Tag Archives: J EDGAR HOOVER

A BREATH OF FRESH AIR SWEEPS INTO HELL, BUT THERE’S STILL NO WAY OUT

John Chuckman

Like a refreshing breeze blowing briefly over those damned to endure the hell created by America’s government came the words of British M.P. George Galloway to an American Senate Committee. The man was simply magnificent. Tough, brave, and articulate – hurling unanswerable truth at blubbering political lowlifes in silk suits.

Washington is the most dishonest place on earth, and with that fact goes another, that the American people are among the earth’s worst governed. These creepy American Gauleiters had wronged Galloway with faked accusations of his profiting from oil trading with Saddam Hussein. My God, it’s just one filthy lie after another. They tried smearing Kofi Annan with the same kind of stuff.

Why is it so rarely Americans who take on their own lying, murderous political establishment? It has always been the same. How few Americans stood up to that bellowing angry drunk, political wife-beater, Senator Joseph McCarthy, or that ugly maggot sucking at the nation’s liberties, J. Edgar Hoover.

George Galloway’s real crime is to have been a sharp thorn in Tony Blair’s side, a powerful critic of the stupid Iraq War. Blair dreamt he would rise to Churchillian heights by attending training classes in Crawford, Texas, on how to rig an illegal war. Today he looks more like the sad, depleted Lloyd George expressing his admiration for that rising new star in Europe, Hitler.

American liberals keep writing about their press’s failure to do its job. Many of the people writing these things are children of the Woodward and Bernstein years under Nixon, a time when there was the brief illusion of an honest press, the tribune of the public, the fourth estate or unofficial branch of government, and other hero-comic phrases.

But that was a brief time of special circumstances. Nixon by then was disliked by a good deal of the American establishment. The War in Vietnam, blackening America’s reputation worldwide, serving no worthwhile purpose, and clearly being lost, threatened to divide the nation as ferociously as had the Civil War.

The more usual situation now prevails. We are back to the same press that never questioned a Gulf of Tonkin Incident, something as phony as Nazi Germany’s shooting a batch prisoners dressed in Polish uniforms and claiming Poland had attacked the Reich.

There can be no more acid comment on the American press’s role in Bush’s sleazy war than the mere observation of the New York Times’ regular use of the out-of-date, sentimental term GI when referring to America’s professional killers now occupying Iraq.

It is not clear yet that America’s establishment dislikes Bush. The profits from money thrown around Washington likes slops at an industrial-scale hog farm are delightful while the broader cost of Bush’s brutish stupidity has not yet registered. Events on this scale take time to play out. The invasion of Iraq, just as the War in Vietnam, will prove certainly to have been an unmitigated disaster, mass killing and destruction to no good purpose, but the full cost won’t be known for years.

America’s own deaths in Iraq are still small in number so far as wars go. Why is that, apart from the nature of the invasion itself which resembled the entire Wehrmacht bravely rolling over tiny Greece? Only days ago, a news item in Europe informed us that British military commanders are shocked by American tactics during the occupation, and they have tried advising them, to no effect yet, on altering their ways.

Essentially, Americans sit in Kevlar armor with weapons of horrific fire power behind barriers and in no-go zones. They have absolutely no relationship with the people. They make no friends, only future enemies, as they shoot anyone – almost exclusively innocent civilians – who doesn’t understand the rules. Once in a while, they launch a massive assault against a target assumed to be a center of armed opposition. Fallujah was one of these, and its utter ruin represents today almost the same kind of ferocious symbol that the Nazi-obliterated village of Lidice did for World War II.

Anyone can see, even reading the manipulated American press, that these tactics are failing. The attacks of Iraqi resistance forces just keep increasing. The rebuilding of the country, without which there is no hope for long-term stability, isn’t proceeding as it should. The country’s pathetic excuse for an elected government doesn’t yet function as a government. New revelations of American abuses steadily feed indignation and resentments around the world.

Americans are not people with long-term vision. “I want it all, and I want it now,” would be the appropriate current national motto. This quality makes Americans among the least qualified people on earth to undertake some of the tasks their politicians set them. The patience of the Chinese or the stiff upper lip of the Brits is missing in people trained to get pissed-off about late pizzas. That’s part of the reason for the brutal, senseless nature of the occupation, and that’s why the Internet press is full of liberal and other anti-war demands that American troops leave Iraq.

