The New York Times's Dangerous Lies About Ukraine and Russia

 

 Guest Post by Eric Zuesse 

 

(PREFACE: Right before this went to press, Britain's Guardian headlined "Moscow May Walk Out of Nuclear Treaty," and Washingtonsblog bannered "Senior U.S. Intelligence Officers: Obama Should Release Ukraine Evidence." 

The latter newsflash is a memo to the President signed today by 9 senior retired U.S. intelligence professionals who gently lay out the evidence that President Obama has been lying about the evidence regarding the shoot-down of the Malaysian airliner, and telling him that unless his Administration comes clean on that matter very soon, and offers the world solid evidence of Russia’s and/or Ukrainian separatists’ involvement if he has any, he is going to look very bad, and that he therefore needs to act quickly to "curb the risk that relations with Russia might escalate from 'Cold War II' into an armed confrontation." I can only add: It might already be too late for him and the Times and the rest of the U.S. propaganda-establishment to quit deceiving the gullible U.S. public, but the risks from continued lying are even higher, nothing less than a nuclear war. So: they must.)

On July 26th, The New York Times  headlined "Pentagon Plan Would Help Ukraine Target Rebel Missiles," and stenographically reported, as if facts, mere claims by White House propagandists, with no evidence, and despite prior blatant lies from the Obama Administration, lies such as Obama's having expressed certainty that the sarin gas attack in Syria came from Bashar al-Assad's forces and not from Obama, which Obama knew to have been the actual case.

Regarding that infamous earlier incident, the London Review of Books  had headlined on 4 April 2014 (issue of 17 April), “Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels,” and Hersh reported that within little more than a week after Obama had announced that he would bomb Syria over the sarin gas attack, Obama had been informed, from a secret joint British-Russian Porton Down chemical weapons lab report, that it was concluded that fundamentalist Islamic al-Nusra rebels backed by Turkey’s leader Recep Erdogan had actually perpetrated the sarin attack (which was done specifically in order to provide an excuse for the U.S. to join the war against Assad); and, that, “The Porton Down report caused the joint chiefs to go to the president with a more serious worry: that the attack sought by the White House would be an unjustified act of aggression. It was the joint chiefs who led Obama to change course.” As usual, the public were being lied-to about the entire matter: they were spoon-fed by America’s “free press” a fictitious cover story from the White House that was run by the U.S. aristocracy. And, furthermore, the main function of the CIA mission at the Benghazi Libya consulate, the consulate that had been destroyed by Libyan islamic fundamentalists on 11 September 2012, had been to oversee the CIA’s “rat line” that was feeding weapons, from the overthrown leader Gaddafi’s arsenals, to jihadist rebels in Syria. That CIA operation was funded by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, but the U.S. operated it, at its compound, in Benghazi. For the jihadists in Syria, it wasn’t enough just to get weapons from the U.S.; they also wanted the U.S. to bomb Assad, because only the U.S. could do that. The jihadists in Libya didn’t know that they were destroying the headquarters where the U.S. was helping the jihadists in Syria. There was deceit, mixed with blundering, all-around. The sarin gas that was used in Syria came from the Benghazi consulate, serving as the collection-point from General Gaddafi's sarin gas supplies, which were supplied thence to Syria, via a number of countries. "By the terms of the [secret] agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities." Unfortunately for Obama, Porton Down discovered the fakery, via the samples taken. Obama wanted to invade without a congressional authorization. But that was not to be: "The former intelligence official [one of Hersh's unnamed sources] said, ‘Congress made it known that, unlike the authorisation for the Iraq war, there would be substantive hearings.’ At this point, there was a sense of desperation in the White House." Senate Democrats refused to allow this “Democratic” President to lie America into such a war, as George W. Bush had done. And that's why we didn't invade Syria. But the family that controls The New York Times  don't mind that they're just as rottenly stenographically spreading the White House's pro-war propaganda now, regarding Ukraine and their portrayed villain Putin, as they had been before, regarding "Saddam's WMD" in 2002 and 2003. However, the major difference, this time, is that there was no possibility back in 2003 that America's lies would lead to a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia. This time, that type of danger does exist, and Obama is preparing for it, hoping to win a nuclear war. So, that’s the broader context for the latest lies from The New York Times.

