Be A Golden Rule Citizen! 

A Conversation With America & the World
Creating the Future 2012
Where the New World Begins!

What IS A Baghdad Bob?

Democracy cannot survive without a free press

Menu

	For the Love of the World A  Book
	Site Search
	My Journals
	Vernacular-Chuck's Dictionary
	My Favorite Clipart
	Recommended
	Trip to South Africa 2005
	News
	Books
	Bitter Pills -
	Psychotronics, PsyOps & Illegal Gov't Harassment, Directed Energy Attacks. Please read this for your own sake.

It must be a tough job, being the voice of a government being destroyed by foreign forces, watching it happen right before your eyes as you tell your fellow citizens not to worry, and that victory was still possible.

But that's what Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf had to do as Baghdad fell to U.S. troops in 2003.

It certainly wasn't laughable to know that a man was put in the position of keeping the public calm and maintaining the morale of those keeping order while their nation was being overrun.

What was mostly being made fun of was the idea that a government would have someone in their media who would lie to their own citizens to the very end, regardless of the truth.

Sort of like Nero playing the violin as the city burned.

And they, of course, heralded both George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice when they "stood up for freedom of the press" when they acknowledged "Democracy cannot survive without a free press", all the while, reporters constantly discussed how the government was suppressing reports of civil and human rights violations, demanding airtime and more.

The same thing is going on with the Obama administration. The same things that prompted Eric Boehlert to write this:

Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush by Eric Boehlert http://www.amazon.com/Lapdogs-Press-Rolled-Over-Bush/dp/0743289315/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254624016&sr=8-2

The most unfortunate, best example of this I can find is MSNBC. I've been watching them for a long time. They were my favorite news channel.

I watched as they prevented dissenting views  of the 2000 election. I watched as they - and CNN - did everything but actually promote the Bush Iraq War policies despite their knowledge and reporting of the facts - before the war - that journalists now claim as the proof that Bush lead us to war based on lies. It was all well known before the war. And they'll claim they reported it. That's plausible deniability for you.

But, like journalists discuss in regard to such things, somewhere along the line, the media took it upon themselves to engage in the responsibility of "preparing the nation for war". On behalf of the government. And I don't mean advising us as to what to expect or do. I mean, get us revved up and hating another country enough to want to kill them. To be willing to send our children to die and supposedly defend our nations.

It doesn't sound like a media that is dedicated to reporting facts and "doing its part" as part of the checks and balances of Democracy. It certainly doesn't sound like a free press.

The national corporate media was making fun of Baghdad Bob. They should look in the mirror.

Because every time someone criticizes Barack Obama's policies, they claim racism, and they argue with their guests for the Obama/Council on Foreign Relations agenda.

You couldn't ask for  a better example of how the media works for political and economic interests, and should not be relied upon as a source of the truth regarding what's actually going on in the world.

It's not liberal media, it's not conservative media, it's Council on Foreign Relations media.

Centrists.

Haven't enough young people died for wars based on lies. Have we really forgotten what we always learn afterward - that these wars were never about anything but profiteering? That economic collapses and recessions and oil prices and all are nothing more than manipulations explained away by a press that is not free, but is in fact owned by the very corporations who benefit from our ignorance.

It's called fraud. It ought to be illegal. Instead, they call it freedom of speech.

And yet, the courts say, while it is a generally accepted practice, there is no law requiring a news channel to tell the truth. And that is a fact. A sad fact.

For more information on Baghdad Bob, I suggest these links, but take no responsibility for their content, for reasons that will be apparent.

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/baghdad_bob.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf