Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http://archive.jab.org/[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- ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> <FONT COLOR="#000099">Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying! </FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/zgSolB/TM";><B>Click Here!</B></A> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell." Justice Hugo Black - Pentagon Papers case (New York Times v. United States) ***** Washingtonpost.com Bush's Wake-Up Call Was a Snooze Alarm By Tom Shales Friday, March 7, 2003; Page C01 George W. Bush kept seeming to lose interest in his own remarks last night as the president did that rarest of rare things -- for him -- and held a prime-time news conference. Televised live on all the major networks from the East Room of the White House, the occasion found Bush declaring this to be "an important moment" for America and the world, yet he spoke with little urgency and no perceptible passion. Have ever a people been led more listlessly into war? It's tempting to speculate how history would have changed if Winston Churchill or FDR had been as lethargic as Bush about rallying their nations in an hour of crisis. There were times when it appeared his train of thought had jumped the tracks. Occasionally he would stare blankly into space during lengthy pauses between statements -- pauses that once or twice threatened to be endless. There were times when it seemed every sentence Bush spoke was of the same duration and delivered in the same dour monotone, giving his comments a numbing, soporific aura. Watching him was like counting sheep. Network commentators by and large tippy-toed around the subject of Bush's curiously subdued performance. But at least Terry Moran of ABC News dared to say that the White House press corps had definitely seen Bush "sharper" than he was last night. Tactfully and gingerly, Moran said Bush seemed to be "trying to keep his mannerisms as cool as possible" as he fielded questions and spoke of ultimatums. The lethargy was contagious; correspondents were almost as logy as Bush was. Nobody even bothered to ask a question about Osama bin Laden, whose capture was rumored to be imminent yesterday and is still in the public mind a more reprehensible monster than Saddam Hussein. Bush popped the balloon that bin Laden had been found when he failed to make a dramatic opening statement, instead reiterating for the umpteenth time some of his many charges against Hussein, whose token efforts at disarmament amounted to "a willful charade," Bush said. In one of his more effective moments, Bush said that the tragedy of 9/11 showed what terrorists can do with only four airplanes and so we should imagine what Saddam Hussein could do with his notorious weapons of mass destruction. But there were few effective moments. At times during the hour, Bush almost appeared to be backing off the previously immutable notion that Hussein's intransigence makes war virtually inevitable. "We don't have to go to war," he said at one point. "I'm hopeful that he does disarm," Bush said of Hussein. "It may require force" to get him to do it, but "I hope it can be done peacefully," he said in separate remarks. While at another point he seemed to say, contrary to previous statements, that he was "optimistic" about "diplomacy" doing the job so that U.S. troops won't have to, he also said, with respect to disarming Hussein: "Diplomacy hasn't worked. We've tried diplomacy for 12 years." He also said the "use of force" remains "my last choice" as a means to disarm the Iraqi leader. "I recognize there are people who don't like war. I don't like war," Bush said. But as in the past, he referred to Hussein at various points as a cancer, a murderer, a master of deception and just generally an inhuman fiend who must be destroyed or exiled. The statements did not come across as particularly cogent or consistent. Then again, perhaps Bush was just offering a summary of everything that's been said on the issue over the past few months. The contrast between the foggy Bush of last night and the gung-ho Bush who delivered a persuasive State of the Union message to Congress not so long ago was considerable. Maybe Bush thought he was, indeed, coming across as cool and temperate instead of bored and enervated, and this was simply a rhetorical miscalculation. On the other hand, it hardly seems out of order to speculate that, given the particularly heavy burden of being president in this new age of terrorism -- a time in which America has, as Bush said, become a "battlefield" -- the president may have been ever so slightly medicated. He would hardly be the first president ever to take a pill. There were brief interludes during the news conference -- especially the long languid pauses -- when some viewers might have flashed back to the presidency of Richard Nixon. That is, the Nixon Years at their most tumultuous and Twilight Zoney, when the old Trickster would come on TV and you'd sit there not just fascinated but a trifle terrified of what he might say, who he'd accuse of persecuting him, and whether he might come completely unglued or just melt into a hideous puddle right before your horrified eyes. Obviously Bush was not likely to inspire anything approaching that kind of fear last night, even in the most paranoid of viewers. But by his tone and his demeanor, he certainly didn't inspire a great burst of hopeful confidence, either. It was as if he didn't quite realize he was on national television and being watched closely by millions of people who were hanging on his every word and on his every expression and gesture, too. And that we might be a nation at war in a matter of days. Or . . . might we? � 