Daily Archives: October 11, 2007

Gore’s propaganda film slammed for ‘alarmist untruths’

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”- H. L. Mencken

Don’t you think, if a film contains so many errors, that some of its more basic assumptions should also be questioned?

I mean, if I told you to worship this amazing god on planet Xenu and that this was the greatest religion in the universe, and I told you about all the wonderful things this god has done for humanity, but you discovered that I lied or distorted the truth about nine of his feats, wouldn’t you begin to question the very nature and existence of that god?

Or bringing it down to terra firma a bit, what if I told you that the sky was falling, that it was going to be the end of the world unless we all sacrifice a pound of flesh and $10,000 to the Earth Goddess and I pointed to ashes falling from the sky to “prove” my case, but then you discovered that the ash was actually the result of a volcanic eruption, wouldn’t you begin to question the premise that “the sky is falling”?

Now here is a real example. On Halloween October 30, 1938, Orson Welles staged his infamous “War of the Worlds” radio show. Of the millions who heard the Columbia Broadcasting System broadcast, at least a million of them were said to have been ‘genuinely frightened’ and many did panic, calling police and others wondering what to do. The fallout from this little episode lasted for months as people tried to sort out what happened. Presumably, most people figured it out and were relieved to know it wasn’t a real invasion, but there were probably those who continued to believe it was real for some time to come after that despite the facts.

Well, this whole affair occurred as the trusting and gullible people of America have a tendency to just take on faith whatever the media tells them, because, after all, “They would never lie to us, would they?” And certain social scientists, PR men, psychologists and others working for the government were surely delighted to know how easy it was to manipulate the citizenry, or at least a large percentage of them. So that by now, mass mind-manipulation has evolved into a sophisticated science. Cleverly designed propaganda can be created to make people believe just about anything and this is what Gore’s film is. It is just that now people are starting to realize that, “Now wait just a cotten-pickin minute! A lot of this is inconveniently untrue. hmmm”

The point is to question what you are told. Don’t accept things on faith without some fact-checking. We are being re-engineered by diabolical people (and I encourage you to fact-check that carefully on this site). They have killed an estimated 1 million Iraqis, not including our own thousands of casualties. They have taken our constitutional freedoms and tossed them out the window. They have instituted a torture Inquisition and persuaded millions of Jack Bauer wannabees to believe torture is an essential part of life through propaganda and TV shows like ’24’. They have lied about their designs to set up a North American Union. They have inflated and collapsed the dollar through their Fed manipulations just so that they can offer their preconceived Amero “solution”. They have harmed the health of millions of Americans through their drugs, their vaccines, their GM foods and chemical additives like aspartame which have all been deemed “safe” by the government. They have kept the very existence of elite-level policy drivers like the CFR and Bilderberg a secret from the hoodwinked people. They have set up a totally controlled two-family Bush/Clinton one-party Republicrat dictatorship to rule over us for decades with no end in sight. They have staged terror attacks both here and abroad to frighten people into accepting Orwellian “solutions”. And they have invented anthropogenic global warming to stampede us into global taxation and hasten the onset of global government. Or at the very least, you should be able by now to see that they have exagerated their claims about it’s causes and effects. Need I go on?

We have been lied to. We are waking up to the deception. If this mass awakening progresses far enough to tip the scales toward humanity, we can come out of this into an era of peace, sanity, health, prosperity. If we don’t, a global fascist/communist regime is going to continue its march toward a world government police state which will be extremely unpleasant. Now that’s what is real and you can verify it in spades right here and on numerous other websites dedicated to truth and freedom.

Don’t be fooled!

PW

. . .

The claim that sea levels could rise by 7m “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.

The Australian | Oct 12, 2007

by Lewis Smith and Matthew Warren

AL Gore’s award-winning climate-change documentary has been exposed by Britain’s top court as alarmist, one-sided and littered with nine convenient untruths.