The Times's  "news report" regarding the present matter concerns basically their passing along without investigation this White House's Russia-baiting propaganda to stir more war-fever for renewal of the Cold War, after communism has already ended everywhere except two small nations, Cuba and North Korea; it’s long-since ended in Russia, but that’s supposed to be the new demon for the princes of America’s Military-Industrial Complex to use as an excuse to conquer, and to build and sell more weapons to do that. Nothing is mentioned in this "news report" regarding Obama's having overthrown in February 2014 the freely and democratically elected President of Ukraine, right next door to Russia, nor about how the regime that Obama then set up to replace him, Obama's Ukrainian stooges, perpetrated on May 2nd a burning-alive of hundreds of that coup's civilian opponents in Odessa's Trade Unions Building, nor about the ethnic-cleansing campaign that's now going on by Obama's Ukrainian regime in order to get rid of the people whose votes had elected the man whom Obama had just overthrown. None of that was mentioned by the NYT, at all. According to the Times's  fantasy story-line from their prior "news reporting" about the new Ukrainian regime (all straight from the White House), the people who were being ethnically cleansed in Ukraine were instead "terrorists" and "Russian soldiers," not the entire residential population of the areas that had elected the previous Ukrainian President. Here are excerpts from the NYT's  fantasy-tale, along with my accompanying commentary upon it:

At the core of the debate, said several officials — who, like others interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity because the policy deliberations are still in progress — is whether the American goal should be simply to shore up a Ukrainian government reeling from the separatist attacks [and notice here that the attacks by the Ukrainian regime aren't even mentioned], or to send a stern message to Mr. Putin [for what -- they don't say; they merely color their 'news' hostile, and expect their readership to be suckers for that crude demonization] by aggressively helping Ukraine target the missiles Russia has provided [and they ignore here the weapons and mercenaries that are coming into the Ukrainian regime from 'our side'.] Those missiles have taken down at least five aircraft in the past 10 days, including Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 [as if any respectable journalistic organization would be implying, as the Times does here, that solid and not just faked evidence yet has been made public, sufficient to draw a scientific conclusion that the Ukrainian regime itself definitely didn't down that plane, or else didn’t guide it into the conflict-zone in order to bait the rebels into downing it].

Since the downing of Flight 17, a civilian jet, the flow of heavy arms into eastern Ukraine has drastically increased, the Pentagon and the State Department said on Friday, citing American intelligence reports [as if 'our side' had such a stellar record of truth-telling, for it to be trusted without independent investigation to check it out]. ...

... Mr. Obama’s emerging national security doctrine of supporting allied and partner nations in defending their territory without direct American military involvement [as if the United States were threatened by anything that Russia might be doing in Russia's adjoining country of Ukraine, and 'we' were not instead outrageously threatening Russia, by preparing to set up in Ukraine a nuclear missile-base, within a mere ten-minute flight-time to annihilating Moscow] ...

If Mr. Putin does not encounter significant resistance to Russia’s moves in Ukraine, he may be emboldened to go further [as if Obama's overthrow of the Putin-friendly former Ukrainian President and replacement of him by Ukrainian nazi leaders who refer to all ethnic Russians as "subhumans" and who use hateful racist terms such as "kitsaps" in reference to ethnic Russians] ...

The Pentagon said on Friday that it had seen evidence that Russia was planning a major influx of new weaponry across the border [unsupported stenographic 'reporting' here, of what might be just lies], and that it believed multiple-rocket launchers would soon be delivered from Russia [unsupported speculation is here passed along to the gullible readers of a profoundly untrustworthy 'news' medium]. American officials also said they had evidence that Russia was firing artillery from within its borders to attack Ukrainian military positions [yet more stenography passing as 'journalism']. Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, NATO’s top commander, has drawn attention to a video that appears to show the Russian military firing short-range Grad rockets into Ukraine [this allegation being ripped vigorously, by Paul Craig Roberts, as highly dubious and probably fraudulent].

Ukraine is seeking all the Western help it can get as Russia increases aid to the separatists [in response to the U.S.'s having overthrown the prior pro-Russian President and replaced him by racist fascists, nazis, so that 'we’ can place nuclear missiles in Ukraine]. ...

There are bipartisan calls in Congress to supply weapons [but actually, the only significant bill calling for that is S. 2277, which was introduced in the Senate on May 1st, the day before 'our' Ukrainian regime perpetrated its massacre of hundreds of its opponents inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, and this U.S. Senate bill has 26 co-sponsors, all of whom are Republicans, none of whom are Democrats; so, the NYT lied outrageously here, when using that term 'bipartisan']. ...

