In 1988 Washington Post owner, Katharine Graham, made a speech to a group of CIA recruits. She told them:
She learned this from her husband, Phil Graham. who ran the Post until his suicide in 1963. In her Pulitzer winning autobiography Graham said this about the Bay of Pigs:
With regard to the Bay of Pigs fiacso, Chal Roberts ascribes the Post’s failure to send reporters to Florida and Guatemala to the fact that Phil, his editors, and Chal himself saw nothing wrong with such a CIA operation and indeed hoped it would succeed. On April 22, a Post editorial declared that events in Cuba were “only one chapter in a long history of freedom, which has encompassed many greater disasters and darker days before men have combined their wit and determination to write a brighter sequel.” Only on May 1 did an editorial refer to “the Cuban misadventure” and the next day to an “appalling mistake of judgment.”
The Washington Post has always been an insider’s paper. In many ways the Watergate investigation served to mask their overall tendency to carry water for whatever administration is in power. The Washington Post provides ‘resolve’.
The Plame case is unique in that it fits into a larger split in the foreign policy establishment. On the one hand, as early as April 2002, it was well known within the parlors of Washington that a decision to depose Saddam had been made. What ensued was a debate, not so much over the merits of that decision, but over the risks. Some foreign policy realists clutched to the hope that war could be averted, but most concentrated on convincing the public, attracting allies, pushing the neocons toward the United Nations, and so on.
As these debates roiled the State Department, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House, different columnists were enlisted to argue for different factions. Columnists like Tom Friedman signed up to push Colin Powell’s line. Columnists like Judy Miller and William Safire signed up to push the neo-cons line. But none of these insiders at the New York Times or the Washington Post seriously questioned whether the war should be fought at all. The war was a foregone conclusion and debating it was an exercise in irrelevancy.
And when the war produced no evidence of WMD, there was the question of maintaining American resolve for this mission. The Iraqis could not defeat us on the battlefield, but a loss of domestic support for the war effort could be crippling. Once again the old warhorses set aside their doubts, all too happy to downplay Joe Wilson’s allegations, and participate in the grotesque smearing of his name and reputation.
“Hey, Joe, Karl Rove says your wife is fair game. Heh heh.”
“There are some things the general public does not need to know, and shouldn’t.”
Senator Pat Roberts has said as much about Abu Ghraib and Koran desecration. “We do not torture.”
“…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.”
But this only works as long as the government’s policies are effective. When they are not effective the secrecy will not hold. And, in the case of the war in Iraq, there never was any consensus in the foreign policy establishment that we should preemptively invade. The press can’t suppress dissent forever, especially when it is coming from a bipartisan set of insiders, and even more so when the intelligence community is in open rebellion.
Woodward thought he knew best. Pincus was willing to go along. But Fitzgerald has exposed their little game. Now let the dominoes fall.
Bravo!
Like most of the mainstream media, the Washington Post has always been less than forthright in its reporting on the JFK assassination, preferring to push the Warren Report and to play down, ignore, or misrepresent the case for conspiracy.
Many years ago, while researching an article about the role of the media in helping to cover up the JFK assassination I engaged in a correspondence with the former book review editor of the Washington Post. I had contacted him about allegations that his reviews had been influenced by then Managing Editor J. Russell Wiggins. We exchanged several lettersculminating in this written admission: “It was in an editorial meeting with Ben Bradlee, not J.R. Wiggins, that it was decided that I would review no books on the Kennedy assassination.”
Amazing that we need to go back 40 plus years to fully understand what is unfolding before our eyes.
Steve Kangas:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html
About events that occurred more than a half-century ago.
in the puzzle of the media. Back in the day when there were at least a half dozen major papers in every fair-sized city, there was a real tradition of confrontational, independent journalism. Reporters and editors were working people for the most part, and had few expectations of moving “up” to cushy jobs in PR, politics, or consultancy. Reporting was not a steppingstone to something “better”.
Now news is just another division of entertainment conglomerates. Reporters like Woodward are not workers but stars, celebrities whose only real function is simply to exist. What they produce becomes irrelevant. It is no longer what they’re judged by.
And yet it’s hard to give up the old images and so we remain puzzled that former apparent heroes like Woodward can now behave so shamefully. The explanation, I think, is simply that they are now part of a shameful establishment, and that contingent offers the approval, money, access, and belonging that matters. The only question remaining is, how can that establishment be overthrown?
One thing you must keep in mind is that there was a major power struggle going on between the Nixon administration and the intelligence community during Watergate. There are many excellent books that suggest that Woodward and the Washington Post were acting on behalf of a hidden agenda (I recommend J. Anthony Lukas’ “Nightmare: The Underside of the Nixon Years”).
As Booman points out, a similar war seems to be going on now.
I have always been dubious about Woodward and the Post’s motives and sources. I still do not believe that Mark Felt was Woodward’s only inside source.
Woodward is just a whore. Back then he was helping forces with an agenda take down a corrupt administration. Now he is helping to prop up a corrupt administration. I doubt he’ll emerge the hero this time around.
it’s crossed my mind that — well, what if Woodward was working for the neofascists even then, or at least being their patsy. Nixon in retrospect probably comes off about as liberal as, say, Lieberman. He didn’t genuflect a whole lot to the Christian crazies, was not rabidly antichoice, and was hinting at great unhappiness over staying the course in Vietnam, IIRC.
