How Big Media Subverted US Democracy with Lies, Smears and Gross Propaganda

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Rush Limbaugh---as loathsome as he is --is a tool, a media whore! The real power still resides in the media boardrooms and they just don't give a shit if every media outlet in America is run by a muzak machine or a raving lunatic like Limbaugh. They're in it for the big bucks and power.

Limbaugh's lies and misrepresentations would have been seen to be those of just another run-o-the-mill fringe nut job if the right wing had not succeeded in stealing what had been the publicly owned air waves! They did seize the media as the textbook first step preceding the takeover of legitimate government. The GOP and the complicit Rush Limbaugh conspired to benefit the very, very few --the ever shrinking 1 percent --which as a result now owns more than 95 percent of the rest of us combined. For the shrinking number of huge corporate media conglomerates 'public service' is just a quaint sop that over some twenty years, they've done away with completely.

Whenever Rush heard his masters' voices, he served them well. He rationalized and excused the new age of robber barons; he sugar coated 'greed is good'; he elevated Scrooge to sainthood: "Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons...then let them die and decrease the surplus population."

Tragically --much of Rush's power comes from cowardly, so-called 'Blue Dog Democrats' easily spooked by liars like Limbaugh and Hannity.

In conservative states, right-wing talk show hosts are spreading lies about reform. No wonder Blue Dog Dems are blocking health care overhaul.

...

The Blue Dog Seven are spooked by pressure from their constituents and recent polls that show American's approval of Obama's health care initiative has dropped below 50 percent for the first time.

Drive across the seven states they represent: Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee, and Utah, turn on your car radio, and you'll know why public opinion has changed. According to Pew research, 22 percent of Americans get their news from talk radio. And conservative talkers have been lying to their listeners about what's in the health care bill.

Lies from Sean Hannity like, "If you don't have private insurance the year that this bill is passed, you can't get that later on from your employer." Lies from Rush Limbaugh that the bill would "outlaw individual private coverage." Lies provided in talking points from the Republican National Committee like "Democrats are proposing a government controlled health insurance system, which will control care, treatments, medicines and even what doctors a patient may see."

Tell a lie often enough [Rush's motto and modus operandi], and people will believe it.

--Limbaugh's Lies Sabotage the Health Reform Debate

It is bad enough that folk like O'Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh betrayed the nation with a concerted, orchestrated campaign --a policy of lies! It is worse that Democrats have either rolled over or bent over to take it!

The public is likewise betrayed, stabbed in the back, by the FCC, the Federal agency that had been given the responsibility by law to represent the public interest but instead sides with the huge media moguls.

Despite overwhelming public opposition, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has voted time after time in favor of relaxing media ownership limits.

housands of Americans have spoken out at public hearings and written to te FCC in opposition to media consolidation. In 2003, when Michael Powell's FCC voted --without any public input-- to allow one company to own up to three television stations, the local newspaper, the cable system and up to eight radio stations in one media market, more than 3 million Americans spoke out and the courts eventually overturned the rules. In December 2007, the Commission overturned a 30-year-old ban prohibiting a single company from owning both the local newspaper and a television station in the same community. The Senate subsequently passed a "Resolution of Disapproval," but further action stalled in the House.

--Common Cause, Media and Democracy

The result of FCC inaction or incompetence has been the de facto theft of the publicly owned 'airwaves', your airwaves, the 'airwaves' that the Communications Act of 1934 said belong to you --the people --as a principle of law. The use of the term 'de-regulation' to characterize the government theft and subsequent transfer of your airwaves is 'Orwellian', a tactic intended to hide the real intent. And we have let them get away with it! If you have checked the price of air time lately, you must surely know that this theft has been worth billions, possibly trillions!

The truth is the government of the US, dominated by the endemically corrupt right wing and the organized crime syndicate called the GOP, literally stole your airwaves and transferred ownership of them to right wing liars and demagogues like the Fox Network, Sinclair et al --big corporations where the likes of Bill O'Reilly and other right-wing shills had merely to wag an accusing finger while shouting "LIBERAL, LIBERAL" to sink a candidacy or --earlier --impeach the most competent President since FDR.

Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

--Macbeth (IV, i, 14-15)

Reasonable, rational voices are simply drowned-out by the right wing noise machine consisting of the Religious Right and the K-Street advocates of big corporate financed fascism --a mind-numbing 'hell's broth' if ever there was one.

In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies.

This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.

In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.

--Media Reform Information Center, Links and Resources on Media Reform

The following just in subsequent to Big Dan's comment [below] having to do with media consolidation.

WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission ordered its staff to destroy all copies of a draft study that suggested greater concentration of media ownership would hurt local TV news coverage, a former lawyer at the agency says.

The report, written in 2004, came to light during the Senate confirmation hearing for FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. received a copy of the report "indirectly from someone within the FCC who believed the information should be made public," according to Boxer spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz.

