Here's the latest update on what's happening in Georgia from "RealNews":

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2057

Since before World War 11, you can be sure we never have received or heard the truth, but only propaganda. It's just that this propaganda gets more ridiculous since we now have the internet. But I guess the government will have to do someting about that as well. Bush and Putin, two peas in a pod.

kent shaw,

Dave Lindorff is a good man. If he sees my post, he'll respond.

I, and many others on the left, simply have a basic, fundamental disagreement with him on supporting "lesser-of-the-two-evil" candidates such as Barack Obama. ... Those type of candidates being all-too-forthcoming from the Democratic Party.

Perhaps instead of responding directly to my post, Dave will instead write an article for Common Dreams on why he continues to support Barack Obama -- especially in light of his post-primary lurch to the right.

I can't believe that Dave himself isn't having second thoughts about Obama.

wsws.org website August 14th, 2008 3:13 pm

Mr. Lindorff, the message written by the entity, wws.org website, is almost three hours old. We await your response. Do you have a response?

It has become increasingly clear to me that Common Dreams is
simply shilling for the Democratic Party and will not go beyond the left-right paradigm. Dave Lindorff's article proves it. That Georgia initiated the conflict is somehow beyond your comprehension. Good luck with your Zbigniew-Obama candidacy for the upcoming electoral charade! The Repugnantcans and the Dummycrats are ALL horrible! Don't you get it yet?

David Lindorff,

I read recently (probably in one of your columns) that you are an Obama delegate at the upcoming Democratic National Convention.

Because I know you sometimes post here in the commentary-threads, and because you've written the above article specifically for Common Dreams, I have a question I was hoping you would answer for us.

My question is this ... At what point, for you, personally, would Barack Obama have "gone too far"? That is to say, how far to the right does Obama have to go to where you would say, "No, I withdraw my support for him."

We know that, after the primaries, Obama lurched to the right, whereas, *during* the primaries he was generally perceived as a "peace candidate." Albeit even a cursory look at his statements on the war *pre*-primaries would belie that perception.

Now he's anything but a peace candidate.

Obama went from a so-called "peace candidate" during the primaries, promising (sort of) to withdraw US troops from Iraq in 16 months.
... But once the nomination was his, he came out and said that he would defer to the commanders in the field; his position now being -- if the commanders in the field say we should stay in Iraq, we stay. (And you know how many peace-loving commanders there are in Iraq.)

When commentators said that he was flip-flopping, he said -- No, not at all, you just misunderstood what I've been saying all along.

(In other words, it was *our* fault. Dopey us -- we misunderstood!)

We also know that after he captured the nomination, Obama came out in favor of escalating the war in Afghanistan.

He's also on record as stating that, if necessary, he would invade Iran. And that "no weapons are off the table" -- meaning, he doesn't exclude the use of nuclear weapons as a military option.

And if necessary he would invade Pakistan -- a country that already possesses nuclear weapons.

In short, his position on these four countries is essentially the same as that of John McCain and George Bush!

-- He supports the war in Iraq, now saying that he's willing to stay there an indefinite time, with a substantial US military presence, as per the recommendations of the commanders in the field.

-- He supports an escalation of the Afghanistan war.

-- If necessary, he's willing to invade Iran.

-- If necessary, he's willing to invade Pakistan.

And all this "with no weapons off the table."

This sounds to me like a war president, David.
What do you think?

But let's let Obama speak for himself. ...
On July 2, 2008, in a speech in Colorado Springs, Obama stated:

"I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability."

In other words: I may withdraw troops in 16 months; but, if conditions change, I may not.

In a July 14th "New York Times" op-ed piece, Obama wrote:

"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents.

"We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."

In that same op-ed piece, former "peace candidate" Barack Obama proposed escalating the war in Afghanistan, recommending that 10,000 *more* troops be sent to Afghanistan.

Interestingly enough, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, also feel that there are an insufficient number of troops in Afghanistan. And guess how many additional troops they recommend be deployed in Afghanistan -- the same number as Barack Obama, 10,000.

Note: What did George Bush do *the day after* Obama's aforementioned "New York Time" op-ed piece? ... In a White House press conference, Bush indicated that the US and its NATO allies were already initiating a "surge" in Afghanistan.

Note too: Before the US invaded Afghanistan 1 out of every 7 Afghans was either starving or in imminent danger of starving. ... I don't know what the current statistic is, David, but after years of war in that country, after years of bombing in that country, I assume it's much worse.

Note, too, that Afghanistan is the 20th country the United States has bombed since the end of World War II. With all 20 countries being third world countries. Some not having an air force -- and Iraq without even a standing army.

One might have expected that a "peace candidate" would have emphasized to the American public these facts, past and present.

Further, in the same July 2, 2008 Colorado Springs speech cited above, Obama praised the US military and vowed to increase its ranks. ... Obama has called for an overall increase of American ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and "investing in the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the unconventional challenges of our time."

Last year, writing in "Foreign Affairs" magazine, Barack Obama wrote:

"We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale."

In short, Obama supports two wars now in progress (Iraq and Afghanistan) and has shown a clear-cut willingness to engage in two more wars (Iran and Pakistan).

... Does that sound like a peace candidate to you, David?

... Does that sound like a critic of the military-industrial complex or an enabler of the military-industrial complex?

... Does this sound like a critic of US imperialism or an enabler of US imperialism?

Let's see what else Obama stands for ...

-- Obama has also voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $450 billion.

-- The Pentagon budget is over $500 billion dollars a year. Both Obama and McCain want to *increase* that budget.

-- Over 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of Gulf War II. See the following http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768/ ...

A million death is, evidently, not enough. Not for McCain and not for Obama. Quoting from an article by Patrick Martin, "Obama Backs Long-Term US Military Presence in Iraq" –

"In an interview with Newsweek correspondent Richard Wolffe, published on the magazine's web site Saturday (July 26th), Obama emphasized that his policy in Iraq was one of 'phased withdrawal,' in which US troops could remain in large numbers in Iraq for many years. 'They're going to need our help for some time,' he said."

Note: The vast majority of the 15 billion dollars per month is going into the hands of those who profit from America's military-industrial complex.

Obama, the peace candidate" now has an "all-new" position on Iraq: we stay until we're good and ready to leave. ... A position conveniently, and cynically, put together *after* he won the nomination.

-- Obama voted to confirm Condoleeeza Rice, as well as a host of other Bush nominees, executive as well as judicial.

-- In 2006, Obama went out of his way to campaign for newly-independent Joe Lieberman.
As opposed to supporting his Democratic opponent, the substantially-different Ned Lamont. (The difference: one's nuts, the other isn't).

-- Obama voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act.

-- Obama voted for the F.I.S.A. bill – after vowing not to.

-- Many right-wing supporters are *delighted* with Obama's move to the right. So delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" -- whose editorial board generally reflects not just the right-wing but the right-wing within the Bush administration -- so delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" regarding Obama's recent lurch to the right, especially as regards Iraq, that on July 2, 2008, they published an editorial entitled "Bush's Third Term." In it, they gloatingly stated: ""Maybe he (Obama) is worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate running for it (Bush's third term)."

