with his election success.

There were 2 issues that Bush used to seduce the Christian right and homophobes, called values voters, the ones credited with Bush's election just 2 months ago: gay marriage and abortion.

As for abortion, anyone with a brain by now knows that Bush has no intention of doing anything to stop abortion on demand. After 4 years in office, the majority of that time with both houses of Congress his GOP lapdogs, he has done absolutely nothing to reduce abortion on demand or make it illegal. Nothing. Zip. You know, exactly what he did to fight terrorism prior to 9/11--nada.

The other issue was Bush's pledge to push a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, Bush has decided that it is really not worth his time to do so, after all.

On the domestic front, Bush said he would not lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.

While seeking reelection, Bush voiced strong support for such a ban, and many political analysts credit this position for inspiring record turnout among evangelical Christians, who are fighting same-sex marriage at every juncture. Groups such as the Family Research Council have made the marriage amendment their top priority for the next four years.

The president said there is no reason to press for the amendment because so many senators are convinced that the Defense of Marriage Act -- which says states that outlaw same-sex unions do not have to recognize such marriages conducted outside their borders -- is sufficient. "Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously. . . . Until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate."

"Suckers"

Ok, I added that last part.

And he didn't know that the DOMA was sufficient during the election??!!?? All of that should have been just as obvious during the campaign. Instead, he said over and over that a Constitutional Amendment was necessary to protect the DOMA from being overturned in court. That is why a lot of people voted for Bush. Compare that to what Bush said during the campaign:

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.
For all these reasons, the Defense of Marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern. And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.

So, was this just one of U-turn Bush's all-to-familiar flip flops? Or is he really so incompetent that he couldn't count the number of Senators needed to pass such an amenment prior to the election?

Next, there is the unbelievable statement that Bush will hold no one responsible for the WMDebacle in Iraq. The leader of the 'party of responsibility' says there is no need to hold anyone accountable for invading Iraq on false pretenses or incompetence.

Why, you ask?

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

Just another message from the mistake-free president. and a new phrase: accountability moment.

Bush added this little gem, about the report that his misadventure in Iraq had turned the only nation in the Middle East without terrorists into a breeding ground for terrorists:


Bush called the report "somewhat speculative" but acknowledged "this could happen. And I agree. If we are not diligent and firm, there will be parts of the world that become pockets for terrorists to find safe haven and to train. And we have a duty to disrupt that."

Somewhat speculative????? And this is coming from the dolt that invaded Iraq over imaginary WMD, the evidence for which was extremely speculative.

Keep in mind that this president, in the only successful private-sector job he ever held, fired Texas Rangers manager Bobby Valentine for finishing 4th in the division. But, after presiding over the 2 worst National Security failures in US history, 9/11 and the Iraq invasion, has had an 'accountability moment' with a total of zero people for either of these disasters.


Finally, Bush displayed an amazing grasp of the obvious. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried:

As for perhaps the most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the administration has so far been unsuccessful in its attempt to locate the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Asked why, Bush said, "Because he's hiding."