--Media ownership study ordered destroyed, FCC draft suggested fewer owners would hurt local TV coverage

Why should Rush Limbaugh, for example, be paid millions for puking up lies and loathsome opinions on airwaves that by right and by law belong to YOU? So ---what, in fact, happened to the American media?

After Nixon's demise, the right wing of the Republican party decided that they could no longer afford to allow the free dissemination of information to the US public. The simple solution? Have their friends buy up the major networks, newspaper chains and magazines, so they could be controlled from the top on the corporate level. The Left's Media Miscalculation was to stand by and watch them do it.

"The American Fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist, the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

-- Henry A. Wallace, Vice President to FDR, 1944 --The Danger of American Fascism

Having wrested control over the channels of public information, they went on to remove any impediment to their injecting their poisons into the public dialogue. The first step was to get rid of the fairness doctrine.

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler the FCC began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

In 1986 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a loose interpretation by the FCC of an aspect of the Fairness Doctrine, ruling that Congress had "never made the doctrine a binding requirement." In August 1987, the Commission abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in its Syracuse Peace Council decision. The FCC insisted that the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was perceived to be unconstitutional.

In the spring of 1987 Congress attempted to contest the FCC vote and restore the Doctrine (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)), but the legislation was vetoed by President Reagan. Another attempt to resurrect the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto. (Wikipedia)

The next step was to further remove any requirement that a "news" show tell the truth. FOX and a number of other "news" organizations took it to court in an elaborate and complicated case that began in 1996 with an investigative report into the effects of a Monsanto product given to dairy cows called BGH. Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson were reporters at FOX affiliate WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. They produced a story that, while true, was not exactly friendly to Monsanto.

"The station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired."

A wrongful dismissal lawsuit was filed by Akre, which she won.The jury unanimously ruled that she was only doing her job as a journalist by refusing to air “a false, distorted or slanted story.”

FOX appealed, and the result was stunning. "During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves." On February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

Well, not wanting to resort to such an obvious pun, I am unable to avoid it. 'It is up to the station' sounds to me way too much like putting the FOX in charge of the hen house. [insert groan here]

--SadButTrue, The Existentialist Cowboy

The Pew Research Center for People and the Press reports that the public is just as fed up with this evil system as am I. Seventy-seven percent against 17 percent want more coverage of issues and less punditry, bullshit and claptrap. All three epithets describe the swill puked up by the arch-demogogues Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly as well as a legion of lesser ass kissers and wannabes like Ann Coulter. Fifty-seven percent wanted real debates in the recent Presidential primaries and election. Only 42 percent wanted news about which candidate was leading who in the various polls. Some fifty five percent wanted more news about all the candidates --not just those deemed by big media to be "front-runners". Democrats generally got more coverage than Republicans, (49% of stories vs. 31%.) One reason was that major Democratic candidates began announcing their candidacies a month earlier than key Republicans, but that alone does not fully explain the discrepancy.

Overall, Democrats received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced. Talk radio was more negative about almost every candidate than any other outlet. Network television was more focused than other media on the personal backgrounds of candidates. For all sectors, however, strategy and horse race were front and center.

It was not so long ago that Democrats couldn't buy a good story. Still, media fixation with every aspect of politics but issues is evidence of insidious media cynicism, an entrenched belief that Americans will not read or understand a story unless is has star quality and celebrity in it.

Americans themselves are largely to blame. Americans have a choice: they can either behave intelligently or they can continue to be stupid, easily duped by the likes of Fox, Limbaugh and less successful liars! Americans have a choice! But if Americans simply will not behave responsibly or as if they had more than two working brain cells among the lot of them, then there is nothing on the Existentialist Cowboy that will help!

---

What Happened to the American Media?

by Sadbuttrue

Earlier today I was reading THIS POST at Ice Station Tango and it brought to mind a documentary I saw a couple of years ago on CBC's excellent news magazine The Fifth Estate. I couldn't remember what it was called, but it wasn't hard to find. It's called Sticks and Stones. In short, it's an examination of the 'left-wing bias' exhibited by the US media, focusing on FOX "news", Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. I didn't know that it was available for viewing on line or I would have posted it long ago. Now that questions are being asked about the role of FAUX, CNN, and others in manipulating the American public into supporting policies that have damn near destroyed the country, it is not only still relevant, it is MORE relevant than ever. YOU MUST WATCH THIS!!

What happened to the American Media? After Nixon's demise, the right wing of the Republican party decided that they could no longer afford to allow the free dissemination of information to the US public. The simple solution? Have their friends buy up the major networks, newspaper chains and magazines, so they could be controlled from the top on the corporate level. The Left's Media Miscalculation was to stand by and watch them do it.

"The American Fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

-- Henry A. Wallace, Vice President to FDR, 1944 --
The Danger of American Fascism

Having wrested control over the channels of public information, they went on to remove any impediment to their injecting their poisons into the public dialogue. The first step was to get rid of the fairness doctrine.

