Media Lying Far From Harmless, Needs to Be “Criminalized”

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

A couple of days ago, I watched a CNN video telling the audience that a “court” had “proven” Iran to have been involved in 9/11. By the time I had seen the video, I was laughing myself sick. Every statement in the story was false or purposefully misleading.

It wasn’t an “op-ed” piece, assumed to be paid propaganda from the Mossad, who I generally assume periodically send “specialty pieces” to the management of CNN. The version from RT, “Russia Today” tends to be more “fair and balanced.” I will include this one:

[youtube uGHdePe4GZM]

It isn’t that everything on the news is a lie, it’s just that all the mainstream media seems to be scripted toward spreading total falsehoods carefully seeded with their rape and child molesting stories, every detail titillatingly intact.

When, on rare occasions, I find a brilliant article in the New York Times, I am almost embarrassed. Thank goodness the problem doesn’t come up that often as “low mediocrity” is setting the bar pretty high at the NYT.

I don’t mind the continual sex, sleaze and gossip, that Americans are pandered to as though they were sex crazed animals. Any American male over 35 can’t get out of a doctor office without a Viagra prescription written for them as a “party drug” much the way kids in high school peddle “ecstasy.” (X)







I think the idea is to get stoked up on legalized marijuana and Viagra and try out some of that TV sitcom charm on the 15 year old babysitter or perhaps a step-daughter. Americans live in a fantasy world of a bizarre combination of debauchery and self righteous judgmentalism. It seems to have driven the nation, as a whole, utterly bonkers.

Our recent football sex/rape scandals have filled the papers for months. The greatest tragedy of 2011 is that a famous sports coaching figure has been sullied simply because he spent his entire adult working life covering for vicious sex crimes.

Others of us who have worked in government know that two recent “family values party” presidents have lifelong histories of sexual misconduct, one involving both sexes, every imaginable age and the use of nearly every government department, agency and special operations command, in one way or another, to silence the victims.

There is a reason, of course, that those with such baggage, a sexual attraction to children, or simply a hidden “gay” lifestyle are very purposefully brought into government.

Last year, we learned that “Newscorp,” the company that owns the Wall Street Journal, Fox News and so much more, my guess is they “own” Wikileaks, but it goes so much further, were involved in “phone hacking” in Britain.

First it was “celebs.”

Then we found it was the prime minister and that the head of Scotland Yard was fired for taking bribes. Fired? Wasn’t this a crime?

A short explanation. Mobiles phones and other devices are “hacked” using equipment that is considered “weapons grade technology.” This is an area of personal expertise. First of all, when a phone call is listened into, based on the reasonable assumption of privacy, it is “wiretapping,” not “hacking.”

The penalty for this is, minimally, 5 years in prison. An average sentence runs 10 to 14 years with 8 years served “inside” and the rest under some level of “correctional supervision.”

What we found was this:

The phones of government officials in Britain and the US, Germany also, were “tapped,” including encrypted communications devices used for national security level communications. Some of this information was passed on to newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch, an Israeli with ties to the Likud extremist movement and the Mossad.

Other information was used to blackmail politicians to support an “Israeli agenda” which includes:

Supporting an attack on Iran without any legitimate proof of wrongdoing

Suppressing news of Israeli atrocities, and that, in itself, is a full time job

Blackmailing individuals to turn over classified intelligence to Israel for sale to “interested parties,” including information allowing “hijacking” of American drones

Continual political statements of “undying support” for Israel

Let’s stop here. An American comedian, Jewish if you must know though such matters are less important than many believe, has the key to some of this, though he stops short of “taking it home.” Jon Stewart still sticks to 9/11 mythology. I know why. He would minimally be “off the air” if he didn’t. More literally, if you excuse this abuse of language, he or a close family member would be likely to develop a disease of some kind, usually cancer, were he to “cross the line.”

Here, Stewart “touches the line.” We thank him for that much:

[youtube iRAg7Y9hMGM]

What are the questions? Why would Americans supposedly running for president act like such idiots? Stewart doesn’t even have to try, this is a total pack of idiots. It would be one thing if they were all saying to themselves: “Hey, we can trick these fools into giving us cash and then screw them in return.”

It wouldn’t be honest but at least it would show the kind of contemptuous behavior we expect from normal politicians. This obviously goes much further. Not only are the politicians themselves obviously “hand picked” for their lack of charisma and “electability,” they are, of any group I have ever witnessed, the most likely to have been “caught with their pants down.”