I could go on. Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader's running mate, has even more reasons why Obama should not be supported. See the following, "The Obama Craze; Count Me Out" -- http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html

The con game the Democratic-Republican duopoly has been pulling on the American public -- for *decades,* in fact, for over a hundred years -- is that the Democratic Party will *always* be slightly better than the Republican Party. ... Meanwhile, as people on the left, especially the "soft left," keep voting for the-lesser- of-the-two-evils, the political consensus in the United States moves more and more to the right.

Yes, there are some differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. But the differences are *dwarfed* in comparison to the similarities.

And how did this dramatic move to the right in recent decades happen? (to where Republican Richard Nixon in the 1970s signed more progressive legislation than Democrat Bill Clinton in the 1990s.) It happened because people who should know better keep supporting lesser-of-the-two-evil candidates, over and over and over again. And as they do, the political consensus moves, inexorably, to the right.

And, please David -- don't say that supporting a third party progressive candidate will cost Obama the election and throw the presidency to John McCain. ... If Barack Obama wants to win, let him compete for votes, like everybody else. ...

And how can Obama get more votes -- *millions* of more votes? BY MOVING TO THE LEFT! Not to the right, as he's done ever since he captured the nomination.

If Kerry had moved to the left in 2004, he would have won.

If Gore had moved to the left in 2000, he would have won.

You may recall that Gore in the weeks before the 2000 election was trailing Bush by several poll-points; whereupon Gore "moved left," the press dubbing his new strategy "Nader Lite." ...

And what happened? Gore rapidly closed on Bush in the polls, and almost won the election. Had he "moved left" sooner, he would have won.

(Note: Progressive third party candidates don't cynically "move left" or "move right" as political opportunism dictates. They are what they are. Unlike Barack Obama, they have principles they stand by.)

You know as well as anybody that there are oooodles of votes -- millions of votes -- to the left of the Democratic-Republican duopoly.
... But, historically, both the Democrats and the Republicans have "moved to the center" (actually the right) to get that 1% or 2% of the undecided voters they feel will win them the election.

This is a "safe strategy" on the part of the two corporate-controlled, corporate-financed parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Moving to the center doesn't upset the oligarchic apple cart. It doesn't "rile up the masses." (The masses being feared even by our sanctified "Founding Fathers.")

But what about the masses? Specifically, what about the millions of votes to the *left* of the Democratic-Republican duopoly? ... Tap into those millions and the election is yours. They most certainly represent much more than a mere 1% to 2% of the electorate. ...

So why doesn't the Democratic Party tap into those votes? ...

Because they don't want to rile up the masses, the general population -- the 80% of the American public that gets to divvy up a mere 15% of America's wealth. They don't want to rile them up by (heaven forbid!) speaking on behalf of *their* interests!
... Their job is quite different, their job is to speak on behalf of the ruling class, the economic elite.

If they did otherwise, they'd lose their oligarchic/corporate backing in a heartbeat.

But my question, David is this -- when is enough enough? How far would Obama have to go to the right for you to say, "No, he's gone to far. I withdraw my support for him."

Or, put another way, if Obama went even *further* to the right, would you still support him? (Are you, perhaps, already having doubts?)

I'd truly like to know. I imagine others would as well.

blah blah blah, so what are y'all gonna do with all your pent-up frustrations and informed outrage? Vote for O'bama? Woo-hoo!

Friends of the Buddhist persuasion tell me there is a teaching that what people hate most is what they eventually become. For years, our population was taught to hate the Soviets, which admittedly, and long before the demise of their bureaucratic system, had become a overly centralized state willing to rationalize any crime or excess in the name of its national security, led by a gaggle of cultists themselves guided by doctrinaire thinking loosely patterned after Marx.

Less then twenty years after the fall of stalinism, the United States has exalted itself as a self righteous military bully, willing to rationalize any crime or excess in the name of its national security, led by a gaggle of cultists themselves guided by doctrinaire thinking loosely patterned after Jefferson.

metal,thanx-as always learn and enjoy yr posts.

Corporate 'media' the most stupendous propaganda system (ever?) devised.

Never watch,but can always tell what's being 'reported' by a 2min.
talk with repub. neighbor,who dutifully will 'tell' me what's-up.The latest of course Edwards' af...Depressing...

Long live CD and DEMOCRACYNOW.

Nuclear war. An idea whose time has arrived. Just do it.

I found this an interesting situation. I am not especially pro-Russia or anti-Russia. After studying the situation and what led up to the war, I could see that there was no clear-cut "right" or "wrong" side in this dispute and that, while the Russian response may have seemed heavy-handed, it was no more so than the heavy shelling of Lebanon by Israel in 2006. When that happened, the media was able to give the Israelis the opportunity to defend their viewpoint. No such opportunity was allowed the Russians here. Instead, I noticed that all coverage of the Russians was uniformly negative. The bias was all the more obvious to me since I did not feel committed to either side.

The facts that are not covered are that the Georgians started the conflict and that many Russians living in the breakaway areas were being slaughtered. Russia felt an obligation to protect these people. Even a little more attention to these facts would have made the news coverage more fair. But, apparently, the US media would prefer to make coverage that dovetails with the views of the State Department and the Bush administration. Apparently the would also prefer coverage which over simplifies issues or creates "good guy" and "bad guy" scenarios more like popular entertainment.

I really wish we could start a write in campaign to criticize the media for these kinds of stories and demand coverage that strives to be slightly balanced. It is not enough to sit back and complain about this in blogs. They need to know that viewers and readers think they are doing propaganda and calling it news coverage.

The problem here, and Karlof1 is an illustration of it, is that people are either uncritically rejecting Russian journalistic accounts, or relying on them uncritically. The truth is more complicated, and unless we are there, I think it pays to be a bit more cautious. Read the latest essay by Gorbachov, who knows a bit about the situation, having been Russia's president at the outset in 1991. He calls South Ossetia a part of Georgia, which it was and still is, whether people like Karlof1 like it or not.

It may well be true that Georgia started this conflict by using anti-personnel weapons (rockets loaded with shrapnel) against Ossetians, but it is erroneous to call that act an "invasion". To do so is an Orwellian subversion of the meaning of language. What Russia did--sending in troops to defend South Ossetians--was an invasion. But it could be termed a "justified" invasion on humanitarian grounds.

My point in writing my article was not to pretend to be an expert on this ugly conflict, which I am not. It was to show the hypocrisy of the American corporate newsmedia. The PC crowd who want to show that everything bad that happens in the world is the fault of the Republicrats in Washington and the Zionists take that and attack me for being a voice of the evil Establishment.

This is just nonsense posing as intellect.

The southern states of the old Soviet Union are a seething mass of nationalist rivalries, and will be a playground for interest-mongering for decades, particularly because of the oil in the region. Russia will play groups and nations against each other. So will the US.

Trust me though, relying on Russian media to get your "Truth" won't get you any closer to that elusive goal than relying on the US media. Both are under the thumb of their governments.

What I do know is that our media behave with incredible hypocrisy and are delivering one-sided propaganda as news.

