-Caveat Lector- www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Media/020504Hasty/020504hasty.html

Media 

Part 1 of a two part-series
Secret admirers: The Bushes and the Washington Post

By Michael Hasty
Online Journal Contributing Writer

February 5, 2004Ever since the days of the Watergate scandal, when a series
of front-page articles by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl
Bernstein ultimately led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon, the
Post has had a reputation among many Americans as one of the elite bastions
of the "liberal media."

This opinion is especially prevalent among conservatives, who also fault the
Post for its publication (along with that other "liberal" icon, The New York
Times) of the Pentagon Papersan action they correctly view as having made a
major contribution to undermining domestic support for the war in Vietnam.
During the '70s, there was an angry conservative boycott of the paper in the
Washington, DC, area, with "I Don't Believe the Post" bumper stickers
appearing on cars and WP vending boxes.

At the heart of the Post's "liberal" reputation is the sense that its
coverage represents the thinking of what used to be known as the "Eastern
Liberal Establishment" back in the days when Republicans could be liberals
(with a favorable view of internationalism and the welfare state) and before
the Establishment moved to Texas and got saved by Jesus, its favorite
political philosopher. This was the same period when the Central
Intelligence Agency, still dominated by the Establishment Ivy Leaguers who
organized the "oh-so-social" OSS in World War II, was also widely seen as a
"liberal" institution.

With a 21st-century perspective, where internationalism has become
globalization, and monopoly capitalism is so powerful it no longer needs to
mask its agenda with welfare programs, we can see the Establishment's
"liberalism" for the ruthless neoliberalism it has always been. Yet the more
powerful and elite the ruling class, the greater its need for an effective
propaganda system to maintain that power; and the Washington Post remains,
as writer Doug Henwood described it in 1990, "the establishment's paper."

In an article published by the media watchdog group, Fairness and Accuracy
in Reporting (FAIR), Henwood traced the Post's Establishment connections to
Eugene Meyer, who took control of the Post in 1933. Meyer transferred
ownership to his daughter Katharine and her husband, Philip Graham, after
World War II, when he was appointed by Harry Truman to serve as the first
president of the World Bank. A lifelong Republican, Meyer had been "a Wall
Street banker, director of President Wilson's War Finance Corporation, a
governor of the Federal Reserve, and director of the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation," Henwood wrote.

Philip Graham, Meyer's successor, had been in military intelligence during
the war. When he became the Post's publisher, he continued to have close
contact with his fellow upper-class intelligence veteransnow making policy
at the newly formed CIAand actively promoted the CIA's goals in his
newspaper. The incestuous relationship between the Post and the intelligence
community even extended to its hiring practices. Watergate-era editor Ben
Bradlee also had an intelligence background; and before he became a
journalist, reporter Bob Woodward was an officer in Naval Intelligence. In a
1977 article in Rolling Stone magazine about CIA influence in American
media, Woodward's partner, Carl Bernstein, quoted this from a CIA official:
"It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from."
Graham has been identified by some investigators as the main contact in
Project Mockingbird, the CIA program to infiltrate domestic American media.
In her autobiography, Katherine Graham described how her husband worked
overtime at the Post during the Bay of Pigs operation to protect the
reputations of his friends from Yale who had organized the ill-fated
venture.

After Graham committed suicide, and his widow Katharine assumed the role of
publisher, she continued her husband's policies of supporting the efforts of
the intelligence community in advancing the foreign policy and economic
agenda of the nation's ruling elites. In a retrospective column written
after her own death last year, FAIR analyst Norman Solomon wrote, "Her
newspaper mainly functioned as a helpmate to the war-makers in the White
House, State Department and Pentagon." It accomplished this function (and
continues to do so) using all the classic propaganda techniques of evasion,
confusion, misdirection, targeted emphasis, disinformation, secrecy,
omission of important facts, and selective leaks.

Graham herself rationalized this policy in a speech she gave at CIA
headquarters in 1988. "We live in a dirty and dangerous world," she said.
"There are some things the general public does not need to know and
shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take
legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether
to print what it knows."

I guess it depends on what you mean by "democracy."