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

Judge Michael Burton identified nine significant errors in the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change, but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the classroom, Justice Burton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

“It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film,” he said.

“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”

The analysis by the judge will have a bearing on whether the British Government can continue to have the film shown in every secondary school. He agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views.

The Government’s decision to show the film in secondary schools had come under attack from Stewart Dimmock, a school governor in Kent and a member of political group the New Party, who accused the Government of brainwashing children.

A spokesman for the NSW Education Department said yesterday the decision on whether the film should be screened in schools would remain at their discretion based on departmental guidelines.

The first mistake made by Mr Gore, said Justice Burton in his written judgment, was in talking about the potential devastation that would be wrought by a rise in sea levels caused by the melting of ice caps. The claim that sea levels could rise by 7m “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.

A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence”, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the past 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case.

Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Atlantic Ocean’s Gulf Stream would shut down was contradicted by the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.

The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove a direct link.

The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.

National Climate Centre Manager Michael Coughlan said each of the inaccuracies raised could be argued either way, but that such disagreement was counter-productive to the overall debate.

“All we end up doing is throwing rocks at each other,” he told The Australian. “I’m not saying that one should put falsehoods in there but you need to grab their attention … The fact that they were going to give it to school kids to view is good because it makes them think about it and be critical.”

Former CSIRO climate scientist Dr Graeme Pearman said he had some specific issues on the film’s use of graphs and data, but said he worked with Mr Gore on his recent visits and said his understanding of the climate science was “very sound”.

The Democrats who enable Bush

Seattle Post-Intelligencer | Oct 4, 2007

By HELEN THOMAS

WASHINGTON — President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party’s leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy.

Those Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people want U.S. troops out of Iraq, especially since Bush still cannot give a credible reason for attacking Iraq after nearly five years of war.

Last week at a debate in Hanover, N.H., the leading Democratic presidential candidates sang from the same songbook: Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, and Barack Obama of Illinois and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards refused to promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, at the end of the first term of their hypothetical presidencies. Can you believe it?

When the question was put to Clinton, she reverted to her usual cautious equivocation, saying: “It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting.”

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton … Who Needs Elections?
Mo Rocca on The Bushes and Clintons as the Royal House of Republicrats

Obama dodged, too: “I think it would be irresponsible” to say what he would do as president.

Edwards, on whom hopes were riding to show some independence, replied to the question: “I cannot make that commitment.”

They have left the voters little choice with those answers.

Some supporters were outraged at the obfuscation by the Democratic front-runners.

On the other hand, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., are more definitive in their calls for quick troop withdrawals.

But Biden wants to break up Iraq into three provinces along religious and ethnic lines. In other words, Balkanize Iraq.

To have major Democratic backing to stay the course in Iraq added up to good news for Bush.

Now comes a surprising Clinton fan.

President Bush told Bill Sammon — Washington Examiner correspondent and author of a new book titled “The Evangelical President” — that Clinton will beat Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination because she is a “formidable candidate” and better known.

Sammon says Bush revealed that he has been sending messages to Clinton to urge her to “maintain some political wiggle room in your campaign rhetoric about Iraq.”

The author said Bush contends that whoever inherits the White House will be faced with a potential vacuum in Iraq and “will begin to understand the need to continue to support the young democracy.”

Bush ought to know about campaign rhetoric. Remember how he ridiculed “nation building” in the 2000 presidential campaign? Now he claims he is trying to spread democracy throughout the Middle East.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is another Democratic leader who has empowered Bush’s war.

Pelosi removed a provision from the most recent war-funding bill that would have required Bush to seek the permission of Congress before launching any attack on Iran. Her spokesman gave the lame excuse that she didn’t like the wording of the provision. More likely, she bowed to political pressure.

Is it any wonder the Democrats are faring lower than the president in a Washington Post ABC approval poll? Bush came in at 33 percent and Congress at 29 percent.

