Radio Show
      Listen Host Guests Archive
On The Side

View the Latest Action Alerts and Stay informed!

Read our current Commentaries for indepth analysis into hot issues!




May 2003   alan stang
Embedded Journalism: In Bed With Bush By Alan Stang


By: Alan Stang

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote that, having lied and lied to trick us into the latest phase of the war for world government, George W. Bush had to choose whom to kill. In an earlier phase of the same continuing war, in Vietnam, which was just as illegal as this one, our leaders imposed crippling restrictions on our military and thereby chose to kill Americans, because our policy at the time called for American defeat.

Despite those restrictions, our incomparable military utterly destroyed the Communist Viet Cong in the Tet Offensive of 1968, a victory that the world government media in the United States tried mightily to negate by telling the American people we had lost. Our leaders kept the war going for years and managed to kill almost 60,000 Americans, by refusing to let our magnificent military finish the job. In the present phase of the war, in Iraq, globalist policy was to win, so George Bush did kill the right people. We add our kudos to all the others, with the proviso that, as in Vietnam, our country should not have been there in the first place. After Bush illegally lied his way in, there was no happy choice; there were only two bad choices: kill Iraqis or kill Americans. Bush happily chose not to kill Americans, for which we should be grateful.

Of course, the "embedded" media bosses will never tell us what happened. Remember that, even before the invasion, they agreed to censor the stories filed by their own "embedded" reporters, with results that no doubt made Reds like Fidel Castro green. They told us almost exclusively about our own genuinely laudable military achievements. They have said next to nothing about Iraqi civilian dead; the foreign media, which often report stories that end up on the spike here, say there were too many such civilians killed and injured to count. Again, I am not happy about that; I am happy that "only" about 100 Americans were killed.

Among the media celebrities involved is Ari Fleischer, press secretary at the court of George Bush. Discussing the question of whether U.S. bombing had succeeded in killing Saddam Hussein, Fleischer said something like, "We donít know for sure it is him." Before your Intrepid Correspondent could recover, Ari said the same thing again.

We have long since accepted the fact that Ari Fleischerís deadpan personality makes world government conspirator Henry Kissinger look like Jim Carrey. Is it picayune to expect the press secretary to the President of the United States to speak grammatically correct English? Among the Bush domestic policies is "No Child Left Behind." My nightmare is that children across the country, for whom Ari Fleischer is a media celebrity, will not only aspire to be as bald and boring as he is, but will now be repeating, "We donít know for sure it is him." The result could easily be that students learning English in other countries around the world will speak it better than we do.

This is also the right place to remind you that Sean Hannity is the stupidest talk show host we are aware of, a man who is in fact a human fax machine. There is apparently no White House press release so preposterous that Hannity will not regurgitate it intact. It is amusing to note that he does so without question, by rote, and then says weíve been "hannitized." It is a telltale symptom of our present condition that such a belligerent ignoramus could be so successful.

By now, Hannityís hero Bush has lied so much he has the same problem as the boy who cried wolf. He has so little credibility we can never be sure he is telling the truth, even if, by accident, he does. First, if Saddam Hussein really did attack us, at the World Trade Center or somewhere else - if that is the reason we had to depose him - then why didnít Bush just say so and save himself and our country so much destructive argument? Was he trying to cover for Clinton, his world government soul mate? After Pearl Harbor, every grade school student in the country could have explained why we had to go to war. Today, do you know? Hmm. Letís see . . . .

Second, if our magnificent, incomparable military could make Saddam Husseinís forces run "like crap through a goose" - in General Pattonís immortal, if indelicate phrase, as rendered by the late George C. Scott - then how much of a threat to the United States were they? Forget about the Republican Guard. Even the "Special" Republican Guard, "trained to fight like fanatics to the death for Saddam," faded like the Republican Party, for which they apparently were named. Does anybody now seriously believe that Saddamís Iraqi version of a Gilbert and Sullivan military could have threatened the United States? Even Sean Hannity couldnít be that stupid. Of course, we could be wrong.