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler the FCC began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

In 1986 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a loose interpretation by the FCC of an aspect of the Fairness Doctrine, ruling that Congress had "never made the doctrine a binding requirement." In August 1987, the Commission abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in its Syracuse Peace Council decision. The FCC insisted that the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was perceived to be unconstitutional.

In the spring of 1987 Congress attempted to contest the FCC vote and restore the Doctrine (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)), but the legislation was vetoed by President Reagan. Another attempt to resurrect the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto. (Wikipedia)

The next step was to further remove any requirement that a "news" show tell the truth. FOX and a number of other "news" organizations took it to court in an elaborate and complicated case that began in 1996 with an investigative report into the effects of a Monsanto product given to dairy cows called BGH. Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson were reporters at FOX affiliate WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. They produced a story that, while true, was not exactly friendly to Monsanto.

"The station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired."

A wrongful dismissal lawsuit was filed by Akre, which she won.The jury unanimously ruled that she was only doing her job as a journalist by refusing to air “a false, distorted or slanted story.” FOX appealed, and the result was stunning. "During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves."

On February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

Well, not wanting to resort to such an obvious pun, I am unable to avoid it. 'It is up to the station' sounds to me way too much like putting the FOX in charge of the hen house. [insert groan here]

Having got the media under their control, and the law out of the way, the right wing media bandits were and are well equipped to launch whatever attack on the truth they pleased. Looks like they've done pretty well so far. This recent Glenn Greenwald piece is a case in point. Calls to Investigate Media's Pre-War Behavior - yeah, getting the country to agree to an unjustified, unnecessary, and extremely expensive war is, I would say, a pretty good shakedown of the system's effectiveness. Now they're probably trying to change the rules so that calling a tail a leg really makes it a leg. Then we'll really be in trouble.

Related Links:

• Why We Must Restore the 'Fairness Doctrine'
• From Common Dreams: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - Fascist America
• From Get In Their Face! The Secret Government
• Media Matters

---

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

-- Abraham Lincoln

"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts."

-- Abraham Lincoln

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

-- Abraham Lincoln

---

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Subscribe

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Why the BBC and FOX Can No Longer be Believed

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Like a cornered dog, the BBC has lashed out at a growing movement of organized critics of Bush 'conspiracy theories' of 911. How credible is this offensive? BBC reporting of 911 is at the very least 'questionable', at worst, 'dishonest'. I suggest that the BBC is trying to save face, having blown almost every opportunity to report honestly with regard to the events of 911.

The BBC's coverage of Building 7 is the part that contains the whole! It's a sorry 'incredible' mess! Anyone watching the BBC report of the collapse of WTC Building 7 when the building is seen still standing behind the reporter should question BBC motives, sources, ethics, and operations. Where did the BBC get the information that a standing building had collapsed before it could have or did? Why did the BBC report as fact the collapse of a building that would not collapse for another 23 minutes? How did the BBC know?

BBCs Screw Up: It Failed to Check its 'Facts'

Another video of the BBC's Screw Up
The BBC might have known had Larry Silverstein or 'agent' tipped them off! Silverstein, the building owner, is on video tape 'confessing' that the building had been 'pulled'. That being the case, the BBC is open to charges of 'omitting' the fact that Building 7 was 'pulled'. BBC cannot have it both ways!

Perhaps the venerable BBC is perversely comforted by the fact that it was not alone; other media also reported the collapse of Building 7 before it, in fact, collapsed. The swamis at Fox were obviously consulting the same oracle:

The video footage speaks for itself. Fox-5 anchor Tracey Neale says that a 47-story building had collapsed in downtown Manhattan which is an obvious reference to WTC-7 because it too was a 47-story building in downtown Manhattan. Then just seconds after Neale reports on the building collapse, they witness WTC-7 collapse at free fall speed in their own video footage.

Following the collapse both news anchors state that the building must have come down due to structural failure which has of course been the official cover story for the WTC-7 collapse. Neale appears visibly flustered after she realizes that she reported on a building collapse in advance of the collapse actually happening. After the collapse, Neale’s co-anchor states the following which is incredibly surreal considering all the information that has now come out about the events of 9/11.

--Fox Reports Building 7 Collapse before it happened. (click the link; there is VIDEO of the Fox swamis caught in the act!)

Prior to 9/11, no steel framed building had ever collapsed as a result of fire damage. Building 7 is a threat not only to Bush's absurd cover story which defies the laws of physics, it is a threat to the 'bend over and take it' school of journalism which regurgitates official stories and covers its ass with an attribution. The 'news reader' in the above video states --as if it were fact --that Building 7 collapsed because 'it had been weakened' though it was never struck by aircraft of any sort!  In fact, Building 7 would not have collapsed from the existing fires even if it had not been "intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening" the structural integrity of the building.

It was the venerable New York Times which reported that fact. Their source was Larry Silverstein the man who later admitted --on broadcast TV --that WTC 7 had, in fact, been 'pulled'. "Pulled" is industry jargon for "controlled demolition".