Members of Congress seem to have forgotten their constitutional prerogative to declare war; World War II was the last time Congress formally declared war.

Presidents have found other ways to make end runs around the law, mainly by obtaining congressional authorization “to do whatever is necessary” in a crisis involving use of the military. That’s the way we got into the Vietnam and Iraq wars.

So what are the leading Democratic White House hopefuls offering? It seems nothing but more war. So where do the voters go who are sick of the Iraqi debacle?

Thanks to his dad, George W. Bush was saved from the horrors of Vietnam

 

May 28, 1968: Bush enlists as an Airman Basic [non-com] in the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group, Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, and is selected to attend pilot training.

July 12, 1968: A three-member board of officers decides that Bush should get a DIRECT commission as a second lieutenant after competing airman’s basic training.
RINF | Oct 8, 2007

It is documented that the current U.S. president was partying in Alabama while 58,000 of his contemporaries were dying in that country • This truth that he was forced to deny cost CBS commentator Dan Rather years of humiliation

BY JEAN-GUY ALLARD

WHILE the number of victims among U.S. soldiers condemned by George W. Bush to die in Iraq continues to rise, the truth of the circumstances in which the president himself avoided being sent to the war on Vietnam, like thousands of young men of his generation, are still censored.

Circulating information on that issue in the run-up to the 2004 presidential elections cost CBS journalist and commentator Dan Rather years of humiliation. Rather has just filed a million-dollar claim against his former employer for having punished him in order to calm down the furious White House occupant.

At that time, Rather was forced by his bosses to apologize in the middle of the top U.S. news program for having “used apparently false documents” on the military service record of President George W. Bush during the war in Vietnam… although he knew perfectly well that they were authentic.

In an article just published on this controversy, Greg Palast, the British-based investigative journalist revealed how Bush’s notorious cowardice has been an open confirmed secret since 1999.

Palest recalls that on September 8, 2004, Rather presented his report in which he explained how in 1968, then Congressman George Bush – father of the current president – had arranged things so that his son was not called up for the war in Vietnam, as he should have been, but did his military service in an aviation unit of the National Guard. Something totally unusual when that military corps demanded of its pilots three years’ previous experience in a regular National Air Force unit.

George junior was thus spared from the war in order to defend Houston from a Vietcong attack, the journalist ironically commented.

Bush Sr. maneuvered that solution just 12 days before his son was to be formally recruited.

The BBC had disclosed that information one year previously, Palast noted, and never had to retract it.

23 MILLION TO SAVE HIS BOY

The BBC report, Palast says, was based on a confidential Justice Department document that states how Ben Barnes, lieutenant governor of Texas, who made the arrangements to have Bush junior removed from the U.S. Army registers, received his reward 35 years later.

In 1997, as governor of Texas, George W. Bush, acting irregularly, granted a state lottery contract worth more than one million dollars to a company linked to Barnes, who received a commission of $23 million.

Barnes confessed how, in 1968, he received a call from businessman Sid Adger, a buddy of the Bush family, asking him to do him the favor of moving Bush junior’s name up the waiting list for the National Guard. The current president has always falsely claimed that there was a shortage of candidates to join that military corps whose members are not usually deployed outside national territory.

Barnes then called General James Rose, the local National Guard commander, who sorted out “W”’s registration in a unit of the Ellington airbase where he hooked up with other daddies’ sons.

Bush rapidly rose to the rank of second lieutenant while his less privileged counterparts had to wait years to gain such recognition.

Bush always distinguished himself for his unjustified absences and delays in completing the tasks ascribed to him. Over time, he learned to pilot an F-102, an obsolete aircraft that was not even being used in the South East Asia conflict.

From Ellington, he asked for a transfer to Montgomery, Alabama, where he never showed up. But he was seen taking part in maneuvers surrounding the Senate electoral campaign of Winton “Red” Blount, a buddy in his clan. And enjoying himself at parties where his excessive inclination to alcohol could already be seen. Marijuana and cocaine consumption was in fashion then in get-togethers of moneyed youth and his former buddies have affirmed that the future president was happy to indulge in that pleasure.