Dave Lindorff

PS. The word propaganda originally may have meant "information," but after years of the term's being used in Communist states like the USSR and China to mean "information" when it really meant "misinformation," it has come to mean the purveying of politically slanted information designed to deceive and manipulate. That is not truth or news; it is not even partial truth or news. The same thing is done in the US, but we don't call our news propaganda. It is, however, exactly that.

Here we are, teetering on the brink of nuclear war AGAIN.

Well. Guess what. I refuse to live in fear any longer.

You want nuclear war you bastards? THEN BRING IT ON. Let's get it over with. Its bound to happen sooner or later and I for one will enjoy the fireworks display.

DO IT YOU MOTHERFUCKERS! Stop threatening and JUST DO IT you fucking pigs. Your are itching for nuclear war. Then just do it. FUCK YOU ALL AND SEE YOU IN HELL!!

Hasn't changed since JP Morgan and W.R. Hearst got America into WWI over $1.5 billion in loans to the French & the Brits underwritten by 3200 banks in the US. JP Morgan was their purchasing agent in the US and he organized the loan. This was BEFORE Nicholas & Alexandra were overthrown, the Russians dropped out of the war, and the Germans put an additional million men into the Western Front fighting for the Kaisar - FOR EMPIRE CROWN AND OLIGARCHY. If America didn't supply fresh everything, $1.5 billion down the shitter. $1.5bn in 1917. Do the math.

It's about oligarchy. Theirs and ours. Chevron & Gazprom. Ramses & the Hittites, trade routes and tribute. Pipelines and processing. "Which side are you on?" becomes the joke question of the millenia, Meat doesn't have a side. Like Darius of Persia, our Oligarchy "dreams of cows" Translation: Persian one of the five main Aryan families. They, like all Aryans, started as pastoralist killer nomads. That means flocks, herds, ponies, mobile homes, gender slaves, human slaves, trade goods, and weapons. Cows are ultimate wealth. Now of course, when the Oligarchs dream of cows, they see us.

Choose Freedom. Then pay for it. Pay anything it costs you. More than worth the price. You get to live as a human and not as meat for Master's slave machine.

What? Not hungry enough yet? Not looking out the window seeing yourself pushing a grocery cart and sleeping in a box, yet?

This is the big one. This time is the culmination of 6000 years of human slavery. Our species is making a life and death choice - Oligarchy = death of the species. They're nuts and the biosphere is already going to bite us bad BUT IF they succeed the biosphere will collapse. Their policies will insure it. Maximum short term profit by any means necessary combined with "You can have anything you can take and hold" will murder the biosphere, without question.

ok, you can say my view is simple and yours is nuanced. you are the pro here and i do not intend any disrespect. your writing is clear and often fun to read.

lets say the media is mostly republican, you make that case well.

there is also a progressive media, pounding a "republican/neocon imperial agenda" drumbeat of its own.

aware of it or not, this action seems complicit in hiding and futhering an aggressive economic imperialism championed by both parties.

I wonder if our MSM will report what the Russian soldiers found when they took over the Georgian bases that we were equiping with spying equipment and weapons. Maybe those long-missing WMDs will show up.

This little vampire venture has been in the planning works for some time now. And it has all happened before. So the Georgian military strikes for independence against Russia have provoked the desired response, so the US vampire media can play both sides of the PR game, by trumpeting both the Georgian love of US and freedom and the horrid but expected response by Russia.
Now what will the stock response be from Presidential Vampire wannabe pair of McCain and Obama? Who can they promise to bomb this time? Whatever the vampire politics and dirty oil games behind the scenes, the populations of Georgia and Ossetia would benefit most from a complete cessation of military strikes and total military disengagement and sue for peace, and rid themselves of the US Israeli conniving warmongers. The US political and intelligence vampire services involved should be prosecuted for the planned instigation of this war, for much the same reasons as their ongoing vampire wars of Iraq and Afghanistan.

French television, on channel 2, led their story two days ago about this war with the fact that Georgia had bombed a city in South Ossetia and killed many civilians before the Russians stuck back. The Bush administration needs another bogeyman to shore up its poor standing in the world, and Russia looks like a good candidate.

lbcanuk August 13th, 2008 10:43 pm
"I agree with blucheek, and other that Canada and Mexico suffer more than they gain from the US of A. God knows I and everybody I know cares about and respects Americans as people, as human beings-no question. But Bush and similar fascists/neo-CONS/corporates shills and much worse eat Canada from the inside out. And Mexico too."

Thanks for the sanity.

Now look chaps, let's get this right! America only invades and occupies to save people and bring them freedom and democracy whereas Russia invades to do bad things.

Americans, always modest and self-effacing and never motivated by self-interest, are welcomed everywhere and showered with rose petals whereas Russians, monsters that they are, are booed.

The sooner America conquers the world the better. Then we can all sit down together and, over a Coke and a BigMac, we can discuss utopia!

www.dangerouscreation.com

The cowardice and two-faced political treachery of Big Media, and especially the New York Times, in covering up the IDEA, let alone the sheer scale of blood and suffering caused by the Bush-Cheney regime in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan--and who knows what they've done covertly in Iran so far--and then publicizing photos of dead Georgians because it's official Bush policy to back Georgia I find completely outrageous.

I'm not choosing sides in the Russian/Georgian conflict because I'm still learning about it and the background that led up to it. It is clear that today the Russian government at the top lied about the locations and purpose of their continued deployment inside Georgia itself. I will say, however, that given present global economic and environmental realities, the U.S. cannot afford to renew a Cold War with Russia. Nor is our over-extended, debt-financed military in a position to stop Putin if he decides to reabsorb Georgia. Weaker, smaller countries in the former Soviet satellite regions have always come and gone. "Mother Russia" and her vast sprawl of resources and people across six times zones will remain. She is not an enemy to be made again lightly.

Lawrence Eagleburger, former Sec. State under Bush I and Madeleine Albright, former Sec. State under Clinton were both giving their take on the Russian/Georgian conflict on the PBS News Hour earlier tonight. Albright, who like fellow DLC hawk Richard Holbrooke has gleamy-eyed visions of returning to policy power, was all constipated owl with pursed beak trying to sound tough and terse. She issued the pronouncement that Putin and Medvedev have more to lose from a renewed U.S./Russian enmity than the U.S. does. She claimed this was so because Putin has to find buyers for all that Russian oil and natural gas and Europe won't trust him if he continues his belligerence.

There are all sorts of growing regional markets for Russia's fossil fuels and China is the biggest. Russia has been staging joint military exercises with China for YEARS now. While China lends us enough money to hang ourselves with, it does not stage joint military exercises with us. Probably has something to do with being listed on Bush's PNAC Axis of Evil list down at the bottom--registered for eventual regime change, ha-ha the multi-Trillion dollar yoke's on us.

Eagleburger, who is starting to dotter with age has less to lose than Albright and actually told the truth. He admitted he wasn't so sure who had the most to lose from renewed policy hostility between Russia and the U.S.

Big Media's selected reaction to this conflict is another proof that the Big Media boys have sat down with the Oil & War-Profits Oligarchs and bought into the premise that the U.S. must and WILL have global oil hegemony at all costs and Big Media had better suck it up and tow the line. This has already been proven disastrous in Iraq and elsewhere and now will become catastrophic if the Oil Hawks push Big Media into selling Amurkans on a renewed Cold War.