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...
In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project. 

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need... 

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station. ...

--New York Times, The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million

Since that date, the BBC has tried to paper over the incident with many ex post facto versions. Likewise, the BBC has offered up an apologia for having reported a fact: when it was still honest, the BBC had tracked down and interviewed several alleged Arab 911 hijackers after they were said to have died in the 911 attacks.

Now a cornered BBC, it's credibility on the line, blames its critics, just as the U.S. GOP always blames its victims though they are the victims incompetent and often criminal policies. Why is the BBC lashing out? Its very survival as a network was at stake. My theory --for what 'theories' are worth --is that the BBC had a stake in promoting the Bush/Blair orthodoxy.

In a recently broadcast documentary, The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower, the BBC presents the second of two programs confronting claims made by a growing activist movement comprised of people who doubt the official story of 9/11. This time the BBC looks into one of the most compelling areas of 9/11 research, the theory that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. [my note: Larry Silverstein is heard on video tape broadcast on TV and cable that WTC 7 was, in fact, 'pulled'! ]
The perfect vertical implosion of this enormous building—the last of seven WTC buildings to be completely destroyed on 9/11—was filmed from several excellent angles and is further supported by aerial photos (fig. 1). Those theorists who claim that the Twin Towers as well were brought down with explosives have enjoyed an exponential boost in credence from strong evidence supporting the intentional demolition of WTC 7.

--911 Blooger.com, The BBC’s Demolition of 9/11 Truth

As building owner Larry Silverstein had said, WTC 7 was 'pulled', raising the question: when was the building prepped for demolition? One does not merely decide to 'pull' and building to watch it happen a few hours or less later. The process of rigging a building of some 47 stories for a perfect and symmetrical, controlled demolition may take weeks. Often, the plans and engineering specifications must be examined. 911 was planned well in advance.

I have a nit to pick with 911 Blogger's title. BBC cannot 'demolish' 911 truth. They can only lie about the events as it tries to rewrite its own history. The BBC has tried to do this with several issues. First --the fact that the BBC interviewed several of the alleged 911 hijackers at a time when the Bush administration and then Prime Minister Tony Blair were telling the world that they had perished in the attacks. So --who's lying? The BBC story is still available with a change that the BBC has tried to gloss over so:

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

--Steve Herrmann, 9/11 conspiracy theory

Here's my note to Steve: first of all, your headline itself pure propaganda, intended to imply that critics of Bush/Blair have posited some kind of 'conspiracy' about 911. Some of the them may have --but criticism of the Bush/Blair theory is not a theory. It was, rather, Bush and Blair who put forward the most asinine, stupid, fallacious, and outlandish 'theory' to have ever come down the pike.

Critiques of the 'official theory' which would have you believe that a team of rag-tag Islamic radicals, who most certainly could not fly Cessnas, managed to co--ordinate an attack that resulted in the complete and utter destruction of two of the world's largest, tallest structures and a third building in New York that was not even struck by ANY aircraft at any time. Sorry, Herrmann, critics of this theory are not 'theorists'; they are realists and true skeptics. The 'official theory' is, however, a theory. It is also pure bunkum which even the co-chairs of the 911 commission now disown! They don't believe it. Why should you?

That brings up the topic of Building 7. Bush/Blair gullibles have always included Building 7 as a part of the terrorist attack. By putting itself in the position of defending the outlandish, official conspiracy theory of them all, the BBC has, perhaps unwittingly, assumed the burden of proof! If the BBC wishes to 'demolish' critics of the 'official conspiracy theory', it must then PROVE the 'official conspiracy'. BBC is sticking its neck out, perhaps pinning it own future on proving an 'official conspiracy theory' for which there is not a shred of evidence. Making minor changes to its story about surviving hijackers is a band-aid. Unless the BBC can rescue Bush/Blair, it may be finished. It is not wise for a news organization to pin its credibility, indeed, its hope for survival upon the word of two known liars: Bush and Blair.

Here's what the BBC must do to prove the Bush/Blair Official Conspiracy Theory of 911:

• The BBC must explain why steel melted and collapsed in a relatively cool kerosene fire when, in fact, no other building in the world had ever so collapsed! In fact, the fires at WTC --including Building 7 --were NEVER hot enough at any time to have melted steel! Moreover, by the time the Twin Towers collapsed, the billowing smoke was black. Any firefighter, any veteran reporter will tell you that 'black smoke means a cooling fire'. The fires were spent and the steel was never hot enough even for a second to have melted steel! Again --the burden of proof is upon BBC, Bush and Blair to PROVE the most stupid and outlandish conspiracy theory ever perpetrated upon a gullible pubic!
• The BBC must offer a credible explanation for the precise maneuver that is attributed to Flight 77 said to have hit the Pentagon. Bluntly --Hani Hanjour couldn't even fly a Cessna. He could not have banked a 757 90 degrees without crashing it, let alone execute a maneuver that many experienced pilots say is absolutely impossible in a 757.
• The BBC must PROVE, with photographs if it can get them, that it was a 757 that struck the Pentagon. Surely, Bush, eager to assist BBCs efforts on his behalf will will turn over every one of hundreds, possibly thousands of photos that were taken of the Pentagon and whatever it was that crashed into the Pentagon that fateful day! Surely, Bush will want to help the BBC out! Won't he?
• The BBC must PROVE that Flight 77 Flight Data is consistent with its crashing into the Pentagon. I am confident that the Flight Data from Flight 77 will prove conclusively that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon at an altitude of about 200 feet or slightly higher. Let's open up the Black Box and see who is correct! Me? Or the BBC/Bush? I'm not sweatin' it!