I wish that were possible, but it would be totally irresponsible. The destruction is done, the horrible mess is made. Americans have a clear responsibility to prevent Iraq’s falling into total bloody chaos. American troops will remain in Iraq, and will keep dying there, for years. As from all horrible situations, some good may eventually come. Maybe, just maybe, it will dawn on Americans how destructive and ignorant their politicians’ approach to world affairs truly is.

But I doubt it. The essence of hell is that there is no escape.

LIBERAL MEDIA? IN AMERICA? YOU MUST BE KIDDING

John Chuckman

One the silliest expressions used in America is “liberal media.”

The word “liberal” itself has been so abused and twisted in the last few decades, you’d think the Ministry of Truth had decreed its meaning must be changed. “Liberal” has become a contemptuous epithet for opposition to economic liberty, Constitutional principles, and even religious expression.

This is a parody of the word. “Liberal” has to do with open-mindedness, dedication to principles of intellectual liberty, and a strong regard for human rights. Over the last two and a half centuries, expanding the franchise, achieving religious liberty, defending human rights, and concern for the environment were all liberal causes.

Not a bad record, that.

How was this fine word reduced to shabbiness? The answer is through endless repetition of the parody in magazines, newspapers, and on television. That’s not exactly prima fascie evidence for liberal bias in the media.

Nothing has changed to erode the truth of that wonderful remark about freedom of the press existing for those who own one. In fact, with massively increased concentration in the ownership of American corporations, including the news business, the remark is more pertinent than ever.

Just reeling off the names of some major owners of America’s press and broadcasting tells a story. Rupert Murdoch (Australian billionaire newspaper magnate), Disney Corporation, Dow-Jones, Tribune Corporation, Knight-Ridder, Hearst Corporation, and General Electric. In what possible sense are any of these liberal?

Even the New York Times, often regarded as the liberal paper in America, a paper whose very name causes sagebrush politicians to curl their lips in contempt, is actually a very cautious one, as befits the flagship publication of a multi-billion dollar enterprise.

The Times always defends the establishment. It becomes positively hot and bothered about supporting often-abusive institutions like the FBI over the rights of individuals, as in its hideous, long-term attack on Wen Ho Lee.

Where’s the liberal bias? In pompous editorials that read like press releases for the American Imperium? In a slick magazine whose mostly-vapid stories float in a thick ooze of advertising for expensive clothes, perfumes, and furniture? In a letters column whose writers often use two lines to give their titles? Try finding a tough op-ed piece in the New York Times. They’re as common as farts in a church service.

Ah, there’s public broadcasting, isn’t there? But America’s public broadcasting is the most sanitized, politically correct that I’m aware of. Public television is hopelessly fluffy,
featuring gorilla pictures narrated by authorities like Martin Sheen and puff-piece investigative reports.

Its evening news specializes in pseudo-debate, invariably with dependents of the two parties exchanging slogans. The program focuses on Beltway babble rather than investigation. Holders of think-tank sinecures are regular seat-fillers. American public radio, which does a better job than television, still lacks breadth of view, lacks bite, and, for the most part, contains precious little not found in mainstream media.

America’s public-broadcast officials collapsed in a heap when Newt Gingrich and his band of Texas Visagoths attacked them about running a sandbox for yuppies, and they haven’t recovered yet. Public broadcasting has lost much of its government financing over the years, and it lives under constant threat of losing more. After all, the party in power doesn’t even pay its UN dues. What’s support for public broadcasting compared to international-treaty obligations?

“Is Dan Rather a Republican? Peter Jennings? Tom Brokaw?” ask readers who think they have a definitive point, but the point they make is quite different to the one they think they’re making.

Who cares what these gentlemen are as long as they do their jobs? What is it about the right-wing (“conservative” is really too gentle a word) that insists on knowing the details of one’s political ties and bedroom habits? Isn’t this a little like what you would expect in the old Soviet Union? And who has more influence on the overall character of a news organization, a paid news reader or the guys paying the bills? Anyone with a very good job doesn’t have to be told not to seriously irritate the boss.

Reflect on events over some decades and ask yourself about the American press’s “liberal” role in them. Did the press ever tell us what happened in the Gulf War? Has it given us much more than Pentagon press releases on Afghanistan? Does the gloss on the Middle East ever go beyond what you’d expect from the State Department?

Did the press ever reveal to the American people what a manipulative monster J. Edgar Hoover was? Did the press tell people, while he was destroying people’s lives, that Joe McCarthy was a desperate drunk trying to revive a failing political career? Such questions are endless, and the answer to virtually all of them is “no.”