A number of documents that would make it possible to confirm the activities or lack of activities of George W. Bush in the war years have mysteriously disappeared from the National Guard files.

In 1972 (the year of Watergate), “W”, then aged 26, decided to extract himself from the masquerade; as it happened, at a time when the National Guard began to impose doping tests. He was then assigned to civilian tasks in Denver where he never showed up.

Meanwhile, 58,000 compatriots of his age lost their lives in Vietnam, in another useless war of a decadent empire.

Despite his documented cowardice, Bush has never hesitated to show himself off in the same Air Force uniform worn by those who never returned from the conflict.

Just like now he is resolutely maintaining more than 150,000 young soldiers in Iraq. More than 3,800 have already died in this war of occupation and thousands have been mutilated… as have one million-plus Iraqis, victims of the lessons in ‘democracy’ of this Texan cowboy who was so afraid of war.

Torture goes all-American

 

“One of my unlikely hobbies is correlating the methods of the CIA with the Spanish Inquisition, and there are some illustrations of this in the film. Like the CIA, the Spanish stripped their victims naked to humiliate them, beat them and left them dangling by the wrists (the Inquisition called that one the Strappado). However, modern technology has supplemented the torturer’s handbook, and Anwar also endures electric shock abuse.”

How close is the film Rendition to the reality of CIA activities? Very, says this civil rights lawyer

The Times | Oct 11, 2007

by Clive Stafford Smith

A Hollywood production that confronts a difficult political issue is rare. Gavin Hood (whose film Tsotsi won the Best Foreign-Language Oscar in 2005) has delivered such a movie in Rendition.

The term “rendition” means taking a suspect prisoner and transferring him to another country, often to face harsh interrogation methods, without legal process. There was really no need for a new word because the old one – kidnapping – described the operation accurately, but “rendition” has joined other euphemisms in the Bush War on Terror such as “enhanced interrogation techniques” (or torture).

The film Rendition is a courageous public innoculation against this creeping criminality. Anwar El-Ibrahimi (played by Omar Metwally) is an Egyptian citizen who has lived in the US all his adult life, and his American wife Isabella (Reese Witherspoon) is pregnant with their second child. Anwar has been to South Africa for a conference, and is flying home to be at the birth. Isabella waits at Dulles airport in Chicago, but Anwar does not arrive.

Meanwhile, there has been an al-Qaeda explosion in a North African town. Missing its target – Abasi Fawal (Igor Naor), the head of the country’s security service – the bomb spatters the blood of a CIA field agent over the shirt of his young colleague, Douglas Freeman (Jake Gyllenhaal). Rashid Silime, the head of a Hezbollah splinter cell, claims responsibility, and there are calls for retribution.

Intercepts have linked calls from Silime’s phone to Anwar’s. But nobody, from the Europeans to the Israelis, has Anwar on their list of potential terrorists. Enter Meryl Streep, playing Corinne Whitman, the CIA’s head of counter-terrorism. She has long since resolved that sometimes one person may need to be inconvenienced if she is to save lives and allow millions to sleep safely in their beds. Anwar does not make it as far as the immigration hall at Dulles.

For the most part, the film is very well researched. Perhaps this is because Robert Baer, a whistleblowing former CIA agent, was technical adviser. The CIA plane that flies Anwar to his torture rendezvous has the call number 379 – the same as the Gulf Stream 5 “Rendition Express” that in real life took my client, the British resident Binyam Mohamed, to a torture chamber in Morocco in July, 2002.

One of my unlikely hobbies is correlating the methods of the CIA with the Spanish Inquisition, and there are some illustrations of this in the film. Like the CIA, the Spanish stripped their victims naked to humiliate them, beat them and left them dangling by the wrists (the Inquisition called that one the Strappado). However, modern technology has supplemented the torturer’s handbook, and Anwar also endures electric shock abuse.

