Washington Post: Beating The Drums Of War

Submitted by gjohnsit on Wed, 07/26/2017 - 1:15pm

The Washington Post has been a horrible newspaper ever since Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos purchased it. For proof, recall the infamous 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours episode.

Lately, Bezos' target has shifted to drumming up war in Syria.
Just this morning there were two new articles, each taking a different spin.

The Scary Putin article has three highlighted sentences.

But there is one front where Trump-Russia collaboration — or collusion, if you will — looks increasingly certain: Syria.
What that probably means, though, is settling for a status quo favored by Russia.

Critics among the Washington commentariat, many of whom were equally irked by former president Barack Obama's seeming indecision and reticence to plunge into the Syrian war against Assad, saw the move as a sign of Trump's muddled strategy.

The article actually makes a couple reasonable points (not highlighted).
So it looks like an editor came in later, inserted those three sentences, and then decided "I need them in bold because that's what the boss wants."

The other article takes the tactic of turning reality inside-out, black is white, up is down.

Imagine that the president’s national security team walked into the Oval Office and proposed the following U.S. policy in Syria

yes, let's imagine something. Because what the WashPo is about to tell you is completely and entirely imaginary and has no basis in reality.

Let’s create an al-Qaeda haven in southern Syria, by working with Russia to establish a cease-fire area where the terrorist network behind 9/11 is free to operate without fear of U.S. attack.
Then let’s have the Pentagon tell most pro-American Sunnis who want to fight with us that we will arm and train them only if they sign a pledge promising not to fight the regime of Bashar al-Assad, which has massacred their families with mortars and poison gas — likely driving most of the fighters into the waiting arms of al-Qaeda (which promises to help them against Assad). Then let’s cancel the covert CIA program under which we did allow a small number of rebels to fight Assad, and put out word that we are doing so as a concession to Moscow.

Instead of Sunni fighters, we’ll team up with the Kurdish Marxist “People’s Defense Force” (YPG), a terrorist organization at odds with NATO ally Turkey. We’ll use the YPG to attack just the Islamic State, leaving al-Qaeda unscathed and thus helping it reassert its supremacy over its rival for leadership of the global jihad.

Let’s also have Defense Secretary Jim Mattis say publicly that we shouldn’t do anything to push back on the unprecedented expansion of Iranian military force in Syria, and even suggest that Iran can help with the fight against the Islamic State — totally undercutting the president’s stated aim of being tough on Iran. Then we’ll have Secretary of State Rex Tillerson state that “Russia has the same . . . interest that we do” in Syria so we can help al-Qaeda recruit more Sunnis to its cause by telling them that the United States is allied with Russia, Iran, Shiites, Alawites and Kurds in a campaign to annihilate them — a message against which we will have no effective response because it will be true.

Sound like a good plan? Because that is a description of precisely what the Trump administration is doing in Syria today.

No, it's not. Not anything close.
We've been arming al-Qaeda through its jihadist allies via the CIA program for at least four years.
The WashPo has failed it's journalistic duties by not noticing (or not caring).

Then there is the 'Kurdish Marxist “People’s Defense Force” (YPG), a terrorist organization at odds with NATO ally Turkey'. We've been aligned with this group since 2014, and now it's suddenly a "Trump thing"? On what planet? Do they think people won't notice? Or that they can't look at a map and notice that the Kurds aren't in southern Syria?

Then we have 'and even suggest that Iran can help with the fight against the Islamic State'. News flash: ISIS is losing in Syria because of Iran. They were invited. We weren't. We invaded.

Finally, there is the complete dismissal of diplomacy in this article. As if only guns and bombs, and foreign occupation can accomplish "our goals". 16 years of war and the WashPo hasn't learned a thing.

The WashPo, once a good newspaper, is now no better than the NY Post.

Tags:

Syria

The Washington Post

Vote

Comments

Submitted by earthling1 on Wed, 07/26/2017 - 1:55pm

The Washington Post has never been a good newspaper.

Period.

—

Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Wed, 07/26/2017 - 2:31pm

All weeee are saaaaaaaayiiiiiing....

Is Give War a chaaaaaaance...

And don't complain when we strip your benefits to pay for it, because somebody HAS to pay for it and that somebody is YOU.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by lizzyh7 on Wed, 07/26/2017 - 3:13pm

Their readers won't notice, not at all.

They'll believe whatever the Post tells them to believe. And everything IS a Trump thing, come on now gjonsit, you know that! Trump, Trump, Trumpetty Trump, Trump, Putin as Caitlin said. Why, if Trump and Putin were gone, there'd be no more war at all, amirite?

—

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

Submitted by Socialprogressive on Wed, 07/26/2017 - 3:14pm

I don't know how else to say it.

Wapo really sucks.

—

I woke up this morning determined to drink less, eat right, and exercise.
But that was four hours ago when I was younger and full of hope.

Submitted by The Wizard on Wed, 07/26/2017 - 3:24pm

It's an amazingly fact and ethics free article

It really points to the utter fantasy and vacuousness of mainstream American thinking. For example - "though under Trump,a democratic, post-Assad Syria certainly seems less of a priority". What are you kidding me? This is the abhorrent excuse for US intervention to destroy a state. How about letting the people of Syria decide. Judging by polls, they like Assad. But no, they will not have what we call democracy until their state is utterly destroyed and they have chaos. There's more -"where Iranian-backed militias find increasing room to maneuver across Syrian territory". So the purpose, according to the author, for Iranian help in the war is to have roving bands of militias? Isn't that what the US supports, arming and training terrorists? And more- "where Moscow can push for a lasting settlement that keeps Assad firmly entrenched in power." Don't you ever listen to President Putin? Russia's goal is to stabilize Syria for its people. They are fine with Assad being ousted .. if it's through an election. And yet even more nonsense' "I think the Russians know they ultimately cannot shoot their way out of Syria". They are quoting Andrew Tabler. Russia has no intentions in Syria other than helping the SAA achieved control of the country of Syria. And more from Tabler - "For them, it’s related to U.S. sanctions and their annexation of Crimea specifically." Bullshit, these are separate issues. Do you think that Russia is in Syria to resolve the issues in the Ukraine? That makes no sense, as it just irritates the West and the MinskII accords is the solution if only the West would force the Ukraine to honor their commitment. His colleague wrote - "Trump’s reported decision to cut off the CIA program to train and equip some Syrian rebel groups fighting Assad is so shortsighted." Yeah right, cutting off various armed groups associated with Al Nusra, and illegally armed by the US is .. short sided. No it's illegal, unethical, and an act of war. What do you think that the bullets and bombs wind up doing to people? Then Mattis is quoted - "“We just refuse to get drawn into the Syrian civil war,” said Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis last month. “We [will] try to end that through diplomatic means.” Then the author of the article goes on to say - "What that probably means, though, is settling for a status quo favored by Russia." and yes, that was in bold. Again, WTF? Russia wants to back up Syria in ridding the country of terrorists. The author is boldly implying that the US has the right to implement any strategy that it wants to force the outcome that it wants. The arrogance is just beyond belief. I hope that a multi-polar world can happen swiftly and with minimum damage caused by the war machine in Washington and it's sycophant cheering press.

—

Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.

Submitted by lizzyh7 on Wed, 07/26/2017 - 4:10pm

I am glad I did not read it.

@The Wizard I hate giving WaPo any clicks.

It really points to the utter fantasy and vacuousness of mainstream American thinking. For example - "though under Trump,a democratic, post-Assad Syria certainly seems less of a priority". What are you kidding me? This is the abhorrent excuse for US intervention to destroy a state. How about letting the people of Syria decide. Judging by polls, they like Assad. But no, they will not have what we call democracy until their state is utterly destroyed and they have chaos. There's more -"where Iranian-backed militias find increasing room to maneuver across Syrian territory". So the purpose, according to the author, for Iranian help in the war is to have roving bands of militias? Isn't that what the US supports, arming and training terrorists? And more- "where Moscow can push for a lasting settlement that keeps Assad firmly entrenched in power." Don't you ever listen to President Putin? Russia's goal is to stabilize Syria for its people. They are fine with Assad being ousted .. if it's through an election. And yet even more nonsense' "I think the Russians know they ultimately cannot shoot their way out of Syria". They are quoting Andrew Tabler. Russia has no intentions in Syria other than helping the SAA achieved control of the country of Syria. And more from Tabler - "For them, it’s related to U.S. sanctions and their annexation of Crimea specifically." Bullshit, these are separate issues. Do you think that Russia is in Syria to resolve the issues in the Ukraine? That makes no sense, as it just irritates the West and the MinskII accords is the solution if only the West would force the Ukraine to honor their commitment. His colleague wrote - "Trump’s reported decision to cut off the CIA program to train and equip some Syrian rebel groups fighting Assad is so shortsighted." Yeah right, cutting off various armed groups associated with Al Nusra, and illegally armed by the US is .. short sided. No it's illegal, unethical, and an act of war. What do you think that the bullets and bombs wind up doing to people? Then Mattis is quoted - "“We just refuse to get drawn into the Syrian civil war,” said Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis last month. “We [will] try to end that through diplomatic means.” Then the author of the article goes on to say - "What that probably means, though, is settling for a status quo favored by Russia." and yes, that was in bold. Again, WTF? Russia wants to back up Syria in ridding the country of terrorists. The author is boldly implying that the US has the right to implement any strategy that it wants to force the outcome that it wants. The arrogance is just beyond belief. I hope that a multi-polar world can happen swiftly and with minimum damage caused by the war machine in Washington and it's sycophant cheering press.

—

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

Submitted by snoopydawg on Wed, 07/26/2017 - 5:43pm

Good lord! Can they be sued for their stupidity?

The headline should have had exclamation points all over it.

Why is the Trump administration empowering al-Qaeda in Syria?!!!!!!!

Be afraid, or in the mortal words of Monty Python, "Run Away!

Seriously, people will believe this horse pucky because Al Qaida is the bad guys. Except for when they are fighting for us, right?
The rest of the article is so full of misdirections that I couldn't follow it.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Wed, 07/26/2017 - 5:47pm

This is what spreading freedom and democracy looks like

@The Wizard

It really points to the utter fantasy and vacuousness of mainstream American thinking. For example - "though under Trump,a democratic, post-Assad Syria certainly seems less of a priority". What are you kidding me? This is the abhorrent excuse for US intervention to destroy a state. How about letting the people of Syria decide. Judging by polls, they like Assad. But no, they will not have what we call democracy until their state is utterly destroyed and they have chaos. There's more -"where Iranian-backed militias find increasing room to maneuver across Syrian territory". So the purpose, according to the author, for Iranian help in the war is to have roving bands of militias? Isn't that what the US supports, arming and training terrorists? And more- "where Moscow can push for a lasting settlement that keeps Assad firmly entrenched in power." Don't you ever listen to President Putin? Russia's goal is to stabilize Syria for its people. They are fine with Assad being ousted .. if it's through an election. And yet even more nonsense' "I think the Russians know they ultimately cannot shoot their way out of Syria". They are quoting Andrew Tabler. Russia has no intentions in Syria other than helping the SAA achieved control of the country of Syria. And more from Tabler - "For them, it’s related to U.S. sanctions and their annexation of Crimea specifically." Bullshit, these are separate issues. Do you think that Russia is in Syria to resolve the issues in the Ukraine? That makes no sense, as it just irritates the West and the MinskII accords is the solution if only the West would force the Ukraine to honor their commitment. His colleague wrote - "Trump’s reported decision to cut off the CIA program to train and equip some Syrian rebel groups fighting Assad is so shortsighted." Yeah right, cutting off various armed groups associated with Al Nusra, and illegally armed by the US is .. short sided. No it's illegal, unethical, and an act of war. What do you think that the bullets and bombs wind up doing to people? Then Mattis is quoted - "“We just refuse to get drawn into the Syrian civil war,” said Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis last month. “We [will] try to end that through diplomatic means.” Then the author of the article goes on to say - "What that probably means, though, is settling for a status quo favored by Russia." and yes, that was in bold. Again, WTF? Russia wants to back up Syria in ridding the country of terrorists. The author is boldly implying that the US has the right to implement any strategy that it wants to force the outcome that it wants. The arrogance is just beyond belief. I hope that a multi-polar world can happen swiftly and with minimum damage caused by the war machine in Washington and it's sycophant cheering press.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by ggersh on Wed, 07/26/2017 - 3:50pm

