Pattern of Denial Like Trail of Evidence

The choice for a new generation of journalists: stinging personal attacks on the obvious usual targets, or exposure of incriminating and little known evidence??

It is a point that is less than obvious.

The behavior of the current Presidential Administration has infuriated many American citizens, infurated to the point of mass demonstrations and direct actions. Picketing, sloganeering--in a foundering democracy where the tool of referendum, is rarely ever used to gauge the will of the people, these efforts are sensible and timely.

Lately in newsmedia there has been a tendency to malign and attempt to discredit the president's personal character. This stems from a rational anger many Americans have, feeling falsely represented by a President and administration that made it into office under conditions that were at best highly questionable.

But a key point is that ad hominem attacks and criticisms of Bush the man, whether or not they are valid, subtract from the more urgent agenda of creating alternatives to military action. (Plus it makes him angry and more determined to do what he wants to do.)

Many people are enraged by the current situation. A "econominc" war has gone on for ten years plus without too much effective resistance, and now talks are happening to escalate that economic war to a military conflict - even the nuclear option is being studied and discussed, terrifying to most rational human beings.

This leads many people to become enraged and engage in name calling. And this makes sense on many levels. There was never, despite assertations to the contrary by the winner of the 2000 Presidential election, a clear mandate of American voters. Up to twenty months after that election, there were conflicting vote count reports coming out claiming the Democratic candidate was the winner of the popular vote. Perhaps it'll be debated for years and years in academic circles. People still discuss Richard "tricky Dick" Nixon, and that was thirty years ago. So names that could be called could include "cheat" and "liar." A given in the eyse of many, but while there are suprressed stories of vital interest to Americans that don't need dirty names attached to be titillating, as well as in all probability, incriminating -- the Bush family's connection to money laundering, drug running, arms for hostages scandlas in the very region contested currently involving GHW Bush, the suppression of 9/11 related information and many other things -- while these stories go underreported there are other things to be dome aside from calling names.

Three years into the Bush Presidency another conflagration looms in the Persian Gulf, and many Americans are sickened and infuriated. And mad enough to hurl ephitets that can't really be called objective criticisms-- words like "shit-head" and "asshole."

This name-calling comes from the gut, but the effectiveness it has in actually doing what many people want to do; effectively remove the threat of war, economic, nuclear or otherwise, is debatable, and I assert that it's counter productive. I know where it comes from, it comes from a sense of profound resignation and frustration engendered by the bullying power of a few individuals. This feeling of frustration in people who would rather not see war or suffer under what they percieve is a yoke of heartless American military/industrial savageness is understandable, and I would not be the one to assert that the deep and sincere FEELINGS engendered by these ad hominem statements is wrong. People are infuriated by a lack of justice; and a callow disregard for the collective Will of the American people that has been repeatedly manifested by the current US Administration.

Name calling will continue to exacerbate the situation as well as anger an already apoplectic military Dictator, George Bush.

What can change this situation?


There was a remake of The Untouchables with Kevin Costner as the Gangbusting G-Man, Eliot Ness. In the late eightiess. The plot of the film centered around the arrest of notorious Gangster Al Capone. And he was the architect of numerous crime schemes all over Chicago in this film. But the team of feds who were chasing him down had evidence linking him to tax evasion scandal halfway through the film.

Point being that there was hard evidence incriminating the bad guy early on, but it was ignored while people looked for something more substantial and got really angry. Sean Connery got shot dead. if they had pursued the tax evasion angle right away -- instead of waiting til the end of the film --


The Bush Family And Criminal Actions

A big problem with modern media is an adherance to a dodgy concept called "objectivity"; reporting the facts and only the facts. It should be recalled by all concerned that George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st president of the USA, authorised the direct censorship of any news that could be construed as injurious to his administration's foreign policy.
Cable News Network has adhered to this policy since it was enacted during Operation Desert Storm. So: we can safely assume that CNN has ceased to be a source of honest news-- the lie of omisson being no less a lie.


How did they get you? The simply omitting that which would have triggered that which is GOOD about americans: our sensitivity, our heartfelt sympathy for people brutally executed with our tax dollars; our sense of outrage.

The GHW Bush administration prohibited CNN - in what could be construed as disregard for the Constitution - prohibited CNN from broadcasting -- oh...

This cavlacade of deception by a post-Nixon american President began when GHW Bush prohibited the broadcast of honor-guard ceremonies for killed American soldiers.

But this was in 1989 after the Panama incursion. By 1991 the missives from the Pentagon had curtailed photojournalistic reporting of scenes from Irak down to a very small grouo of State sanctioned photos approved by then High General Schwarzkopf.

One can canjecture the varied outcries from Americans of conscience there would have been had pictures of killed civilians, women and children, had been broadcast on Cable News Network during the dinner hour! But such was not to be.

Disrespecting The Same The Same Laws They Claim To Uphold

That was a previous administration and a previous military action. Of course the economic warfare never ended and continued through the Democratic administration right through to today. So have the accompanying patterns of distraction and deception. In the Netherlands last month citizen action groups revealed that U. S. led NATO has been storing illegal tactical nuclear weapons of mass destruction -- weapons as utterly illegal in The Netherlands as Chemical weapons are illegal in Irak.

(full story incl. Dutch Police report -
here
Simple deception allows this sort of double standardization to continue by United States-led factions. It could be said that to these Statist military organizations, turning the other cheek means simply being two-faced.

But that above example is the sort of rhetoric that, while compelling, can distract interested parties from pursuing the FACTS that could spell the difference btween continued belligerence and IMPEACHMENT of the offending parties.
link

The historical FACT that GW Bush's grandfather Prescott was caught and punished by the US Government under trading With the Eenemy laws then enforced is only circumstantially incriminatory of the current Administration. Nonetheless there is a great deal of somewhat suppressed but still accessible info showing a history of criminal activity by the Bush family. Waiting for CNN to broadcast this stuff might mean that other parties will have to make it painfully obvious that well paid industrial moguls like Wolf Blitzer are hiding something. They themselves could come under scrutiny of law enforcement, other media and the world publics.

Summary

Americans are split about this military escalation of the ongoiing economic savaging of the Persian Gulf. Many Americans SUPPORT the Bush agenda: it's not like NOBODY voted for him. At the same time many Americns are completely OPPOSED to any more State - Sanctioned slaughter of civilians, perhaps beliving that what goes around could come around with killing effect. This has led to Americans taking the streets in unprecedented (no pun intended) numbers. Personal attacks agains the character or the persons spearheading milittary initiatives only distracts us all from the vast RESERVOIRS OF EVIDENCE showing the criminality of our current administration.