If any critic suggests that the film overstates the horror of rendition, then consider what happened to Binyam Mohamed. During the 18 months he spent in Morocco the torture escalated from beating to a razor blade to the penis – all performed for the Americans, as in the film, by North African proxies. He was then shipped to the Dark Prison in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, for five more months of abuse.

As for the rendering itself, the fictional Anwar is bundled up for the trip in the same way as Binyam – stripped of his own clothes, shackled and hooded. The real victims of rendition generally have a nappy too, so that the kidnappers do not have to bother with lavatories.

Sadly, the high-handedness with which Whitman ignores basic due process is reminiscent of George W. Bush’s Washington. According to Baer, Streep’s character is based loosely on a real CIA operative (Ms X) who precipitated a similar nightmare for a German citizen, Khalid Masri, who was rendered to Afghanistan in 2002. He was on holiday in Macedonia when Ms X received information that seemed to link him to terrorism. She authorised his rendition.

Many months later the same plane that picked up Binyam from Morocco flew on to dump Masri in Albania. Without money or an apology he was left to make his own way home. Even though the CIA had figured out he was probably innocent, they had not known what to do about it. He is scarred forever by his experience, and was recently admitted to a German mental hospital.

In addition, while Baer knows Ms X’s name, she has kept her job at the CIA, and it would be illegal for him to disclose her identity.

Of course, there is poetic licence in the film. Anwar enjoys a six-figure salary, 700 times more than the average Yemeni victim of rendition. And Isabella is better placed to find him than her counterpart in an Arab village. She heads to Capitol Hill to meet an old flame, Alan Smith (Peter Sarsgaard), a senior aide to a senator. Yet even with Smith’s assistance, Isabella never tracks down Anwar.

Even here the film is not so far from reality. Binyam Mohamed’s American sister, Zohra, spoke to an FBI agent, who told her that Binyam had been freed, when in truth he was being tortured in Morocco. She searched for her brother from Britain to Pakistan, with no success. Three years later she heard he was in Guantánamo Bay.

Ultimately, what does the CIA get from relying on torture? Eventually, Anwar lists 11 men as his “accomplices in terror”. Freeman finds that the names match those of the 1990 Egyptian football team, which convinces him that Anwar is innocent.

Unfortunately, in real life, it would probably have earned Anwar another beating. When Binyam was tortured, the janitor from London who did not speak Arabic described how he dined on April 3, 2002, with four of Osama bin Laden’s associates, and advised them on their campaign of terror. Two of the four were in US custody at that time, but when the “mistake” was noticed the interrogators tortured him some more, to reshape his story.

Would thatRendition was a work of history. Sadly, the rendition aircraft are still flying; the prisoners are taken to ever darker prisons – whether in Jordan, Egypt, Morocco or ships off the coast of Somalia – farther from the media and the rule of law.

Sheep politics

So here comes Rendition, another “devastating indictment” of the Evil Empire. We know all about America’s Religious Right, but there is a Religious Left, too, and its message is preached in multiplexes rather than mega-churches. It’s a paradox of Hollywood that the nonconformists in the “creative community” are sheep when it comes to politics.

In the Seventies, films attacking the excesses of the CIA and big business were fresh. But lazy thinking set in a long time ago. So we shouldn’t be surprised that the sheep are prepared to laud a film-maker as transparently dishonest as Michael Moore. Hell, he’s antiBush, and that’s all that matters. Even one of the more intelligent films of the past couple of years, Good Night, and Good Luck, could not resist sugar-coating the Cold War, insinuating that Soviet spy-rings were a product of Joe McCarthy’s imagination. Will things ever change? Not as long as American politics is locked in its Left v Right trench warfare.
. . .

Related

Rendition Movie Site

Rendition (2007)
IMDb: Movies