Now let's talk about what is perhaps the BBC's biggest gaffe --more egregious even than its various after-the-fact circumlocutions in the wake of its report that Building 7 had collapsed when, in fact, it was still standing. That is: the BBC censored only that portion of David Frost's interview with Benazir Bhutto in which she stated that Omar Sheikh had murdered Bin Laden years ago. Why did the BBC censor this portion and this portion only? Did the BBC feel obliged to keep alive the myth that Osama Bin Laden --a CIA asset --was still alive? Why?

The Bush administration, it seems, has kept Bin Laden alive for about seven years. Bhutto's remarks confirmed numerous reports including those by Fox and the New York Times that bin Laden had been dead for several years. The BBC was not alone in "censoring" Bhutto's references to the death of bin Laden.

On November 2nd, 2007 two weeks after the first attempt on her life resulted in the deaths of 158 people, former Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto spoke with British interviewer David Frost about her plans for Pakistan, the botched assassination and her feelings about working with current President Pervez Musharraf. (In light of her death, this is a difficult video to watch.) In the course of the past few days, however, FOX News has aired short clips from this interview on Special Report. No one - including Frost - seems to have picked up on an astounding claim made by Mrs. Bhutto, namely, that Osama bin Laden is dead. Mme. Bhutto claimed that a man named Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh is "the man who murdered Osama bin Laden." With video.
FOX News & Other Media Outlets Ignore Benazir Bhutto's Claim That Osama bin Laden Is Dead

Fox News had a stake in keeping bin Laden alive --but it was trapped. Fox had already reported him dead! Thus Benazir Bhutto was confirmed. It was on December 26, 2001, that the Fox network reported that Osama bin Laden died of "serious lung complications" in mid-December of that year. The original Fox report is as follows:

Fox News: "Bin Laden Already Dead"

Wednesday, December 26, 2001

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.

Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader."

The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden's face before burial said "he looked pale ... but calm, relaxed and confident."

Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said "no." Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of "pagans" against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.

When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, "I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished."

Bin Laden, therefore, could not have issued a video tape on October 29, 2004 --just two days before the US election. This is the famous tape that many pundits believe "swung" the election from John Kerry to George Bush.

On October 29, 2004, two days before the US elections, the Arab television network al-Jazeera sprung an October Surprise by broadcasting a videotape of a healthy looking bin Laden addressing the people of the United States in which he took responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. He also condemned the Bush government's response to the attacks, and presented the attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence begun after personally seeing the destruction of the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. See 2004 Osama bin Laden video.

President Bush opened up a six-point lead over John Kerry in the first opinion poll to include sampling taken after the videotape was broadcast. [21] Walter Cronkite found the video very convenient for the Bush administration, and said of it “I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing.” [22]

--Colin Bett, A 'Conspiracy Theory' Too Far?

Not only Fox, but the New York Times also reported the death of Bin Laden.

Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December [2001] and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama's gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama's ghost alive or because they have no means of communication. With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival?

--New York Times. July 11, 2002

NYT has apparently re-published the story. The original publication date was: July 11, 2002. Fox, it would appear, scooped the NYT but, apparently forgot what they had reported. Professional journalists?

The issue of bin Laden's pulse surfaced more recently when the venerable BBC clearly censored remarks by Benazir Bhutto to the effect that bin Laden had been murdered. Why would the BBC have deleted only that portion of the interview? Following is the original, unedited version in which Bhutto states that Bin Laden had been murdered.

A fallacious rationalization has surfaced. It is said --as if scripted --that Bhutto misspoke, that she had meant to say "Daniel Perle". There is absolutely no reason to suppose or speculate that Bhutto misspoke. She did not pause. She did not struggle to find a name. Secondly, only an idiot would mistake Bin Laden for Perle. Bhutto was not an idiot.

Even if Bin Laden were alive, it would not prove that Bhutto misspoke, only that she was wrong. Not the same thing. Theories that Bhutto 'misspoke' are baseless, pure supposition for which there is not a shred of evidence in support.

An essential resource: Can someone with no flight training safely land an airliner? Plus: Pilotless planes, overpaid pilots and other aviation myths.

