I posted this diary on Daily Kos on Nov 11, 2006, and I am reposting it here today for its relevance to the recent missile tests in Iran, because it seems pertinent to understanding how serious politicians from Israel seem bent on avoiding a nuclear capable Iran. At the time, only a year and a half ago, it was pure propaganda, perhaps a vehicle of intimidation. Iran, however, never bought into it. Still, it shows the seriousness with which Israel views the problem of not being the only nuclear power in the Middle East.

The BBC and Israeli Propaganda is the actual subtitle of the article, Israel's Plan for a Military Strike on Iran, by JONATHAN COOK, a British journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. It was published in CounterPunch on October 12, 2006 and is reproduced again by permission. At the time, there was an upsurge of interest in Iran's "threat," but the immediate circumstances are not now clear.

I am originally from a town outside of Chicago. I feel the Midwest loyalty. It has obviously upset me that there are people I know who have lost their property or have been cut off from going to see their loved ones because of the recent flood crisis.

But, despite these inbred loyalties, there is no possible way I can say that the Midwest flooding crisis comes anywhere near the death and destruction of Hurricane Katrina. And there's no way I could conscionably say that the floods in the Midwest in any ways "dwarfed" what happened in New Orleans, which Rush Limbaugh Tuesday had the audacity of saying. Let's look at the differences: In New Orleans, you had a poverty-endemic urban center experiencing one of the most powerful natural distasters, which resulted in a death toll of nearly 1,900 deaths and $81.2 billion in damages, which the victims were given no warning to and FEMA feebly came to aid very, very late in the game; on the other hand, the Midwestern floods impacted a sprawling, white, rural population, who were given warning and immediate aid from FEMA, resulting in 24 deaths and $1.5 billion in damages.

We have spent alot of time recently discussing how the media was unfair to one candidate or the other.  But watching The Daily show interview with CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan we see how the media has failed at far more important tasks. How can we demanded an unbiased media reporting on individuals, when we allow the media to distort or unreport facts, that shape our understanding of major obstacles facing our nation.  We cannot make accurate decisions as a Democracy without being properly informed.  And the media has repeatedly failed in the task of keeping us accurately informed.  I am more likely to see reporting on some of these important issues like Iraq and Afghanistan from the History Channel, or the Discovery Channel years from now than I am from 3 different 24 hour news channels.  I feel I am getting more informed from a 20 minute show on Comedy Central than I would get from CNN/FOX/MSNBC.

We need to stop worrying about how unfairly our candidate has been treated, and start worrying about how unfairly our nation has been treated.  Being too specific in our criticism  allows them to get away with everything.  We are blaming the media for overcooking our lunch as the house burns down around us.

I have no idea what I am doing wrong on the embed.

Palestinian child killed by American weapons

In case you haven't figured out that Republicans want Obama elected, just sit back and watch CNN.

Take Anderson 360, for example.  Please.

Cooper gives us multiple shots of a former Clinton superdelegate running to Obama, with much discussion of its significance.

Not a peep that Clinton picked up FOUR superdelegates today.  Nada.

We get David Gergen warning how Clinton continuing to campaign is not just hurting Obama, it is hurting Clinton too, and how it is her fault that McCain is doing so well.

We hear the same thing hammered over and over by other meat puppets:  
Most democrats want Obama to be the candidate, and want this OVER.
MOST DEMOCRATS DO NOT WANT A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.  THEY WANT IT OVER. THEY WANT CLINTON OUT.  THEY WANT CLINTON OUT.  IF YOU VOTE FOR CLINTON, YOU ARE UNPATRIOTIC.  IT WILL BE DISASTROUS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
In case you didn't understand what I just said, watch Anderson 360, and every meat puppet on the show will parrot the same message until it is drummed into your robotic skull, and it will be robotic after this one hour commercial for Barack Obomb.

After the revealing New York Times front-page article surfaced, exposing the Pentagon's role in disseminating war-propaganda in the mainstream media, the Pentagon announced it was suspending the program. This occurrence brings to light two lessons:

1.) A little media exposure of the truth goes a long way

2.)We must continue to fight for our rights to access un-biased, fact-based information pertaining to our individual and national security.

Karl Rove once said, "As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing." As backwards as this statement is, it has been embraced by the Right to attack educated progressives and to make "liberal" into a dirty word. Conservatives have long been proponents of denying public access to information about how their policies just don't work.

Warning! Not a candidate diary. Crossposted at Ich Bin Ein Oberliner and Dailykos/Orange Satan.

The New York Times's Saturday revelation (here) that The Pentagon was directing the messages of network and cable news's military analysts was a bombshell. It was evidence that our government, and, in particular, our military was deliberately and deviously propagandizing the nightly news.

As Glenn Greenwald pointed out here, no one in the news media cares. He writes:

And now we have what is by all metrics a huge new story regarding more fundamental media failures (at best), and they collectively invoke the Kremlin-like methods of Dick Cheney--they refuse to comment, refuse to reveal even the most basic facts about what they did, and do everything possible to hide behind the wall of secrecy they maintain. They don't even feel the slightest bit obligated to say whether they have any procedures to prevent manipulation of this sort in the future. And those classic information-suppressing tactics are all being invoked by news organizations--which claim to be devoted to disclosing, not concealing, scandals, corruption and facts about how our political institutions function. [Emphasis his]

I would call this chilling and shameless silence Orwellian, but why bother? Once there's a reality show on network TV that appropriates a concept for its name, that concept has lost it's power. Once we've already called Orwellian the indefinite and extra-judicial holding of U.S. citizens, the un-checked kidnapping or "extraordinary rendition" of U.S. citizens, the use of above-the-law mercenaries (euphemism: contracters) to torture others in our name, that word has lost it's power.

So, I ask the question Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who watches the watchmen?)

Writer Alan Moore asked that very question in his novel Watchmen. It was through the question, not answering it, that he created such a groundbreaking piece of fiction. Similarly, I will not answer my question (the answer, if you're wondering, is "we do"). Instead, I will try to explore the question.