The problem with that is that catching folks with their pants down and turning it into, by use of “leverage,” not just phony government contracts but turning over national secrets and even falsifying pretexts for wars, invasions, drone attacks or “clandestine operations,” (read “murder for hire/blackmail”) is now a very accepted subtext of “journalism.”

Journalists now go well beyond spying. “Journalists” are now often fully “operational” intelligence officers who run the agents they spend their careers recruiting.

A cursory examination of who and what controls “the news” makes it quite easy to understand why so many journalists are professional intelligence agents, some may even be professional killers as well. Years ago only powerful and ambitious psychopaths owned newspapers and controlled TV and radio networks. Those were the “good old days.”

Every “investigative journalist” with some publications it seems, not just trained as a spy but keeps equipment around that as though they were a KGB agent.

What kind of stuff are we talking about?

Reporters for Newscorp/Fox can tap any phone in an entire city, search for voice print identification to locate targets, be they the British royal family or the American Secretary of State. They can decrypt the NSA’s secure communications, all, we are told, to pick up gossip on who is going to be on next season’s Dancing With the Stars. You believe that, don’t you? You don’t?

You must or you would have long ago demanded the arrest, in the US, Canada, Germany and Great Britain, of the entire editorial and production staffs of several of the largest media companies in the world, not for “hacking” but espionage and treason.

The same equipment used to pick up Madonna’s text messages also intercepts and decodes the control and targeting functions for America’s drones, and every other defense system.

What do we mean by “every?” We mean there is nothing, no national secret, no White House conference, no “closed door” hearing, no secret war plans, no magic recipes for putting anthrax in mailboxes, all of it is picked through as though it were put in a trash can and left by the curb.

This is the equipment someone gives to “reporters.”

Oh.

After a couple of years of investigation, what hasn’t come out is that the ownership and possession of this kind of equipment by anyone other than a government agency and even they are restricted by law in its use, or were at one time back when Americ a had laws, is, in itself a criminal act.

This brings questions to mind. Back on 9/11/2001, NORAD, the air defense command that uses satellites to track commercial and military air traffic in or near the United States, everything in the air or on the ground, yes, satellites, not “radar” like the 9/11 Commission Report states. It’s information was 15 years behind, a “fact” whose falsehood made the entire report invalid on its own.

On 9/11, NORAD was simply “turned off.” So, the 9/11 Commission was told there was no NORAD satellite system, something quite publicly funded so very long ago, because the ability by an “unknown 3rd party” to disabled American air defenses was, in itself, a secret of the highest classification.

Thus, a fact that was likely garnered by a “news reporter” with the world’s most sophisticated spy and decryption equipment, such as that used by Newscorp in Britain and the US, equipment in their possession on 9/11/2001 and well before, had to be lied about “to protect national security.”

Wait a minute, let’s get this straight:

You are saying that America’s air defenses were “turned off” by someone with the most likely candidate a news service tied directly to Rupert Murdoch, an Israeli citizen with direct ties to their intelligence services and an editorial policy that promoted a US invasion of Iraq, now seen as, not only a war crime but one of the greatest disasters in American history?

But, wasn’t it Osama bin Laden? Was there mention at any time that he had the ability to derail and incapacitate America’s most protected codes and defenses? Was that left out of the 9/11 Commission Report?

Veterans Today Associate Editor and good friend, General Hamid Gul, former Director General of Paksitan’s ISI, speaks of 9/11, Osama bin Laden and his opinion on who was responsible. Hamid Gul, now attack by the US government for speaking openly of his views on 9/11 is likely the most senior and certainly most capable intelligence officer in the world. Listen carefully to why the American government fears him so much in this interview with CNN:

[youtube mSLgC4cTKcs]

If NORAD can be “turned off” like a light switch or a top secret spy drone can be landed in Iran like a butterfly or China is now making American ICBMs and stealth aircraft though they were 25 years behind the US only a few short months ago, do we trust the news agencies who tap the phones of our defense scientists, our presidents and prime ministers and, of course, keep us informed about Brad Pitt’s comings and goings as well?

Moreover, these same people, these same organizations or are they nations, perhaps are they serving a power greater and more insidious than any nation, do we allow them to tell us what is and is not real, what is and is not true, to define “conspiracy” when they, themselves are the conspirators?

Standing by the American people, of course, are our elected officials, curiously a pack of sexual perverts and degenerates whose escapades, certainly least of all, were the “oral antics” of Clinton and His “post-teen chubette?”