WaPo

the BS media coordinator of the CIA

—

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

Submitted by k9disc on Thu, 07/27/2017 - 12:14pm

Jeff Bezos Is the Richest Person In Da World...

So says the NY Post.

I saw it in my FB News ticker on the right.

CIA Contractor, and richest man in da world, Jeff Bezos... blech.

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by Ellen North on Thu, 07/27/2017 - 10:45pm

The Washington Post has

The Washington Post has learnt tons about acting as a propaganda outlet; this is not ignorance, nor is it journalistic incompetence!

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/30/the-cia-and-the-press-when-the-w...

November 30, 2016
The CIA and the Press: When the Washington Post Ran the CIA’s Propaganda Network

by Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn

... In the meantime, here is a brief historical note on how at the height of the Cold War the CIA developed it’s very own stable of writers, editors and publishers (swelling to as many as 3000 individuals) that it paid to scribble Agency propaganda under a program called Operation Mockingbird. The disinformation network was supervised by the late Philip Graham, former publisher of Timberg’s very own paper, the Washington Post. ...

... Now it appears that the paper is circling round for yet another drive-by.

Almost from its founding in 1947, the CIA had journalists on its payroll, a fact acknowledged in ringing tones by the Agency in its announcement in 1976 when G.H.W. Bush took over from William Colby that “Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any US news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station.”

Though the announcement also stressed that the CIA would continue to “welcome” the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists, there’s no reason to believe that the Agency actually stopped covert payoffs to the Fourth Estate. ...

... Trento writes that

“One of the most important journalists under the control of Operation Mockingbird was Joseph Alsop, whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers.” Other journalists willing to promote the views of the CIA, included Stewart Alsop (New York Herald Tribune), Ben Bradlee (Newsweek), James Reston (New York Times), Charles Douglas Jackson (Time Magazine), Walter Pincus (Washington Post), William C. Baggs (Miami News), Herb Gold (Miami News) and Charles Bartlett (Chattanooga Times).

By 1953 Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies, including the New York Times, Time, CBS, Time. Wisner’s operations were funded by siphoning of funds intended for the Marshall Plan. Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers.”

In his book Mockingbird: The Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA, Alex Constantine writes that in the 1950s, “some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts”.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-20/cia-washington-post-and-russia-...

The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

by Tyler Durden
Dec 20, 2016

... But the outlet’s behind-the-scenes relationship with the CIA is nothing new. In 2013, a conflict of interest arose shortly after Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon, purchased the newspaper. As the Nation reported at the time:

“[Jeff Bezos] recently secured a $600 million contract from the CIA. That’s at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post this year. Bezos recently disclosed that the company’s Web-services business is building a ‘private cloud’ for the CIA to use for its data needs.”

As this occurred, a petition calling on the Washington Post to disclose its new ties to the CIA when reporting on the agency garnered 30,000 signatures. According to the RootsforAction petition:

“The Post often does reporting on CIA activities. The coverage should include full disclosure that the owner of the Washington Post is also the main owner of Amazon — and Amazon is now gaining huge profits directly from the CIA.”

Robert McChesney of the Institute for Public Accuracy pointed out the glaring conflict of interest:

“If some official enemy of the United States had a comparable situation—say the owner of the dominant newspaper in Caracas was getting $600 million in secretive contracts from the Maduro government—the Post itself would lead the howling chorus impaling that newspaper and that government for making a mockery of a free press. It is time for the Post to take a dose of its own medicine.” ...

Please pass the salt-shaker? For the newspaper I'm reading, not the breakfast that goes with it.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.