At any rate, this brief overview of the Washington Post's covert history
serves as a useful backdrop to information revealed in "The Prize: The Epic
Quest for Oil, Money and Power," written by oil industry insider Daniel
Yergin, and a national bestseller when it was published in 1991.

In a bit of fortuitous timing, Yergin's book was released in the immediate
aftermath of the Persian Gulf War. He unequivocally states in his
introduction that "oil was at the heart of [this war]," contradicting the
denials of then-President George H.W. Bush, who had insisted in a
now-familiar litany that the war against Iraq was really about "freedom."
And because of Bush's own professional roots in the oil industry, and the
industry's consequent influence on his policies in office, Yergin includes
some biographical nuggets that shed an interesting light on Bush's
relationship with the Washington Post.

Quoting from a Fortune magazine article about a "swarm of young Ivy
Leaguers" who had settled in Midland, Texas, soon after World War II, and
"created a most unlikely outpost of the working rich . . . a union between
the cactus and the Ivy," Yergin provides an account of the early days of
Zapata Oil, Bush's first company.

"Bush quickly mastered the skills of the independent oil man," Yergin
writes, including, "of course, making the pilgrimage back East to round up
money from investors." Here's where things get interesting. "On a brisk
morning in the mid-1950s, near Union Station in Washington, DC, he even
closed a deal with Eugene Meyer, the august publisher of the Washington
Post, in the back seat of Meyer's limousine. For good measure, Meyer also
committed his son-in-law to the deal. Meyer remained one of Bush's investors
over the years." 

A consideration to keep in mind here is the greater-than-even likelihood
that at this point in his career, George H.W. Bush was already working as a
covert CIA operative. This stems not only from his class and pedigreeYale
University had a reputation as "the alma mater of spies"but from the fact
that the CIA often "borrows" the private assets of businesses, especially
those with international operations, to provide support for its covert
actions. Most compelling, perhaps, is a cryptic reference found in a Warren
Commission document, concerning an FBI briefing about the JFK assassination
given in Texas to a "Mr. George Bush of the CIA." When asked about this
years later, Bush gave the explanation that it must have referred to a CIA
employee with the same name. That individual, a low level bureaucrat, denied
to reporters that he had ever been to Texas, much less that in his position
he would have received such a briefing.

What is particularly fascinating about Yergin's revelation of the long term
financial link between Bush and the Graham familya revelation also
confirmed by Katherine Graham in her memoiris that George H.W. Bush spent
much of his political career complaining about the "liberal" reporting in
the Post. Yergin, whose sketch of Bush's career covers only a few pages in
this lengthy book, is slyly aware of this seeming contradiction, so he has
some fun with the game Bush was playing. He includes a quote from a note
then-Congressman Bush sent to Treasury Secretary David Kennedy in 1969,
thanking him for meeting with some Texas oilmen at Bush's home in Houston.
"I was also appreciative of your telling them how I bled and died for the
oil industry," Bush wrote. "That might kill me off in the Washington Post
but it darn sure helps in Houston." A curious comment indeed, considering
the Grahams' investment in his business.

This arms-length public posture sometimes went to hilarious extremes. In his
book, "Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate," Bob Woodward
includes much of the substance of a handwritten three-page reply he received
from Bush denying Woodward's request for an interview. Criticizing
Woodward's Watergate reporting, Bush wrote, "For me Watergate was a major
event, for as you correctly point out, I was chairman of the GOP during
those tumultuous times . . . I think Watergate and the Vietnam War are the
two things that moved Beltway journalism into this aggressive, intrusive,
'take no prisoners' kind of reporting that I can now say I find offensive."

Just past Watergate's thirtieth anniversary, Bush's comments here bring
several observations to mind that have been generally ignored. One is that
there had been growing dissatisfaction among the nation's ruling class with
the presidency of Richard Nixon, whose environmental and social legislation
has led some revisionist commentators to refer to him as "the last liberal
president." More importantly, Nixon was also seeking to reorganize the
intelligence services. These facts have inspired some out-of-the-mainstream
journalists, like Doug Henwood and the late investigative reporter Steve
Kangas, to suggest that Woodward's "Deep Throat" contact was actually
someone in the CIA. Kangas had also suggested that the semi-conscious and
dying William Casey, director of Central Intelligence in the Reagan
administration and Woodward's controversial leading "source" for his book,
"Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987," was in actuality the "alter
ego" of Woodward's real source: George H.W. Bush.