This possibility is not that far-fetched. Bush ordered U.S. military planes to fly in humanitarian aid to Georgia and that Georgian airspace remain open. This is inviting a military incident with dangerous repercussions. He could have used mercenary contractor planes painted in civilian colors or commercial planes with fighters in rotation outside Georgian airspace to defend the planes if they came under threat. But no, Shrublette had to deliberately send in armed U.S. military aircraft. I bet Cheney was behind that one, too.

The New York Times was once the proud flagship of American newspapers: The first page upon which daily history was written. Now under Sulzberger Jr. it is schizophrenic editorial garbage contaminated by failed neo-con theorists and blind shills for Kadima with no more credibility than Condileeeza Rice or George W. Bush when they lecture other nations about violence and issue empty threats to nuclear weapons-armed Russia.

Russia is using Bush's tactics of hypocrisy and power-grab to shove Bush's particular hypocrisy right back down his throat. This is just the beginning of what Bush has cost us in terms of moral stature--the unwillingness of other nations to listen to our presidents' proclamations at all and trust or believe any of it. Putin may get away with mass murder here using Duhhbya's own template.

Did you see Bush's little speech today? Downcast muttering about Putin's lack of respect for "international institutions." Court-appointed Mr. Prezdint Neo-con Unilateralist anti-UN, screw the weapons inspectors--full speed ahead--bastard of all Amurkan bastards grousing about Putin's lack of respect for international institutions. Condileeeza Rice is so ghastly and such a self-deluded super freak that her brittle neurotic demeanor and maniacal fixation on her Darth Vaderette hair helmet says
it all about her.

Big Media's track record of complicity with fascism is moving forward despite a looming election that in decades past would have signaled a true sea change in domestic and foreign policy. But it seems more and more clear that neither the dominant Parties nor Big Media will halt their downward slide into acquiring all the habits of despotism.

To relativists who say the media has always been this way I say no, I've never seen or heard it being as viciously concentrated, steered and sanitized as it is now. Even citizens during the Civil War saw the pictures of American dead taken by Matthew Brady that were published in newspapers. I grew up watching images of wounded, dying or dead American soldiers being evacuated by helicopters from LZs in Vietnam and we saw occasional footage of firefights as well. Americans in WWII saw scattered news reels of American dead--especially during the bloody island invasions in the approach to Japan. Pelelieu comes to mind. Iwo Jima as well.

Now our wars are completely sanitized. We heard spin about the battles in a dozen Iraqi cities, but saw no American casualties, weren't allowed to visually gauge the extreme level of civilian suffering, let alone see real battle footage. Bush and Cheney were insanely furious that they couldn't control Muslim TV networks as well and those 300-some Muslim networks had access to footage from inside Iraq's bombed out depleted hospitals--true nightmares of hellish proportions. We aren't allowed to even see the coffins of dead American soldiers flown back from Bush's infotainment freeze-dried war zones.

The only realistic images of war we are now allowed to see, apparently, are other people's wars--and only the bodies of the side whose oil and/or natural gas pipeline our Oligarchs covet. This situation isn't simply Orwellian. We as a nation are so propaganda-herded now that if the clock struck 13:00 PM and a government spokessuit said to relax and wrap our homes in plastic to avoid chemical weapons no reporter would question it and neither would the Amurkan masses. As many would tune it out as would totter out to tack up plastic. But as WE increasingly tune out our rulers they step up the pace of their criminal activities which just happen to be screwing up the entire planet.

This country has withstood partisan corruption before but I don't know how it can withstand such overwhelming and increasingly brazen engineering of mass opinion as it is being subjected to now.

We need to be building a massive Third Party that reaches out to independents from Libertarians to radical eco-Socialists and everyone in between. One that combines historical political education of successful liberal and Socialist policies used to address similar conditions to today with examples of fiscal responsibility and accountability in the rhetoric of campaign speeches. Only a true, large enough and well organized Third Party can compel change on the other two at this point. Only such a Party can field protest events on a scale sufficient to command Big Media's attention, and, most importantly, develop a big enough war chest to target subversive fascist anti-Constitutionalist posers like Nancy Pelosi and her DLC ilk with well-financed opposition candidates in their home districts.

Galen you might be right.

The US may never regain the moral authority to complain about anybody invading or bombing anyone. Might makes right has come home to roost, but just chicken one. The rest of the flock comes home when large blocks of nations want the US to change economic or military action or there will be consequences. Buying US debt and propping up the dollar is a TEAM sport.

Shakker - I would hazard a guess that the 'beam' in Bush's eye is one of the support girders from the Twin Towers that was hastily (and illegally) removed from the site of 9/11 ('Ground Zero') and sent to China to be smelted down ...

Here Putin, let me pick the mote from your eye says Bu$h the inferior with the beam in his eye.

Looks like karlof1 just body slammed Lindorff. And yes Lindorff, you were basically parroting the neo-con line by not understanding the nuances of the situation, but clearly unknowingly.

However, I completely agree with your assessment on the hypocrisy of the US media when it comes to ignoring US crimes. But anyone who has studied the Vietnam war instinctively knows this about the capitalist media in the US; namely, that the dominant media are essentially propaganda outlets of the Pentagon.

I suggest Paul Craig Roberts article today which focuses on this background, including the role of the Israelis and the history of US attempts to surround Russia with nuclear (US supplied) satellite states:

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08132008.html

This conflict is not going to be pretty and the end results more than likely will be disastrous. Why should USA say to Russia, "stand down" when the USA did NOT tell Israel to stand down two years ago in their invasion of Lebanon? This is dangerous...the USA pissing off Russia via Georgia is dangerous! I do not believe it. Sure the USA is claiming that Georgia acted alone in all of this but ummmm...most people worldwide know different. I am so upset that the USA would DARE use a former Soviet Union nation while claiming some sort of innocence when the shit hits the fan. That is just wrong. Now, the Georgia people will pay because Saakashvili was played for a fool. Saakashvili is now begging Russia for mercy and I seriously doubt Russia will grant this unless Georgia gives up sovereignty to Russia. Rest assured Georgia, should this scenario happen Russia will take care of your people. However, for Saakashvili to state that I am going to join NATO as well as provoke Russia with the supposed promise of defense by the USA so that Georgia will be protected and immune from consequence was foolish on his part. Very dumb. Saakashvili made a terrible mistake and his consequences is obviously severe. I just hope cool heads will prevail, lessons will be learned, and for all nations to never play with Russia again.

I agree with blucheek, and other that Canada and Mexico suffer more than they gain from the US of A. God knows I and everybody I know cares about and respects Americans as people, as human beings-no question. But Bush and similar fascists/neo-CONS/corporates shills and much worse eat Canada from the inside out. And Mexico too.
All our "Democracies" in North America are increasingly a sham, and a deadly,destructive joke. Very sick puppies like Bush and Harper and their minions and supporters and people just plain too stoopid to think past their ASSets...we have Corporate Democracy AKA Fascism AKA what we think is "freedom and justice for all"- what we think is "Our true North strong and free"- what we think is "life" but is really the Matrix without special effects, and real blood instead of fake blood, in such quantities it STOPS looking real on FOX and other garbage outlets...