Perhaps the BBC is trying to make amends for having told the truth about 911 and the events leading up to it when it was not yet 'treasonous' to tell the truth. The best BBC reporting was done before 911, before the axis of Bush and Blair would deceive the world and intimidate the media. All would not go smoothly; Pakistan and Ahmed Shah Massoud's government in Afghanistan, meanwhile, had already signed a pipeline deal with an Argentinean company.

BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001. 

The wider objective was to oust the Taleban

By the BBC's George Arney

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin. Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.

He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby. Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.

He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.

--US 'planned attack on Taleban', BBC

By July, 2001, the US State Department was reported to have been threatening the Taliban with carpet bombs.

U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil
By Julio Godoy, Inter Press Service

PARIS, Nov 15 (IPS) - Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the government of George W. Bush initially blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.
In the book ''Bin Laden, la verité interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''), that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.

Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''. [emphasis mine, EC]

The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.

They affirm that until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ''as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia'', from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.

Until now, says the book, ''the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that''.

But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, ''this rationale of energy security changed into a military one'', the authors claim.

''At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs','' Brisard said in an interview in Paris.

According to the book, the government of Bush began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.

To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a U.S. expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of U.S. secret services, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

--US Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil

The negotiations with the Taliban broke down. In that summer of 2001, the American people were distracted by the American media noise machine. See: All Condit All The Time. The US Government was informing other governments that the US would be at war in Afghanistan no later than October. The US timetable for war was set before 911 would conveniently provide the pretext. Pure luck? I don't think so.

67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7

Kansas City, MO (Zogby International) September 6, 2007 - As America nears the sixth anniversary of the world-churning events of September 11, 2001, a new Zogby International poll finds a majority of Americans still await a Congressional investigation of President Bush' and Vice President Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks. Over 30% also believe Bush and/or Cheney should be immediately impeached by the House of Representatives.

The 911truth.org–sponsored poll also found that over two-thirds of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the still unexplained collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. ...

• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part I, Police States Begin With False Flag Attacks
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part II, Police States Begin With False Flag Attacks
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part III, In Fascist Dictatorships Telling the truth becomes a crime
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part IV, the state forces an 'existential' choice
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part V, Public Opinion Becomes Irrelevant
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part VI, The government places itself above the law
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part VII, The Government Denies 'Due Process of Law'
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State Part VIII: Atrocities are justified with lies, myths or propaganda 

Sean Penn: "George Tenet, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and George Bush oughta be in fckin' jail" and the indictment that might put them there!

Democrats must stop trying to run this campaign like Business as usual. Sean Penn and a handful of others have dared to speak out but big corporate media has reduced you and me to numbers.

Our Outrageous Government

The media figure that they can censor the news --as BBC censored Benazir Bhutto --and get away with it. FOX has bet that no matter how angry you get, enough of you will still tune in to their swill to keep Rupert Murdoch in cavier and champagne.

Are there no Federal Judges of courage? A Federal Judge may convene a Grand Jury upon his/her own motion. A Grand Jury has the legal authority to bring criminal charges against George W. Bush --indeed the entire Bush crime syndicate! Are there no judges of conscience?

An indictment of George W. Bush prepared by former Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth de la Varga is finely crafted, authoritative, and damning. It requires a Federal Grand jury to hand down the indictment; and, while Grand Juries may exercise great scope, a Federal Judge is required to convene one. The legal standard to indict is probable cause not --as Gen. Michael Hayden would have it --reasonable suspicion.

Either the evidence is sufficient to show probable cause that the defendant committed the offense, and the grand jurors should indict, or the evidence is insufficient, and the grand jurors should return a "no true bill"-but these are the only choices. The grand jury's role in indicting, in this model, is to conduct a legal review, not to make discretionary enforcement decisions.

Explaining the Constitutional Function of the Federal Grand Jury--

A grand jury investigating the Bush White House would have sweeping powers to define the scope and duration of its own investigation. It would have the power of the subpoena to back it up. A federal grand jury may subpoena any person within the United States and that includes the President himself.

If Bush or Cheney should try to flee the US, the federal grand jury investigating them could order that they be apprehended abroad and returned for trial. Less politely, George W. Bush could be legally kidnapped and held for trial. The "bounty hunters" could even use force if required. Those procedures have been upheld in past SCOTUS decisions. Once a fugitive Bush is back inside US territory, serving him and holding him for trial is not a problem. I believe in law and order. It starts with rounding up the real crooks.

I recommend the following handbook for the would-be activist: Facts About Grand Juries. As for the question of who shall write the indictment, I appeal to readers of this forum. There must surely be someone of the caliber of author Elizabeth De La Vega who could assist a grand jury in the drafting of a comprehensive indictment against Bush and Cheney.

A Federal Grand Jury need not be limited by an overly narrow charge. It could subpoena both Bush and Cheney and compare their stories with other facts in evidence. At the very least, both men would be indicted for obstruction of justice.

What does all this have to do with impeachment, which is, to be precise, a political process? Naturally, all the evidence turned up by Grand Jury could be made available to a committee to impeach. And when Bush and Cheney are removed through impeachment, the criminal indictments will be ready to go.