In any event, Woodward's "Shadow" undercuts what he describes as Bush's
"hatred" of the press with an account of an episode where the Post served to
neutralize an aspect of the Iran-contra scandal that Bush saw as a danger to
his upcoming presidential campaign. "On Friday, February 6, 1987," Woodward
writes, "Bush dispatched one of his top aides to my house to deliver a copy
of a three-page top-secret memo." He goes on to describe how, after Bush saw
the headline on the Post's lead story two days later, he called the aide who
had delivered the memo to offer congratulations. Woodward's judgment is
that, "It was perhaps a shrewd use of the news media by Bush."

Yergin's book also discusses an illuminating episode where the Post offered
protective cover for Bush. In a trip to Saudi Arabia in April 1986,
then-Vice President Bush appeared to be taking a position in favor of higher
oil prices that contradicted the free-market policies of the Reagan
administration, and he was receiving a lot of criticism in the American
media.

"Columnists denounced him for cuddling up to OPEC," Yergin writes. "Of
course, within the oil states he was much commended for what he said. But
outside the oil patch, it seemed that just about the only voice that had
anything good to say about Bush's position was none other than the editorial
page of the Washington Post, the newspaper he had once feared would kill him
off for expressing pro-oil industry sentiments. On the contrary, the Post
now said that the Vice President was on to a very important point in his
warning of how low prices would undermine the domestic energy industry, even
if no one wanted to admit it."

Naturally, it could be argued that the Graham family was merely protecting
its own investments. But this protective influence extended to other events
in Bush's political career, including the major scandals that erupted
throughout the Reagan and Bush administrationsIran/contra, BCCI, Iraqgate,
savings-and-loan, CIA drug dealing, HUDin virtually all of which Bush
himself was implicated. As a paper of record and a news source for local and
regional papers across the country, the Post was able to keep a muzzle on
these scandals, and frame the national coverage in such a way that
"respectable" media didn't stray too far from "conventional (which is to
say, elite) wisdom."

It was a system that also served the Post's interests. The paper's standing
as an important source of news was elevated by its constant diet of
confidential information and intelligence leaks from Bush and his allies,
and its exclusive access to the inner circles of power. Bush was also able
to protect the Post from the exposure of its intimate connections with the
CIA when the US Senate's Church Committee hearings were investigating
Project Mockingbird in the mid-'70s. As CIA director when those
investigations were conducted, Bush successfully fought the release of the
names of CIA media contacts to the committee.

Following Bush's one-term presidency, the Post continued to serve the Bush
agenda. It was unstinting in its criticism of the Clinton administration,
and lurid and exhaustive in its coverage of the various scandals that dogged
Bill and Hillary Clinton, invariably conveying the sense that the nation's
capital had been invaded by so much Arkansas trailer trash. The Post's
Whitewater reporter, Susan Schmidt, was such a reliable conduit of leaks and
information from Independent Counsel Ken Starr (Bush's Solicitor General),
that she became known to some media critics as "Steno Sue." The paper's
voracious approach to Whitewater is all the more revealing in light of the
fact that the Whitewater investigation was initiated in the last days of the
1992 campaign by Bush's White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, and thatas
reformed conservative David Brock documents in his book, "Blinded by the
Right"the "vast right wing conspiracy" that sought to depose Clinton
essentially constituted a "Bush government in exile."

The Washington Post's traditional and solicitous portrayal of George H.W.
Bush as a well-bred man of integrity has of course also been extended to his
son, George W. Bush. The often absurd and transparent lengths to which the
newspaper has gone to serve this function will be the subject of the second
part of this article.

Michael Hasty is a writer, activist, musician, carpenter and farmer. He
lives in West Virginia. In his youth, he was a low level employee of the
CIA.


Download a printable version.
For a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader, click here.
 The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily
reflect those of Online Journal.
 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Copyright  1998-2004 Online Journal. All rights reserved.

 You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from
copies of the content.



www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!   These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to