#
ChrisHorton August 13th, 2008 6:04 pm
"....But as a hedge, start setting up cheap lo-tech ways of printing, face-to-face networks and ways of communicating that can't be disrupted electronically.
And then promise yourselves and each other that you won't give up."

Excellent advice.

Galen August 13th, 2008 9:01 pm:
"Samson - Have you ever listened to our PM, Steven 'Mini Me' Harper?

The US doesn't need to invade us. Harper will be waiting at the border crossing with the keys…"

The keys were first handed over back in 1957 by our national hero, John Diefenbaker, of AVRO fame.

Ever since that day, Canada has existed in name only at the pleasure of successive US administrations.

Samson August 13th, 2008 4:57 pm:
"So far, Mexico and Canada have been safe from us."

Think again. Think SPP, think "Mutual Assistance Agreement", , think NAU, think NAFTA.
http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/

The only difference is that you haven't used overt military force - yet. There's been no need - yet - considering the traitors your governments have installed in Mexico City and Ottawa.

What a mess!

Agree w/ CDN comments. BC, AL, ON all have third "carbon" copies of the neocons in power. Get rid of them. As for Georgian genocide, one report had Russian special forces after G. prez,& cabinet.Documentation of G. genocide is ongoing. Hang them. Bush will never be able to leave Crawford. The noose awaits all these sluts. Kiss your ass good-by.

Samson - Have you ever listened to our PM, Steven 'Mini Me' Harper?

The US doesn't need to invade us. Harper will be waiting at the border crossing with the keys...

Funny comment, samson. But.

It's true that US troops haven't invaded Canada since 1812 and Mexico since 1916 (and, of course, 1846, when half of Mexico became part of the United States, post a successful invasion).

But US corporations have invaded Mexico since Rice has been around. And cheap US corn has invaded Mexico. The US takes all the water from the Colorado River and has a deal with Canada that Canada must supply the US with oil before it supplies itself.

But other than that, pretty funny.

"My name is John 'Bomb Bomb' McCain. And I approve this Armageddon."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrWz9XVvls

Regarding this conflict Condoleezza Rice said, "This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed."

Apparently the concept of hypocrisy has yet to evolve in the brains of neocon Neanderthals.

Mordechai, excellent observation about the Enquirer becoming a better news source than the Post.

Georgia is in the grip of Zionist Jews who are infecting/directing their genocidal malevolence against the peasants of Ossetia, just as they've done against the Palestinians for the past 50 years. The Russkies would be doing everybody a favor to toss their asses clear out of Georgia and cancel their plan to get that Caspian oil and funnel it through Israel; which would, by the way,give them a chokehold on...you guessed it....America.

I found it particularly disturbing that ABC news saw fit to show dead Georgian soldiers but refuse to even acknowledge our own dead exist. We aren't shown their bodies or even their coffins but ABC thought that we'd want to see these dead. It's not that I condone violence of any kind but to get the country to rally around Georgia, who started this ruckuss, with Bush/Cheney's help I don't doubt, they will show dead bodies of the victims of this war but refuse to go against the government to do their constitutional duty and show this country what George W. Bush has done in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have become extremely cynical in the past 7 years so I totally believe that ABC was told to show the dead Georgians. After all our hypocritical leaders want to show how outraged they are that this war of aggression by Russia, while conveniently forgetting the two wars of aggression they've started. They spew and sputter and all the time I have to sit in awe of these boneheads. McCain too. Do they all think we believe for a moment that we have any moral standing in this world after they lied and cheated and stole this country into the toilet?

Lavrov is Russia's Foreign Minister.

Why Russia's Response to Georgia was Right

By Sergei Lavrov

13/08/08 "Financial Times" - -- For some of those witnessing the fighting in the Caucasus over the past few days, the narrative is straightforward and easy. The plucky republic of Georgia, with just a few million citizens, was attacked by its giant eastern neighbour, Russia. Add to this all the stereotypes of the cold war era, and you are presented with a truly David and Goliath interpretation – with all its accompanying connotations of good and evil. While this version of events is being written in much of the western media, the facts present a different picture.

Let me be absolutely clear. This is not a conflict of Russia's making; this is not a conflict of Russia's choosing. There are no winners from this conflict. Hours before the Georgian invasion, Russia had been working to secure a United Nations Security Council statement calling for a renunciation of force by both Georgia and South Ossetians. The statement that could have averted bloodshed was blocked by western countries.

Last Friday, after the world's leaders had arrived at the Beijing Olympics, Georgian troops launched an all-out assault on the region of South Ossetia, which has enjoyed de facto independence for more than 16 years. The majority of the region's population are Russian citizens. Under the terms of the 1992 agreement to which Georgia is a party, they are afforded protection by a small number of Russian peacekeeping soldiers. The ground and air attack resulted in the killing of peacekeepers and the death of an estimated 1,600 civilians, creating a humanitarian disaster and leading to an exodus of 30,000 refugees. The Georgian regime refused to allow a humanitarian corridor to be established and bombarded a humanitarian convoy. There is also clear evidence of atrocities having been committed – so serious and systematic that they constitute acts of genocide.

There can be little surprise, therefore, that Russia responded to this unprovoked assault on its citizens by launching a military incursion into South Ossetia. No country in the world would idly stand by as its citizens are killed and driven from their homes. Russia repeatedly warned Tbilisi that it would protect its citizens by force if necessary, and its actions are entirely consistent with international law, including article 51 of the UN charter on the right of self-defence.

Russia has been entirely proportionate in its military response to Georgia's attack on Russian citizens and peacekeepers. Russia's tactical objective has been to force Georgian troops out of the region, which is off limits to them under international agreements. Despite Georgia's assertion that it had imposed a unilateral ceasefire, Russian peacekeepers and supporting troops remained under continued attack – a fact confirmed by observers and journalists in the region. Russia had no choice but to target the military infrastructure outside the region being used to sustain the Georgian offensive. Russia's response has been targeted, proportionate and legitimate.

Russia has been accused of using the conflict to try to topple the government and impose control over the country. This is palpable nonsense. Having established the safety of the region, the president has declared an end to military operations. Russia has no intention of annexing or occupying any part of Georgia and has again affirmed its respect for its sovereignty. Over the next few days, on the condition that Georgia refrains from military activity and keeps its forces out of the region, Russia will continue to take the diplomatic steps required to consolidate this temporary cessation of hostilities.

Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's president, has stated that "unless we stop Russia, unless the whole world stops it, Russian tanks will go to any European capital tomorrow", adding on a separate occasion that "it's not about Georgia any more. It's about America". It is clear that Georgia wants this dispute to become something more than a short if bloody conflict in the region. For decision-makers in the Nato countries of the west, it would be worth considering whether in future you want the men and women of your armed services to be answerable to Mr Saakashvili's declarations of war in the Caucasus.

Russia is a member of the Security Council, of the Group of Eight leading industrialised nations and partner with the west on issues as varied as the Middle East, Iran and North Korea. In keeping with its responsibilities as a world power and the guarantor of stability in the Caucasus, Russia will work to ensure a peaceful and lasting resolution to the situation in the region.

Dave,

South Ossetia voted in a referendum to join Russia instead of Georgia when the USSR was dissolved by Yeltsin and the CIS formed. As an Autonomous Oblast, they were entitled to do so, and the results were accepted by the three parties, Georgia, Russia, and South Ossetia. The Georgian government then reneged on their acceptance, invaded and were repelled, and the situation became "frozen." So, the de facto and de jure situation is that South Ossetia is a part of Russia. It's just very inconvenient for the truth to be told, isn't it. The truth is Georgia invaded South Ossetia, which is a part of the Russian Empire. I somehow get the idea that you didn't know that.

See to your networks of contacts; keep yourselves informed and keep them informed, and keep the pressure on. But as a hedge, start setting up cheap lo-tech ways of printing, face-to-face networks and ways of communicating that can't be disrupted electronically.

And then promise yourselves and each other that you won't give up.

Parroting trolls unite! You have nothing to lose but your serious nonsense!

What is all this crap about "the Russian invasion of Georgia"? THE GEORGIANS INVADED SOUTH OSSETIA and almost certainly did so with the advance knowledge of the chimpster and the state of Israel. (The Georgian Minister of Defense is Israeli.) The hypocrisy of the press is staggering. The first day of the invasion, before the outcome was certain, they were blatting away about a Georgian victory. After that, it's all about the "Russian invasion." The people parroting this nonsense right here on CD are either trolls or seriously misinformed.

russia is going to punch us in the stomach and put this brainwashed ego maniac US corporatocracy in it's rightful place.

I hear russian president Dimitri Medvedev has already parked a handful of medium range nuclear missile launchers along the southern border of captured territories. Thanks BushCo, uniter extraordinaire.

These are the words of our UK Foreign Secretary, today:

"The sight of Russian tanks rolling into part of a sovereign country on its neighbouring borders will have brought a chill to the spine of many people, rightly, because that is a reversion to - it's not just Cold War politics, it's a 19th Century way of doing politics."

He added: "That is simply not the way international relations can be run in the 21st Century."

Can you believe the DUPLICITY of this disgraceful government that willingly assisted and assists in the invasion and occupation of A SOVEREIGN NATION that was no threat at all!!!!

"She warned Russia it was no longer 1968, a time when powerful nations were allowed to invade their neighbors with impunity."

They are always very slippery in their language (just like Obama and the Democrats by the way). For instance, there is nothing at all hypocritical with this statement, assuming the poster paraphrased it correctly.

After all, the United States has not invaded 'its neighbors' during the years Rice has served the Bush administration. The US of course travels around the world and invades countries far from home. So far, Mexico and Canada have been safe from us.

canuckchuck August 13th, 2008 4:40 pm

This is getting serious. 2.5 agreements with canuckchuck this last few weeks.

There isn't another country that can do it, but I can't think of another country that would want to be in two seperate zones of combat, or one for that matter.

Plus the fact that it is shattering our military to sustain this and causing untold damage to our troops.

Russia has a complex history of expanding outwards and conquering and absorbing lots of various races and societies as they did so. This history extends through much of the 18th and 19th centuries. Thus, it becomes rather complicated to say whether a people is or isn't 'russian'. Does the term just refer to the 'muscovites' who were at the core of this expanding empire? Or does it include others who were born in 'russia', lived in 'russia' and died in 'russia'?

For instance, Georgia itself was a part of Russia and the Soviet Union for a long time. In fact, one Joseph Stalin was a 'Georgian'. He of course also ruled the Soviet Union for decades. I suspect most people would casually refer to Stalin as 'russian'.

Maybe the National Enquirer is sticking to outing democrats because it got anthrax mailed to it in 2001 when it printed pictures of the drunken bush twins. You never hear that in the "news coverage" of the conveniently dead accused anthrax perpetuator. As a taxpayer, I must say that it certainly saves money when the FBI accuses a dead guy, instead of a live one who can sue for defamation of character.

You also never hear that the other 2 targets were democratic senators, Leahy and Dashcle, who might have slowed the Patriot Act rush to pass. Or not. The democrats certainly rolled over and passed it again 5 years later, with no anthrax needed.

That said, Mr. Lindorff, I agree that your opening sentence is very misleading. Saying "Russia's invasion of Georgia", makes it sound as if the invasion was unprovoked. As if Georgia were Iraq, or something, minding its own business when suddenly a big country invaded it.

Georgia attacked civilians in South Ossetia while the Olympic Games were starting, and then Russia responded, after thousands of civilians and some Russian peacekeeping troops were killed. You allude to this in your last paragraph, but, come on, that doesn't make up for the first sentence.

And as Mister Chips points out, the graphic violence that stunned you so, may very well have been Georgian violence relabeled. The US has been proven to manufacture evidence, and to lie at first and backtrack much later. I don't believe anything I see on the corporate media.

US sending Humanitairan Aid, or just more gunsd ammo?

Rice claims she is going to Georgia to "mediate" the dispute...not freakin likely...mediators are generally disinterested third parties, not the military backers and propogandists of one side.

I hear McHell Sack-o-shit-li, the Georgian crybaby, who famously thinks "ceasfire" means murdering civilians in their sleep, has just been awarded the Olympic Gold medal in the "100 mile Dash" retreat..I think he is still running south!

"By the way, name another country that can have troops in combat in two seperate zones, and still have the ability to fly in food to another combat zone. "

Nazi Germany, maybe?

Jeez, What a tool.

jlocke123 August 13th, 2008 4:23 pm

The most sensible thing I read here.

Spot on article.

The points regarding Georgia in this article were on fully-animated display during Condi Rices's televised address today. She warned Russia it was no longer 1968, a time when powerful nations were allowed to invade their neighbors with impunity. All the while, she seemed untroubled (except for the odd bouts of give-away uncontrollable blinking) by the arch hypocrisy of her own nation's recent international behavior.

News approved by government indeed.

Don't get too caught up in the details of exactly 'what is propaganda.' It of course changes and evolves to meet the needs of its masters.

I like Chomsky's approach better. Take a step back and look at the overall effects, and then decides if those results match what you'd expect from a 'propaganda system' or a free, independent, aggressive 'news' system.

Actually, our 'advisers' were already there training the Georgian military up near this border and right before the attacks. The US had several hundred there, and our surrogate ally Israel had a thousand or more.

The best thing is that I've used the parental blocking features of my sat system to block all the American corporate news channels. This means I'd heard absolutely nothing about the Edwards story until CounterPunch wrote about it.

Ah, now that's sweet!

"The US is to send troops to embattled Georgia in the form of a humanitarian aid exercise, President George Bush announced today."
- We sent 'advisors' to Vietnam too.

Good for you, Dave, for answering the nitpickers and naysaysers! Some people just have a serious need to be negative and nasty. I love your articles and commentaries and look for them on several websites on a regular basis.

You did miss one minor item in your response - the poster, Stepfour, is wrong when he says propaganda is, by definition, true. It's often lying by omission with an emphasis that creates incorrect impressions, and is "the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist."

That definition does not indicate truth. Truthiness maybe. Speaking of which, Jon Stewart had quite a bit to say about Bush's condemnation of the Russians while he avoided his own invasion of Iraq. (Colbert might have, too, but I fell asleep before I saw his show.)

Davey, I think that is essentially correct, in a roundabout way. Russian troops have been stationed in the separatist regions of Georgia for years. The Russians call their troops "peace keepers" and they guard the people in the autonomous regions who claim ethnic Russian ties. This ethnic reality and real concern for the safety of the population also is in alignment with Russia's interest in monopolizing control over an area that contains oil pipelines that are a minor supplement to its own energy exports going toward Europe.

I think Georgia miscalculated and the recent US/Israeli activity in Georgia leads me to believe that Georgia did not make this blunder on its own. They should have shown more patience and diplomacy. This situation reminds me of the Falklands war. No matter what moral/legal claim Argentina had going in, by starting the shooting they gave the UK the opportunity to settle it on a level where Britain had the advantage. By going the military route, the Georgians have opened the door for the Russians to respond in kind. Russia is not going to sit back and watch its soldiers and the Russian citizens in Georgia flee back over the border and cause a major refugee situation inside Russia.

As for moral authority, yes the US has lost it, but it can get it back. A poster above clearly is proud that America can simultaneously attack other nations on many fronts. I would not share that pride. I am not as concerned with what America can do, as I am with what America chooses to do. In the short term the prevailing American attitudes seem to indicate more aggression, and with that, Russia and others have to deal, but further out, who knows, with different people in congress, with a president who stands for something more than the latest campaign contribution from Exxon?

AllTogetherNow, who hides behind a pseudonym, is wrong. It is not a bipartisan media. It is a Republican media. I'm not saying that there aren't Democrats (there are) who back the same Republican/NeoCon imperial agenda, but it's clear from the way the corporate media have pummelled Democrats--particularly liberals--in campaign after campaign, and from the way they've pursued scandals involving the likes of the Clintons, while ignoring the scandals of Bush, Cheney and other powerful Republicans over the year, that the media are heavily in favor of the Republican agenda. Not everything is aqn over-arching simplistic conspiracy. There are nuances, but people like AllTogetherNow are not all together. They like their conspiracies simple.

As for Karlof1, you answered your own stupid criticism. I said Russia invaded Georgia early in my piece, because...well, because it did invade Georgia. Later, I pointed out that they had reason to invade, to protect ethnic Russians in the GEORGIAN PROVINCE of South Ossatia, who had been attacked by the Georgian military.

So Karlof, dude, what would you want to say? That the Georgians invaded Russia? No, that won't work, because South Ossatia is in...Georgia. Say the Georgians invaded...Georgia? No, you can't invade yourself?

What's the problem dude? You read my piece, you learn that the Russians invaded Georgia, and that they did it, at least arguably, to protect Russian people under attack.

And for this I'm "parrotting" the propaganda machine?

Get real.

Dave Lindorff
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

It seems to me Russia's invasion of Georgia is a direct result of Bush's invasion of Iraq. The US used to wield a certain amount of moral authority.
Now anything goes and Russia knows it can get away with it.
There is some evidence that the US and Israel are backing the Georgian president who without their aid may have been less willing to attempt direct military intervention.

It seems to me Russia's invasion of Georgia is a direct result of Bush's invasion of Iraq. The US used to wield a certain amount of moral authority.
Now anything goes and Russia knows it can get away with it.
There is some evidence that the US and Israel are backing the Georgian president who without their aid may have been less willing to attempt direct military intervention.

It seems to me Russia's invasion of Georgia is a direct result of Bush's invasion of Iraq. The US used to wield a certain amount of moral authority.
Now anything goes and Russia knows it can get away with it.
There is some evidence that the US and Israel are backing the Georgian president who without their aid may have been less willing to attempt direct military intervention.

Hi frank1569--Then there is the question of McCain's gross marital "infidelity," and why the Propaganda System has chosen to ignore it and highlight Edwards's.

Nathaniel, let's converge on an MSM site. Pick one.

DL is totally missing the real issue - Big Corp Media held the Edwards story as hole card until Cheney/Bush needed a major distraction from yet another outrageous scandal, or two even - like, say Suskind's revelation they actually forged documents to support the thousands of lies they used to convince "us" a pair of illegal invasions of sovereign nations was immediately necessary. Or the FBI's total bungling of the continued "anthrax killer" cover-up.

Both stories have all but disappeared. That's why the BCM didn't run with the Edwards tale when they had it... because they were told to.

" Jonthenet August 13th, 2008 2:54 pm

"by most accounts killed hundreds of thousands and perhaps as many as 1.2 million Iraqis, very few of them combatants"

This number has gone down over the last year. When you lie about Americans killing civilians, use 3 million dead that was the standard number a year ago, from these ,hate us love anyone else sites."

NO, LINDORFF used the "standard" reference, and I've been reading very full-time on these current US-et-al wars of aggression for nearly six years now. NEVER has 3mn Iraqis killed in this present war of aggression launched against them been anywhere as high as 3mn.

The only way to arrive at that high number is when we include the estimate 1-1.5mn Iraqis killed only due to the criminal economic sanctions the US-et-al imposed through UNSC WEAKNESS. I have not yet read how many Iraqis, civilians and/or military, killed in Gulf War I, but if we use both those killed because of the sanctions and now this present war, then we near 3mn.

And the number will keep rising, due to radiological poisoning of much of Iraq, lack of restoration of potable, safe drinking water, ETCETERA; for a long time to come, there'll be ever more Iraqi casualties due to only this present war (of aggression) against Iraq and its entire population.

But Lindorff's right and clearly referring to only the number of casualties, Iraqis killed, from the present war.

Perhaps The National Enquirer should become America's "newspaper of record" instead of the New York Tombs. At least the Enquirer doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is - a rag. The NY Tombs, The Warshington Pest, The Low Sangeles Tombs, etc. are what so many people have already called them: propaganda sheets, the U.S. version of Pravda.

One correction to this story. Ossetians are not Russians, although they are Orthodox Christians and North Ossetia is Russian territory.

During the past 20 years the Republican-controlled government has converted the corporate media into a state-run news agency. It makes perfect sense since the corporations now own the government.

"by most accounts killed hundreds of thousands and perhaps as many as 1.2 million Iraqis, very few of them combatants"

This number has gone down over the last year. When you lie about Americans killing civilians, use 3 million dead that was the standard number a year ago, from these ,hate us love anyone else sites.

jlocke123-- If we were to prod the Russians, we would not use C-17's filled with food. By the way, name another country that can have troops in combat in two seperate zones, and still have the ability to fly in food to another combat zone. It is a great country

Quoting from the article:

And, of course, don't feel to good about the quality of the coverage of the Russian/Georgia conflict either. This too is biased. Indeed one reason we are shown all the carnage is that the US government has been backing Georgia, and there is evidence that the US even encouraged the Georgian attacks on ethnic Russians which provoked the invasion. The US also has obligingly airlifted Georgian troops back from Iraq to Georgia.

This is not news. This is propaganda, pure and simple.

American corporate news media broadcasts and articles should include a disclaimer: "This report was approved by the media managers of the Bush/Cheney administration."

END QUOTE.