I can only imagine the firestorm when Bush tries to pardon himself.

Then there is the matter of war crimes. Bush has tried to undo those portions of US Codes which make a capital crime of those violations of Geneva which result in death to the victim. A federal grand jury requires probable cause to indict. There is enough probable cause against George W. Bush to indict him for capital crimes right now.

Impeachment, removal, trial and conviction are absolutely necessary to lance this puss oozing boil. If Congress or the Federal Courts or both fail to act, the sore will only fester. Already, it can be said that our Republic, the Constitution and the protections of the Bill of Rights have not survived the Bush onslaught. As long as Bush remains in office, you have no protections. Even now, you may be "tazed" upon the unreasonable suspicions who people who are clearly unqualified to be trusted with access to weapons of any sort. Tasers can be dangerous; in the hands of an idiot hot dog, they can be deadly. It's time to bring to an end this nation's tragic experiment with the Police State.

It is certain that unless BushCo is brought to account, the Bill of Rights will never be restored. I am not hearing a sense of urgency among Democratic candidates. With the possible exceptions of Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards and Mike Gravel, all I hear is the measured jockeying for center. The Democrats should have declared this a state of emergency a long time ago.

The Cowboy's Shared News Items

GOP
Bush
corruption
Iraq

Spread the word:

The Simpsons vs the New World Order

Alternet has called The Simpsons "the most subversive TV show to ever achieve the status of pop culture institution." That's why I grew to love this series. The Simpsons had always slammed fox news but it was their 400th episode that attracted the attention of Alternet.

Because of its nearly 20 years of popularity and more important, profitability, the show has been able to ridicule its network more than any other TV program would ever dare to. Last night was no exception. During its heavily promoted 400th episode, Homer, Lisa and Springfield anchorman Kent Brockman launched into a discussion about Fox News as a hilarious parody of the cable channel, featuring a Rush Limbaugh inspired caricature played on their TV set. Lisa wonders [about] a network infamous for tasteless programming (Temptation Island anyone?)

--The Simpsons Slam Fox News

Following is an excerpt from an enraged "Kent Brockman", the Simpsons' all-too-typical news anchor. Brockman is akin to Network's Howard Beales (Peter Finch) who is "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore". Brockman makes a similar appeal but does so ala Ed Murrow complete with a cigarette and curling smoke.

Friends, the press and the government are in bed together in an embrace so intimate and wrong, they could spoon on a twin mattress and still have room for Ted Koppel. Journalists used to questions the reasons for war and expose abuse of power. Now, like toothless babies, they suckle on the sugary teat of misinformation and poop it into the diaper we call the 6:00 News. Demand more of your government. Demand more of your press.

--The Simpsons v. the media, Think Progress

The Simpsons is the best television since Ed Murrow, since "You Are there", since Playhouse 90, Star Trek, and Kenneth Clark's Civilization. That alone is enough to recommend the series. But that's not all, The Simpsons is on Fox, almost daring what is otherwise the worse network in TV history to do something about it. Matt Groening is modest. He claims that that they are just a tiny part of the vast Fox empire. Perhaps! But it is the thinking part, the part that pays attention, the part that agitates.

Nevertheless, the evil empire did strike back.

D'oh!: Fox slams parody 'Simpsons'

By Andrew Wallenstein

An Internet parody of "The Simpsons" has drawn the ire of 20th Century Fox.

The studio is pressuring online video hub Broadcaster.com to remove "The O.J. Simpsons," three animated clips that reimagine the Fox series starring the former football star. After receiving notices from Fox lawyers, Broadcaster Inc. is reviewing their demand but noted Friday that fair-use doctrine protects parodies.

"We respect the rights of content owners," Broadcaster CEO Martin Wade III said. "We are examining all the issues raised by the Fox request. Our goal is to be a respecter of content rights and at the same time find legal ways to bring our community members the content they enjoy."

Fox, which declined comment, has been aggressive about protecting perceived copyright infringements. In January, Fox had Google subpoenaed over uploaded episodes of "24" and "Simpsons" (HR 1/25). Google complied, disclosing the names of individuals who did the uploading.

The three "O.J. Simpsons" clips are titled "Black and White Christmas," "Warzone" and "If I Did It," which directly references Fox and its decision to withdraw publication of O.J. Simpson's proposed book about the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman. ...

Fox has also prohibited The Simpsons from satirizing Fox's annoying and gaudy data crawl.

I caught on to the Simpson's fairly early in their evolution. I use the word evolution deliberately to piss off the state of Kansas. It was an episode about how Homer became a "Stonecutter" that really won me over. A brilliant satire of Freemasonry, the Stonecutter episode is classic, but more, importantly, a clue.

Homer becomes a "Stonecutter", a secret society of mysterious rituals and great productions numbers.

Canyanero excoriates America's less than brilliant obsession with a lumbering leviathan called the SUV.