2003 The Washington Post Company ***** NYPress.com Cage Match Matt Taibbi Cleaning the Pool The White House Press Corps politely grabs its ankles. After watching George W. Bush's press conference last Thursday night, I'm more convinced than ever: The entire White House press corps should be herded into a cargo plane, flown to an altitude of 30,000 feet, and pushed out, kicking and screaming, over the North Atlantic. Any remaining staff at the Washington bureaus should be rounded up for summary justice. The Russians used to use bakery trucks, big gray panel trucks marked "Bread" on the sides; victims would be rounded up in the middle of the night and taken for one last ride through the darkened streets. The war would almost be worth it just to see Wolf Blitzer pounding away at the inside of a Pepperidge Farm truck, tearfully confessing and vowing to "take it all back." The Bush press conference to me was like a mini-Alamo for American journalism, a final announcement that the press no longer performs anything akin to a real function. Particularly revolting was the spectacle of the cream of the national press corps submitting politely to the indignity of obviously pre-approved questions, with Bush not even bothering to conceal that the affair was scripted. Abandoning the time-honored pretense of spontaneity, Bush chose the order of questioners not by scanning the room and picking out raised hands, but by looking down and reading from a predetermined list. Reporters, nonetheless, raised their hands in between questions - as though hoping to suddenly catch the president's attention. In other words, not only were reporters going out of their way to make sure their softballs were pre-approved, but they even went so far as to act on Bush's behalf, raising their hands and jockeying in their seats in order to better give the appearance of a spontaneous news conference. Even Bush couldn't ignore the absurdity of it all. In a remarkable exchange that somehow managed to avoid being commented upon in news accounts the next day, Bush chided CNN political correspondent John King when the latter overacted his part, too enthusiastically waving his hand when it apparently was, according to the script, his turn anyway. KING: "Mr. President." BUSH: "We'll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted..." A ripple of nervous laughter shot through the East Room. Moments later, the camera angle of the conference shifted to a side shot, revealing a ring of potted plants around the presidential podium. It would be hard to imagine an image that more perfectly describes American political journalism today: George Bush, surrounded by a row of potted plants, in turn surrounded by the White House press corps. Newspapers the next day ignored the scripted-question issue completely. (King himself, incidentally, left it out of his CNN.com report.) Of the major news services and dailies, only one - the Washington Post - even parenthetically addressed the issue. Far down in Dana Millbank and Mike Allen's conference summary, the paper euphemistically commented: "The president followed a script of names in choosing which reporters could ask him a question, and he received generally friendly questioning." [Emphasis mine] "Generally friendly questioning" is an understatement if there ever was one. Take this offering by April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks: "Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the UN, how is your faith guiding you?" Great. In Bush's first press conference since his decision to support a rollback of affirmative action, the first black reporter to get a crack at him - and this is what she comes up with? The journalistic equivalent of "Mr. President, you look great today. What's your secret?" Newspapers across North America scrambled to roll the highlight tape of Bush knocking Ryan's question out of the park. The Boston Globe: "As Bush stood calmly at the presidential lectern, tears welled in his eyes when he was asked how his faith was guiding him." The Globe and Mail: "With tears welling in his eyes, Mr. Bush said he prayed daily that war can be averted." Even worse were the qualitative assessments in the major dailies of Bush's performance. As I watched the conference, I was sure I was witnessing, live, an historic political catastrophe. In his best moments Bush was deranged and uncommunicative, and in his worst moments, which were most of the press conference, he was swaying side to side like a punch-drunk fighter, at times slurring his words and seemingly clinging for dear life to the verbal oases of phrases like "total disarmament," "regime change," and "mass destruction." He repeatedly declined to answer direct questions. At one point, when a reporter twice asked if Bush could consider the war a success if Saddam Hussein were not captured or killed, Bush answered: "Uh, we will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." Yet the closest thing to a negative characterization of Bush's performance in the major outlets was in David Sanger and Felicity Barringer's New York Times report, which called Bush "sedate": "Mr. Bush, sounding sedate at a rare prime-time news conference, portrayed himself as the protector of the country..." Apparently even this absurdly oblique description, which ran on the Times website hours after the press conference, was too much for the paper's editors. Here is how that passage read by the time the papers hit the streets the next morning: "Mr. Bush, at a rare prime-time press conference, portrayed himself as the protector of the country." Meanwhile, those aspects of Bush's performance that the White House was clearly anxious to call attention to were reported enthusiastically. It was obvious that Bush