Maybe he had to be brought down to purify the Republican Party and make room for Ronnie to make his triumphal march to power.
I really hate conspiracy theories, but there are times when a lack of reasonable explanations makes them the only game in town.
He did pander to the religious wackos, having Billy Graham to the White House constantly, and they stuck with him to the bitter end, including a rabbi (named Bernard Korf, I think), and a wingnut Jesuit priest named John McLaughlin (yes, the one and the same, though he left the SOJ a long time ago). He was rabidly anti-abortion, so much so that Philip Roth did a satirical novel called Our Gang in which Nixon launches a crusade to ban abortion and win the votes of the unborn, and expanded the Vietnam War into both Cambodia and Laos in an effort to achieve something like victory before the public’s exhaustion with the lengthening casualty lists became overwhelming.
What frightened the military and the intel agencies with regards to Nixon was his pursuit of detente, and his opening to China. If they were actively working to bring down Nixon, it was over that.
Dave W,
If their was a comment deserving a 10, this was it: “The only question remaining is, how can that establishment be overthrown?” HOW, as well as WHEN DO WE BEGIN?? Relocate the letters of HOW into WHO and another question comes to mind, WHO…. With sooooo many Americans; Establishment wannabees…. were the Stones right, is it you and me at fault ??? Good place for the solution to begin. I witnessed this band as a kid, the MC5.. “Are you part of the problem or are you part of the solution?” they pondered. http://www.brella.org/sandpebbles/Wayne%20Kramer.html
“When was the last time you were proud to be an American?
Um, I’m proud to be an American when I see people that help each other. People that do something for each other and when I see things that Americans do that help the world. But that has more to do with appreciating being a human being and less to do with whatever country I happen to have been born in.” Kinda like the answer.
Pop some popcorn and a brew…
Get real comfy and cozy in your chair…
Sit back and enjoy the fireworks!
They are everywhere on the net tonight.
In regards to: “The Washington Post has always been an insider’s paper. In many ways the Watergate investigation served to mask their overall tendency to carry water for whatever administration is in power.” As the rats begin to jump ship, the post along with others seem to be paving an escape route; if the bush regime continues to embarrass themselves, as well as America. As the post and others sit the fence, to see where to jump next; one recalls Truman… “Harry Truman once said that “there’s not a nickel’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats” at the Washington level. Soooo it would be easier to say, it’s all about the money. So who really runs the country ?? The elite, the bankers, BIG oil ???? While America bickers over who did it, the Democrats or the Republicans ??? Why do the masses overlook the big picture?? The taxpayers are being robbed blind, and America is going to hell in a hand-basket.. United We Stand Divided We fall….. Seems quite a wise slogan. America as divided as divided can be, and America falling in regards to morals, finances, World-Wide respect, and overall well-being. I hunger for a politician that attempts to unite America; he/she would get my full support. Seems like when we find someone even close to being an uniter, like MKL Jr. or the Kennedys, we kill them off. Do we blame the Elite/bankers/big oil, or do we look at ourselves? Seems like the Stones said something to the effect: “I shouted out
“Who killed the Kennedys?”
When after all
It was you and me” Our desire for material goods, our egos, our desire for supremacy, damaging what what once the GREATEST Country that they let us know about. Curious minds have question…. Is it time to ask; ‘ask not what your country can do for you, ask what YOU can do for your country ???!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Is it time to go within ?? In the mean time, take the time to hug a friend. For friends are what we get us through the times ahead.
Katherine Graham wrote:
Please.
Google <“Frank Wisner” + “Operation Mockingbird”>.
Short version:
From The Secret History of the CIA, by Josaeph J. Trento.
Later that year Wisner established Mockingbird, a program to influence the domestic American media. Wisner recruited Philip Graham (Washington Post) to run the project within the industry. Graham himself recruited others who had worked for military intelligence during the war. This included James Truitt, Russell Wiggins, Phil Geyelin, John Hayes and Alan Barth. Others like Stewart Alsop, Joseph Alsop and James Reston, were recruited from within the Georgetown Set. According to Deborah Davis (Katharine the Great): “By the early 1950s, Wisner ‘owned’ respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles.”
And you can still believe ANYTHING written in the Washitclean Post or the rest of the MSM?
Please.
Beware of geeks bearing gifts.
ALWAYS look a gift horse in the mouth.
There are liable to be some lies in there amongst the truths.
Bet on it.
AG
“Whoever it is, my money is on someone in the National Security Council.”
Raw story has this story up now… National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was the one who blabbed to Woodward. BooMan scores again.
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be . . . The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe.”
I prefer the Sage of Monticello’s sentiment, frankly.
Josef Goebbels would have found little to argue with in Mrs. Graham’s statment, save for the mention of democracy. He’d have said “the Fatherland,” I suppose.
I am very interested in this
尖锐湿疣 性病 尖锐湿疣 咪喹莫特 疣迪 尖锐湿疣 咪喹莫特 疣迪 艾达乐 咪喹莫特 尖锐湿疣 尖锐湿疣 尖锐湿疣 尖锐湿疣