I agree, but am disappointed that Dave Lindorff didn't have anything really revealing to say; however, he does allude to what I have in mind in the first paragraph I quoted from the article. Because there are several articles, so far, and since last Thursday or Friday, I'll just suggest that people read articles on both the Georgia matter, and the one about major USN build-up happening in the Persian Gulf, at www.globalresearch.ca .

I unplugged my Propaganda Box last year.
My blood pressure has improved and I sleep better and read more without it.
Without Rupert I have undergone a ProLifeStyle change.

By definition, propaganda is true. It's the truth presented in a way that favors a particular point of view. Lies aren't propaganda. The implication that dead Georgians killed by Russian ordnance are somehow more newsworthy than dead Arabs killed by American bullets is a lie and not propaganda.

Dave Lindorff may very well be perpetuating another piece of MSM proganda when he says, "...I was stunned by the graphic depictions of Russian brutality in Gori...". Look up "Russian cameraman: CNN Aired Misleading Footage". According to this report, footage of Georgian troops attacking Russian citizens in Tskhinvali was used erroneously to show this "Russian brutality in Gori". Honest mistake??...doubtful.

It's been really disgusting to watch coverage on network television. Whether it's Katie Couric or Charlie Rose, most of the commentary is coming from neocons such as Robert Kagan as well as members from the Council on Foreign Relations. And this is not just a neocon thing. The Brzezinski faction should have as much light as possible shown on their part in this mass deception.

U.S. citizens lack the intelligence to know they've been conned by the masters they so willingly elect year after year.

Dave, why did you parrot the Propaganda System in your first sentence, "Russia's invasion of Georgia," and wait until the end of your item to tell the truth?

I think it's very clear after this incident that the Propaganda System must be destroyed before it creates a false reality that gets us destroyed. That's what your essay should have been about, Dave--Fictional docudramas paraded as news/reality. Ya basta!!

Kill Your Television.
I did ten years ago.

There's nothing worth watching on TV - you can't find in the public library.

It feels so good not to have watched this crap!
I still know the corporate government is evil.
I havn't seen the political ads, nor Paris Hilton's.
I know no details about John Edwards sex life...Yeah!

For those who haven't heard of the Edwards affair, don't worry, Larry King will be covering it for weeks to come on Corporate News Network.

In our major media, nothing is as it appears. An Asia Times article (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH13Ag05.html) confirms much of Lindorff's analysis with added historical detail, including typical US regime-change acitivities in 2003 as well as US-Israeli collusion in arms-peddling, missile defense basing, and of course, oil intrigue---an all-too-familiar (never reported) confluence that makes more sense of yet another bewildering conflict.

According to the article, "This means that the attack on South Ossetia is the first battle in a new proxy warfare between Anglo-American-Israeli led interests and Russia." It could become deadly serious if Bush is allowed to pursue America's self-destructive path.

We need to post on MSM big newspaper sites. Otherwise we will never TAKE THE OFFENSIVE AGAINST THE BIPARTISAN CORPORATE MEDIA BRAIN-SEWERS. BLAST THE CREDIBILITY OF THE MEDIA ON BIG NEWSPAPER SITES OTHERWISE IT DOES NOT MATTER , YOU ARE ONLY HELPING THEM MARGNINALIZE YOU!

Once more, the Sith will rule the galaxy! And... we shall have peace.

For unapproved TV reporting, go to
http://liberationvideo.blogspot.com
In depth TV news you will never see on TV.

"This report was approved by the media managers of [your bipartisan corporate] administration."

again Dave Lindorff does more to exacerbate a problem than expose it by narrowly blaming one faction, when he knows the propaganda machine is bigger than this.

Paul CRaig Roberts at Counterpunch calls it "our Israeli-occupied media".

http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts08132008.html

There are already over a hundred US soldiers in Georgia. The US is airlifting 2000 Georgians out of Iraq (they were the third largest occupation contingent left, after the US and UK). Now the US is announcing that it is flying in more US troops to Georgia, calling the soldiers "humanitarian aid".

This article makes a good point. I would only add my sense of profound concern when I see American pundits, still on the defense department payroll, once again beating the war drums. It looks like the US government, even after the revelations of criminal misconduct leading up to and during the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, has not skipped a beat. What are they thinking, prodding the Russians right on their border?

"humanitarian aid"? don't make me laugh. If America was interested in humanitarian aid, it would not have created four million Iraqi refugees.

It's so obviously propaganda that it reeks. It's not longer possible to believe that our media is anything other than 100% propaganda organs for the neocons.

"Hi, I am John McBush, and I approved this propoganda...err..."news"

wsws.org: You are correct in your assessment of Obama as a war president. See, this is the thing. The United States is NOT a country, or a republic, it is an empire. BOTH parties support the continuation and expansion of the empire. For some reason, Americans seem to think that it's perfectly alright to pursue global hegemony. (Chomsky says 'we own the world').

There's lots of bluster coming out of the US/UK about the evilness of the Russians for "invading Georgia"... but cast aside your American bias and look at the situation rationally. The US has NO business messing around in Georgia or any of the other former SSR's. To do so, just provokes Russia.

When the US ambassador to the US stands up in the Security Council and says that the Caucasus region is a "Sphere of American Interest", what do you think Russia thinks about that? That's like Russia claiming Mexico or Canada is a sphere of Russian interest. It's ridiculous.

The US does NOT own the world, as much as they'd like to think otherwise and it's a very dangerous game they're playing by provoking the Russians so badly.

What has the US done to provoke Russia? Well, the ever eastward march of NATO, in contrary to the guarantees given to Gorbachev by Reagan. They're setting up the 'missile defense' in eastern Europe, which everyone knows is aimed at Russia, not Iran. The CIA has been staging the "colour revolutions" in former SSR's and setting up pro-western fascist puppets. The US is all over the central Asia region with military bases. The US (under the guise of NATO) bombed the living shit out of Serbia (a Russian ally) and tore away Kosovo and made it "independent" (read US client state). On and on it goes.

Russia can only take so much. The US has taken a very aggressive posture in the world and is playing a very dangerous game. Yet, Americans seem to think that Russia is the great danger! Give me a break. The US is far more dangerous and has a proven track record of wars of aggression.

Do you think Putin wants war? He JUST got Russia back on it's feet after the US led raping of his country after the breakup of the USSR. Russia doesn't want another war, especially one with the West. They want to sit back and enjoy their new found energy wealth and grow fat and rich.

The United States of course, is ridiculously paranoid and greedy as all hell and won't stop until they have the entire world under their bootheel. So when it comes to Georgia, which of course IS Russia's neighbourhood (as contrary to what Amb. Marc Ginsberg said), the Russians will NOT blink first when it comes to confrontation with the US. If the Bush administration insists on continuing to provoke Russia, then God help us all.

So please, lose the "American Exceptionalism" and understand that the US has NO BUSINESS messing in the region. Further provocation of Russia by the US will plunge the world into a conflict, the likes of which have never been seen. Russia has allowed the US to have their war in Iraq, and their war in Afghanistan... but when it comes to messing around in Russia's backyard, they will NOT tolerate that, any more than the US would tolerate Russia messing in Mexico.