had been coached to dispense with two of his favorite public speaking tricks - his perma- smirk and his finger-waving cowboy one-liners. Bush's somber new "war is hell" act was much commented upon, without irony, in the post- mortems. Appearing on Hardball after the press conference, Newsweek's Howard Fineman (one of the worst monsters of the business) gushed when asked if the Bush we'd just seen was really a "cowboy": "If he's a cowboy he's the reluctant warrior, he's Shane - because he has to, to protect his family." Newsweek thinks Bush is Shane? This was just Bush's eighth press conference since taking office, and each one of them has been a travesty. In his first presser, on Feb. 22, 2001, a month after his controversial inauguration, he was not asked a single question about the election, Al Gore or the Supreme Court. On the other hand, he was asked five questions about Bill Clinton's pardons. Reporters argue that they have no choice. They'll say they can't protest or boycott the staged format, because they risk being stripped of their seat in the press pool. For the same reason, they say they can't write anything too negative. They can't write, for instance, "President Bush, looking like a demented retard on the eve of war." That leaves them with the sole option of "working within the system" and, as they like to say, "trying to take our shots when we can." But the White House press corps' idea of "taking a shot" is David Sanger asking Bush what he thinks of British foreign minister Jack Straw saying that regime change was not necessarily a war goal. And then meekly sitting his ass back down when Bush ignores the question. They can't write what they think, and can't ask real questions. What the hell are they doing there? If the answer is "their jobs," it's about time we started wondering what that means. Volume 16, Issue 11 - 3/12/2003 ***** Beastie Boys Take On Bush With First Song In Five Years 03.11.2003 Beastie Boy Mike D MTV News "You just look at the TV and see this guy who's supposed to be representing us and it just feels ridiculous." - Beastie Boys' MCA Following a recording hiatus of nearly five years, the Beastie Boys have been driven out of hiding by the need to comment on the scary state of the world. In the middle of a New York writing and rhyming session for their next album, MCA, Ad-Rock and Mike D hammered out a song called "In a World Gone Mad" and posted it on their Web site. "We all got to a point where we felt like, we're in this room in New York, we're looking at each other every day, and we really felt compelled to speak our minds on what exactly we see happening right now," Mike D said. The up-tempo song, which features a simple rhythm and rudimentary samples, has the old-school feel of a Run-DMC track. The buoyancy of the beats contrasts with the lyrics, which criticize the Bush administration's eagerness to attack Iraq: "You build more bombs as you get more bold/ As your mid-life crisis war unfolds/ All you wanna do is take control/ Now put that Axis of Evil bullsh-- on hold." "None of us feels very comfortable with what Bush is putting forward and the way that Bush is representing the United States, and I don't think he represents us," MCA said. "We just felt like if we do have an opportunity to put some ideas out there that a few people might hear, then we should do that. I mean, you just look at the TV and see this guy who's supposed to be representing us and it just feels ridiculous." The Beasties may have been driven to create "In a World Gone Mad" because they felt like Bush was turning a deaf ear to the screaming voices of anti-war protesters, but they said they were also motivated after hearing rumors that artists were discouraged from mentioning the Middle East conflict during the Grammy Awards. After so much disinformation, the Boys decided some old-school learnin' was in order. "The majority of people out there seem to link September 11 and Iraq," Mike D said. "It seems to me that the government hasn't really put any evidence out there. There hasn't been a compelling case linking the two, so I think it's really important to separate them." Jon Wiederhorn, with additional reporting by Gideon Yago *** 'In a World Gone Mad' Beastie Boys In a world gone mad it's hard to think right So much violence hate and spite Murder going on all day and night Due time we fight the non-violent fight Mirrors, smokescreens and lies It's not the politicians but their actions I despise You and Saddam should kick it like back in the day With the cocaine and Courvoisier But you build more bombs as you get more bold As your mid-life crisis war unfolds All you want to do is take control Now put that axis of evil bullshit on hold Citizen rule number 2080 Politicians are shady So people watch your back 'cause I think they smoke crack I don't doubt it look at how they act In a world gone mad it's hard to think right So much violence hate and spite Murder going on all day and night Due time we fight the non-violent fight First the `War On Terror' now war on Iraq We're reaching a point where we can't turn back Let's lose the guns and let's lose the bombs And stop the corporate contributions that they're built upon Well I'll be sleeping on your speeches `til I start to snore `Cause I won't carry guns for an oil war As-Salamu alaikum, wa alaikum assalam Peace to the Middle East peace to Islam Now don't get us wrong `cause we love America But that's no reason to get hysterica They're layin' on the syrup thick We ain't waffles we ain't havin' it In a world gone mad it's hard to think right So much violence hate and spite Murder going on all day and night Due time we fight the non-violent fight Now how many people must get killed? For oil families pockets to get