The shooting down of the Malaysian Airlines plane, on top of Russia's earlier shipments of heavy weaponry, were a perilous escalation, ... General Dempsey said [though he still had provided to the press no credible evidence that Russia instead of the Ukrainian Government shot it down, nor that Russia had been supplying ‘heavy weaponry’ to the rebels.] "You've got a Russian government that has made a conscious decision to use its military force inside another sovereign nation to achieve its objectives," he said [so that he was alleging that we didn't do the same thing in Cuba, when the Soviet Union tried to place nuclear missiles there? If the U.S. was right then in Cuba, then why isn't Russia right now in Ukraine? The owners of the NYT don’t want you to know, because even merely asking that question here would blow what Obama is doing to Ukraine. The NYT is a propaganda-medium; news-considerations are clearly secondary.]

As for the tragic downing of that Malaysian airliner, which is exploited mercilessly by all U.S. propagandists, it might possibly have resulted directly from firing by the anti-Government rebels, or it might have resulted directly from firing by the Ukrainian Government, or it might have resulted directly from firing by the Russian Government, or it might have resulted directly from baiting by the Ukrainian Government that was bitten-on by either the rebels and/or the Russian Government, but all of that is as yet indeterminate, and it's really far less important anyway than the tragedy’s ultimate cause, the motive-holder who actually produced the existing civil war and the ethnic cleansing campaign, which the rebels are trying to defend their families against; and, on this far more important matter, of the event’s ultimate cause, there can be no reasonable doubt whatsoever: "Obama Definitely Caused the Malaysian Airliner to Be Downed."

Now, why doesn't The New York Times report on such realities as that?
After all, the U.S. media are lying through their teeth about the evidence on the downing of that plane.
And why don't the U.S. "news" media report that throughout the Bush-Obama regime, democracy in the United States has been fictional, not factual?

Welcome to 1984.

After all, war can be very profitable.
Americans are brainwashed to fear Vladimir Putin. But if we had a democracy and a free press, Americans right now would much more fear Barack Obama, and, before him, George W. Bush, and the forces in the darkness, that stand behind them both.

I don’t blame the mere hirees of the aristocrats who control the press; these “reporters” are simply doing the jobs that they’re paid to do. For example, after the NYT’s egregious “reporting” that led this nation into invading Iraq in 2003, the newspaper’s owner was virtually forced into firing his friend and “reporter,” Judith Miller, which was a token apology by the paper, for what was really their systematic deception of the public, which is so routine there. This is why I am not blaming the “reporters” who did this “news” story to “Help Ukraine Target Rebel Missiles.” Both of them had won Pulitzers (as did Judith Miller). One of them graduated from Harvard, the other from Williams. (Miller had graduated from Princeton.) It’s the aristocracy’s reward-system that ‘s behind the rot in American “journalism.” It’s the owners who control it. Though Miller had to be forced out, she’s now at the Council on Foreign Relations, which is where Timothy Geithner, Robert Rubin, and so many others of the aristocracy’s disgraced operatives go as a holding-pen between jobs elsewhere for the aristocracy. (Geithner was quickly picked up to lead a Wall Street firm, where he’ll receive his big payoff.) The entire system is rotten to its core. The U.S. public is suckered by them, into believing that, as Gallup bannered a poll-finding on 21 July 2014, “Americans Say Business Background Is Best for Governing,” or, in other words, that the aristocracy, the people who control large corporations, should reign over the government. 81% of Americans in this poll said that the country would be “governed better” if “people with business or management experience” ran it. In other words: money-making skills are what the leaders of government most need. Or: Greed is good. This belief is tied in with libertarianism: the idea that everything possible should be privatized and that the public should be as weak and subservient and obedient to that aristocracy as possible. (The aristocrats will then control even what was formerly democratically controlled: public.) Americans have been profoundly brainwashed by our aristocracy -- brainwashed to accept the existing socio-political hierarchy: aristocrats rule over the public; the public do not rule over aristocrats. Democracy in America is thus dead: dollars rule now, people don’t.

It's government of the public by the aristocracy, with the revolving door for their servants, between their boardrooms and their "government service." We're not supposed to know about it, and certainly not supposed to understand it; so, the glints that are seen of it in "our free press" are only what they'll publish about it: "All The News That's Fit to Print." Too bad that it’s propaganda instead of news, but that’s the way things have become. That’s today’s American reality. Our Founders would puke at it. They’ve been defeated, at last.

This news report and analysis has been submitted, free of charge or copyright, to all U.S. news-media that accept outside submissions. (Media that don’t are basically closed-to-the-public; they’re tightly controlled.) You’ll find out which the honest ones are just by googling this article’s title, and/or the article’s opening few words (surrounded, of course, by quotation-marks, so as to search the entire phrase, not its words). Obviously, dishonest media are not favorable to exposing the basic rot; to them, it’s not “News That’s Fit To Print.”