Just from the GOP crowd alone, we have meth dealers, wife swappers, drug dealing, hundreds of cases of influence peddling, draft dodging, check kiting, dozens of affairs, kilos of cocaine snorted, hundreds of “hookers” paid off.

My guess? Comparing the GOP candidates with their counterparts in any maximum security corrections facility, counting crime for crime, I don’t think anyone could safely predict which group would come out dirtier.

But, of course, this is exactly what was intended.

Why?

If “they” can’t be blackmailed, they can’t be trusted. This is how it all works, the military in particular. The greatest example of this is General Myers, the man sitting beside Secretary Rumsfeld when he was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission.

From Veterans Today, October 9, 2009, the actual testimony of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld with General Myers, Chairman of JSOC at his side. It would be my contention that this public sworn testimony, on its own, would send both men to prison for life. Am I the only journalist that ever saw this?:

Ben Veneste: Well, it is correct that the United States intelligence community had a great deal of intelligence suggesting that the terrorists, back since 1994, had plans, discussed plans, to use airplanes as weapons, loaded with fuel, loaded with bombs, loaded with explosives. There were plans in ’97 using a UAV. In ’98, an Al Qaida- connected group talked about flying a commercial plane into the World Trade Center. In ’98, there was a plot broken up by Turkish intelligence involving the use of a plane as a weapon. In ’99, there was a plot involving exploding a plane at an airport. Also in ’99, there was a plot regarding an explosive-laden hang-glider. In ’99 or in 2000, there was a plot regarding hijacking a 747. And in August of 2001, there was information received by our intelligence community regarding flying a plane into the Nairobi embassy, our Nairobi embassy. And so I suggest that when you have this threat spike in the summer of 2001 that said something huge was going to happen and the FAA circulates, as you mentioned, a warning which does nothing to alert people on the ground to the potential threat of jihadist hijacking, which only, it seems to me, despite the fact that they read into the congressional record the potential for a hijacking threat in the United States, in the summer of 2001, it never gets to any actionable level. Nobody at the airports is alerted to any particular threat. Nobody flying the planes takes action of a defensive posture. I understand that going after Al Qaida overseas is one thing. But protecting the United States is another thing. And it seems to me that a statement that we could not conceive of such a thing happening really does not reflect the state of our intelligence community as of 2001, sir. RUMSFELD: A couple of comments. I quite agree with you, there were a number of reports about potential hijacking. I even remember comments about UAVs. I even have seen things about private aircraft hitting something. But I do not recall ever seeing anything in the period since I came back to government about the idea of taking a commercial airliner and using it as a missile. I just don’t recall seeing it. And maybe you do, Dick? (Editors note: Can anyone see where a charge of perjury might apply here?) MYERS: No, I do not. (Editors note: And here?) BEN-VENISTE: Well, the fact is that our staff has — and the joint inquiry before us, I must say — has come up with eight or 10 examples which are well-known in the intelligence community. My goodness, there was an example of an individual who flew a small plane and landed right next to the White House. RUMSFELD: I remember…. And a civilian aircraft was a law enforcement matter to be handled by law enforcement authorities and aviation authorities. (Editors note: Is Secretary Rumsfeld saying that an airliner hijacked by terrorists is a problem for local police? Do they have F16s?) GORELICK: So now I would like to talk about the aspects that were in your control. When the 1996 Olympics were being planned about what do we do when an aircraft is being hijacked and is flying into a stadium at the Olympics? What is the military’s response? What is it’s role? And it has always been my assumption that even though, yes, you were looking out, that you have a responsibility to protect our airspace. So my question is: In this summer of threat, what did you do to protect, let’s just say the Pentagon, from attack? Where were our aircraft when a missile is heading toward the Pentagon? Surely that is within the Pentagon’s responsibility to protect — force protection, to protect our facilities, to protect something — our headquarters, the Pentagon. Is there anything that we did at the Pentagon to prevent that harm in the spring and summer of ’01? RUMSFELD: First let me respond as to what the responsibility of the Department of Defense has been with a hijacking. As I said, it was a law enforcement issue. And the Department of Defense has had various understandings with FAA whereby when someone squawks “hijack,” they have an arrangement with the Department of Defense that the military would send an airplane up and monitor the flight, but certainly in a hijack situation, did not have authority to shoot down a plane that was being hijacked. The purpose of a hijack is to take the plane from one place to another place where it wasn’t intended to be going, not to fly it into buildings. (Editors note: Is this more perjury? Why had Secretary Rumsfeld ordered war games to protect against hijacked planes crashing into buildings, war games held on 9/11 by coincidence if one single statement in this