But wait. Havenít I forgotten about the WMD, the Weapons of Mass Destruction? As this issue of EtherZone goes to press, the Bush Administration is desperately trying to find them. Be assured they will, after innumerable false starts, if Ari has to plant them himself. ("It was him, I tell you. It was him! A bald, boring man. I saw him myself.") The problem is, it doesnít matter. If there are no such weapons, the question again arises of why we were there. Didnít Bush finally settle on WMD as the reason? Again, if it wasnít crap through a goose and if it wasnít WMD, then what was it?

The reason it wonít matter when Rummy finally finds those elusive WMD, is that discovery will raise the new question of why Saddam didnít use them. Hereís a man who has nothing to lose and nowhere to escape. If caught, he will be killed. If he survives, he will be humiliated, tried for war crimes and then killed. And, he is "a madman, another Hitler, another, Stalin," another et cetera. If he really did have some rusting, deteriorating WMD, why didnít he use them? If he wasnít going to use them, they werenít a threat.

Has anything good come out of the war? Yes, the people of Iraq are finally rid of this totalitarian monster, which raises a question I have asked before, a question that cannot be repeated too much. If it is the mission of the United States to liberate enslaved peoples, why does not the Court of St. George now turn its attention to Cuba?

Cuba has been in the news again. Castro has been committing more atrocities, throwing people into prison for looking crossways at him. Others, driven to madness, have escaped. One of them hijacked an airplane to Florida. Cuba has been a Communist dictatorship since January, 1959, when Washington installed serial killer Fidel Castro, a Communist, in power.

Indeed, not only has Castro done everything Saddam Insane has been accused of, not only has he done it much longer, but Castro is also a high-volume international narcotics racketeer, something Saddam has not been accused of. Why hasnít Bush said a word about "regime change" in Cuba? Donít the Cuban people deserve liberation as much as the Iraqis? Shouldnít they be televised doing the mambo in downtown Havana? Remember that Washington not only installed Castro in power; it has done everything necessary to keep him there.

Meanwhile, our nonexistent borders are still wide open. Remember the "war on terror?" It would be less than childís play for terrorists sponsored by some still hostile government to smuggle WMD into this country. Indeed, Rummy & Co. say they may already have done so. I predict that the borders will be reinvigorated and closed, that the military will be put there for the purpose, that the illegal alien problem will be stopped, that you will be allowed to cross only if you have the proper papers and that specially recruited Homeland Security officials will be trained to say, "Your papers please!"

Of course, all this will be hannitized, but its purpose will be to keep people in, not out, to thwart escape to Mexico, maybe even Cuba. Expect this to happen after Homeland Security comes for the guns. As I write, a federal judge has banned a book about the income tax, The Federal Mafia, which author Irwin Schiff has sold for thirteen years. The judge has forbidden Irwin even to lecture about it. The courtís message is that you and I are too stupid and unreliable to read it and decide for ourselves.

What happens now in the Middle East? Now it gets tricky. As we speak, the termites are taking over. Despite the fact that our incomparable military did the job (with British and Australian help), it is reasonable to speculate that Bush will internationalize the matter and bring in the Communist UN. It is reasonable to expect that, because Bush, like Clinton and like his father, is a world government factotum. Of course, you will pay the bill. Iraq - population 22 million - is now on your payroll. So what! Long before we run out of money, Bush will tell Alan Greenspan to tell someone at the Bureau of printerfeiting and engraving to push a computer key and print more.

Finally, there is Iran, which has more than three times the population of Iraq. We installed the Islamic fundamentalists there when we destroyed the Shah. There is the terrorist government of Syria, which we have not been bombing for 11 years, and which does have WMD. What are we going to do about them?

The U.S. Marines are already there.

Alan Stang has been a network radio talk show host and was one of Mike Wallace's first writers. He was a senior writer for American Opinion magazine and has lectured around the world for more than 30 years. He is also the author of ten books, including, most recently, Perestroika Sunset, surrounding our Government's deception in the POW/MIA arena. If you would like him to address your group, please email what you have in mind. He is a regular columnist with The Welch Report

Alan Stang can be reached at:

We invite your comments on this article in our forum!