filled? How many oil families get killed? Not a damn one so what's the deal? It's time to lead the way and de-escalate Lose the weapons of mass destruction and the hate Say ooh ah what's the White House doin'? Oh no! Say, what in tarnation have they got brewing??!!!!???!! Well I'm not pro Bush and I'm not pro Saddam We need these fools to remain calm George Bush you're looking like Zoolander Trying to play tough for the camera What am I on crazy pills? We've got to stop it Get your hand out my grandma's pocket We need health care more than going to war You think it's democracy they're fighting for? In a world gone mad it's hard to think right So much violence hate and spite Murder going on all day and night Due time we fight the non-violent fight Copyright Beastie Boys Source: http://beastieboys.com ***** Wake America from Its Bloodless Trance Ben Cohen, AlterNet March 9, 2003 America has two options to disarm and contain Iraq. One option--war-- involves killing people. The other option--more and tougher inspections--does not. Americans, who overwhelmingly oppose the Iraq war if high numbers of casualties result, haven't heard enough about the deaths that are sure to be caused by the war option. That's why I created a television advertisement, featuring hip-hop artist Russell Simmons, that includes video footage of actual war--of wounded civilians and of American soldiers dragging the bodies of their comrades out of harm's way. I think most of you would want to see my advertisement and decide for yourself whether you agree with an aging ice cream guy or think I am crazy, misinformed, stoned, stupid, or much worse. Unfortunately, most of you will never see my anti-war commercial. Why? Because the major network news outlets refused to accept it, claiming that the imagery was too graphic. Trouble is, the imagery in my ad was far less graphic than what you see on prime time entertainment shows, like "ER" or even on mayhem-crazed local TV news shows. So what's the real reason that the TV networks rejected my ad? Ironically, linking death to war seems to be taboo at a time when the connection should be on the top of our minds. Few in the major media are talking about casualties in the Iraq war, and it seems our nation does not want to confront the reality that the war will result in casualties, anywhere from a few thousand dead and wounded (itself a horrific number) to tens of thousands, according to international experts. Let's be clear--that's thousands of dead or wounded people, at a minimum. Not surprisingly, the Bush Administration is doing little or nothing to break us out of our bloodless trance about the war. It has not released official information about expected causalities, although surely this information has been developed by the White House. Congress isn't demanding this information. In the real world, outside of Washington DC, citizens seem to be expecting war without death, partly because the topic isn't on TV and partly because recent wars have been presented to us as death-free-- which they were not, of course. Thousands of innocent Iraqis died in the last war--not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children who died in the war's aftermath due to its impact on water, electricity, medical care, and more. Even wars like the one in Afghanistan, which had fewer civilian deaths, cause soldiers to die. And soldiers, it needs to be said, are people too, often innocently caught in political turmoil outside their control, whose lives have value. Their deaths leave families and friends grieving forever. So, it's an inexcusable omission for the Bush Administration to sell the Iraq war to us and the international community without acknowledging its human toll, not only on our soldiers but on the Iraqis. It's really an outrageous situation, which we have come to accept as normal fare in the war business. But it actually represents deceptive spin at its ugliest. Talking about war without addressing casualties is like discussing the benefits of nuclear power and ignoring nuclear waste. The two go hand-in-hand. To break through the denial, my ad depicted dead and wounded people, both soldiers and civilians. And that's precisely why the networks should air it. More debate about the war's potential casualties would help our nation make an informed decision about Iraq. But network TV executives don't think you should see our commercial. We hope they will reconsider their decision. Until they do, you can see our ad at Win Without War. And, even if you don't want to see our anti-war commercial, ask the President and your representatives in Congress to spell out all the potential consequences of the Iraq war--before America invades. Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry's, is president of TrueMajority.org, which enables citizens to fax their members of Congress about critical issues like the Iraq war. His views do not reflect those of Ben and Jerry's Homemade, Inc. The Konformist must make a request for donations via Paypal, at Paypal.com. If you can and desire, please feel free to send money to help The Konformist through the following email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you are interested in a free subscription to The Konformist Newswire, please visit: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/konformist Or, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject: "I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!" (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a kool catch phrase.) Visit the Klub Konformist at Yahoo!: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/klubkonformist Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[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 ---