answer is correct?) GORELICK: Was it your understanding that the NORAD pilots who were circling over Washington D.C. that morning had indeed received a shoot-down order? RUMSFELD: When I arrived in the command centre, one of the first things I heard, was that the order had been given and that the pilots — correction, not the pilots necessarily, but the command had been given the instructions that their pilots could, in fact, use their weapons to shoot down a commercial airliners filled with our people in the event that the aircraft appeared to be behaving in a threatening way and an unresponsive way. (Editors note: If crashing planes into the World Trade Center isn’t threatening or “unresponsive,” what is?) GORELICK: Now, you make a distinction there between the command and the pilots. Was it your understanding that the pilots had received that order? MYERS: General Eberhart,told the staff, what he told me, as I recall, was that the pilots did — at the appropriate point when the authority to engage civilian airliners was given, that the pilots knew that fairly quickly. I mean, it went down through the chain of command. (Editors note: Did anyone understand this?) RUMSFELD: It was on a threat conference call that it was given, and everybody heard it simultaneously. The question then would be — the reason I am hesitant is because we went through two or three iterations of the rules of engagement. And in the end, we ended up delegating that authority to, at the lowest level, I believe, to two stars. (Editors note: I wonder how long that took? What is an “iteration” of a rule of engagement? Did we need 3 of them? Thousands were dying while Rumsfeld and Myer were “iterating” over and over.) MYERS: Right. (Editors note: No matter how stupid something is, you can find a 4 star general in the Pentagon to salute it.) RUMSFELD: And the pilot would then describe the situation to that level. To the extent that level had time, they would come up to General Eberhart. To the extent Eberhart had time, he would come up to me. And to the extent I had time, I might talk to the president, which in fact, I did do on several occasions during the remainder of the day with respect to international flights heading to this country that were squawking “hijack.” (Editors note: Does an analogy involving horses, barns and doors apply here?) GORELICK: I’m just trying to understand whether it is your understanding that the NORAD pilots themselves, who were circling over Washington, as you referred to in your statement, whether they knew that they had authority to shoot down a plane RUMSFELD: I do not know what they thought. In fact, I haven’t talked to any of the pilots that were up there. (Editor: Finally, something we can believe.) This is the official sworn testimony of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman, General Myers. With all the conspiracy theories, with all the finger pointing, why not just start with the real record itself. To Rumsfeld and Myer, the largest terror attack in history wasn’t their concern, it was a “law enforcement issue.” It isn’t like it was said once, as an accident. It isn’t like Rumsfeld got mixed up when questioned about aircraft being used for terror attacks on buildings either. That lie was repeated also, clear as a bell. Can you imagine sitting thru this, hearing this and not shaking your head in disbelief? The 9/11 Commission built their report around testimony that supported these bizarre and conflicting assertions, discarding facts, discarding documents and picking only those things carefully supplied to put a lid on any further questions. Now they claim they were lied to. There is no need for a theory or any wild conclusion. What could paint a picture easier than this? The same questions come thru even louder than before. Were these men simply total idiots or are they criminal masterminds who simply forgot how to lie well? A scout leader with 50 gigs of kiddie porn on his hard drive and a naked ten year old in his car trunk would have more credibility than these two. And so it goes….

The article is over two years old, the testimony older. The reasonable conclusions any rational person could draw from this official record is that the individuals under oath had not only lied but had left much more than “reasonable doubt” as to their complicity in the crimes involved, just as General Hamid Gul had indicated.

For those who have forgotten, here is another fabricated lie by Secretary Rumsfeld, network news, clear as day:

[youtube SSkk0Qa6CG0]

Have we set a new standard for crazy? What is considered a confession? Did Rumsfeld have to cut off someone’s head on the Pentagon lawn with a chainsaw to get arrested? Would that have even been enough?

Exactly what kind of memory do people in the media seem to have?

Terms of use violation or Censorship?



Tim King Reporter West Coast/Afghanistan/Iraq | Myspace Video

Author Details Author Details Gordon Duff, Senior Editor Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War. He is a disabled veteran and has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades. Gordon is an accredited diplomat and is generally accepted as one of the top global intelligence specialists. He manages the world’s largest private intelligence organization and regularly consults with governments challenged by security issues. Duff has traveled extensively, is published around the world and is a regular guest on TV and radio in more than “several” countries. He is also a trained chef, wine enthusiast, avid motorcyclist and gunsmith specializing in historical weapons and restoration. Business experience and interests are in energy and defense technology. Gordon’s Latest Posts