A witty look at a prudish society nevertheless obsessed with sex.

Most recently, The Simpsons took on the Iraq war with their favorite aliens --Kang and Kodos.

The allusions are always rich. This recalls Alred Hitchcocks's Rear Window with James Stewart and Grace Kelly.

Additional resources

• The Simpsons v. the media
• Murdoch profile
• Revolting at FOX – Two Hour [O.J.] Simpson Interview Disgusts Public and Fox Employees
• Latest Lies From Fox News
• O'Reilly advocates terror attack on Congress
• Guardian: Maybe none of them are terrorists
• There is no war on terror
• Fake Terror: The Road to Dictatorship
• The 911 Reichstag Fire
• Fair and Balanced?
• From our friends at cannablog: Alfred Hitchcock Presents

Discoveries

• 7-string Russian gypsy guitar
• Sonny Boy Williamson - JFK Blues
• A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash

The Existentialist Cowboy

Conservative Lies
Indict Bush
Why Conservatives Hate America
GOP Crime Syndicate
Bush

Spread the word:

Mass Murder and High Treason

There are glaring discrepancies surrounding Bush's activities on the morning of 911. At the very least, George W. Bush is the liar we know him to be. At worst, the discrepancies may lead one to conclude that Bush knew about the events of 911 well in advance and did absolutely nothing.

The timeline of his travels depicts a man trying to stay out of the line of fire. It does not portray a President concerned with the lives of American citizens. It does not portray a "commander-in-chief" or a "decider". It portrays a weak-kneed wimp at the mercy of his "handlers", the real power behind the throne. Or - should I say "dictatorship"?

His false statements concerning his activities on that day raise doubts not only about his credibility but also the possibility that the President of the United States is complicit in mass murder and high treason.

Let's look at the time line which becomes a chronology of incredible coincidences, a literal round up of the usual suspects.

(8:00 a.m.): Former President George H. W. Bush Heads off After Spending Night at the White House

Former President George H. W. Bush, along with former First Lady Barbara Bush, leaves Washington, DC, by private jet, bound for a speaking engagement in St. Paul, Minnesota. The Bushes spent the previous night at the White House. They had flown to Washington the previous day to attend several meetings and a dinner. One of the meetings attended by the former president was the annual investor conference of the Carlyle Group, which was also attended by Shafig bin Laden, one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers (see (9:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001). They are later informed of the WTC attacks while on their jet. Due to all planes being grounded, they have to land in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [CBS News, 11/1/2002; Newsweek, 10/20/2003; CNN, 10/25/2003]

But things get even weirder and there are no innocent explanations.

George W. Bush left his Florida hotel about 8:35 AM. But, according to ABC News, just before leaving the hotel, reporters saw Andy Card whispering into Bush's ear. The topic of whispered conversation, according to the network, was the stunning events taking place in New York.

But the first plane did not crash into the north tower until 8:45 AM. "What was going on in New York" was not yet going on when Bush and Card talked about it. Yet, we are led to believe that Card and Bush discussed an event that would not take place for another ten minutes or so.

Much later, Bush would claim that while at the school in Florida, he saw the first plane crash the north tower on a TV that had been set up for him. How convenient!

The only known footage of that event was not broadcast until the next day. Presumably, no one knew it was going to happen. Or did they? Bush, however, made his claim on two occasions leading one to believe that this was not a mere slip of the tongue. The verbatim transcripts are still available at the White House web site. Nor was Bush referring to the crash of the second plane into the south tower. He is video taped being given that information by Card while still in the classroom. [depicted under the headline] Even Bush is not likely to have forgotten that.

If Bush told the truth about seeing a plane crash the north tower on live TV, it could only have been on monitors getting a feed from cameras placed in anticipation of an attack. If Bush is telling the truth about seeing the first plane, then he most certainly would have seen it on the TV depicted in the photos above. This is a room at the school where Bush had read goat stories to children, where Andy Card was seen in stills and in video informing Bush: "[The] second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Though Card is often quoted as having said "A second plane", Bush himself attributes to Andy Card the word "the". I find the use of the word "the" in this context to be interesting and revelatory.

Look closely at the above monitors. It has been pointed out to me that there is no network logo or "graphics bar" running across the bottom of the TV screen, though it clearly depicts the WTC. If it were a network feed, the network logo would be present. If it was, indeed, a closed circuit set up that Bush had seen, there might not be one. Clearly, there is no logo depicted above.

If Bush merely lied that is one thing. But consider the implications if Bush had, in fact, viewed a closed-circuit broadcast with cameras placed in advance delivering a signal that might be viewed by a complicit President. If that is the case, then Bush is not merely a liar as we know him to be. He is much more besides. He is a murderous traitor, complicit in mass murder, a conspirator to high treason.

The Existentialist Cowboy

Conservative Lies
Indict Bush
Why Conservatives Hate America
GOP Crime Syndicate
Bush

Spread the word: