Kurt Nimmo
Truth News
February 24, 2008

If we are to believe the story below, the editors of the New York Times are “afraid” of the neocons. Of course, this is simply not true — the New York Times is in cahoots with the neocons, as the free reign of Judith “aluminum tubes” Miller adequately demonstrates. Moreover, it reveals a certain glaring inability to discern reality from the putrid political mirage proffered by the corporate media — even the so-called “progressive” media — when Cenk Uygur of AlterNet, or those who write the headlines over at AlterNet, characterize neocons as “conservatives.” Fact is, there is nothing conservative about a gaggle of warmongering statists with a lineage running back to the Trotskyites, a self-selected coterie of neo-Platonic Straussians who rule by deception and the “noble lie.”

The John McCain-Vicki Iseman story is not the first article the New York Times has held back for political reasons. They have now done this on at least three occasions:

1. The original FISA story on how the Bush administration was not getting warrants for wiretaps inside the United States.

2. The original story in 2004 that showed Osama bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

3. The McCain-Iseman story.

We had James Risen, the writer of the first two stories on our show back in 2005 and he admitted that they held the Bin Laden story until after the 2004 election because the New York Times didn’t want to “get caught up in the politics of it.”

Of course, this absurd excuse — that the New York Times does not want to “get caught up in the politics of it” — is pure, unadulterated bunkum. Fact of the matter is the Times buried these stories because they are damaging to the neocon forever war agenda.

In regard to the first, it is entirely fair to say the New York Times is complicit in attacking the Constitution by covering up neocon “wiretaps,” a completely outmoded and ridiculous word to describe what is occurring.

If we are to assume the editors and “journalists” (professional script readers) over at the Times have two brain cells to rub together, then we can conclude they are covering up more than the fact Osama bin Laden was “hiding in Pakistan.” Indeed, as even fifteen minutes of causal research using the Google search engine will reveal – citing “mainstream” media sources — Osama bin Laden was a creature of Pakistan ISI intelligence with CIA funding and guidance, so it makes perfect sense he would “hide” there, not in an Afghan cave. Rock shelters are for patsies destined to be blown to smithereens — along with no shortage of Afghan civilians — so the corporate media can declare the neocons are fighting the “good war” against the “terrorists” and bamboozle the somnolent American public.

As for the McCain-Iseman “story,” the corporate media, led by the New York Times, can’t help themselves — they relish the very idea of sex scandal and other such tawdry subjects. Of course, the real story here is that the Manchurian candidate, likely the most unpalatable and downright ugly presidential candidate in recent memory, is bought and sold by “lobbyists,” a polite and rather neutral noun for corporate pimps involved in prostituting the business of the American people. In fact, the McCain-Iseman sex scandal “story” does a fairly fine job of papering over the larger, more portentous story — McCain is a robotron for “special interest money,” that is to say filthy lucre dispensed by corporate fascist determined to destroy what remains of the late, great United States.

Cenk Uygur continues:

Another way of stating that is that they were afraid of being called the liberal media by Republicans. After decades of being chastised for being liberal, they have become gun-shy. In this McCain story, they also held off until they were about to outed by other news agencies as sitting on the story.

Conservatives are now charging that the New York Times held off on the story until after McCain had wrapped up the nomination, so they could ruin his chances in the general election. First, this is wrong because if they wanted to hurt his chances of getting elected, they would have revealed this fact much closer to the general election. They couldn’t have done McCain a bigger favor than by waiting to release the piece until after the primaries and way, way before the general.

Not necessary, as McCain will never get anywhere near the White House, that is unless he is invited by Obama or Clinton. All of this simply adds tarnish to McManchurian’s already quite dingy image. As well, it serves as a venue to jab at the neocons, who own McCain, but are slated to be on the way out and make room for the “change” neolib, owned by the international bankers, or his ideological twin, the Bilderberg Queen, Hillary. It’s all a sordid game of musical chairs. As a half way astute janitor over at the New York Times might conclude, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the neocons and their kissing cousins, the Wall Street neolibs. Point is to distract you on the way to November and the “liberals” are simply playing their squalid part in this perfidious shell game. Naturally, most of them are clueless.

The story here isn’t that the NYT is trying to hurt conservatives, it’s the exact opposite — they’re afraid of them. On every occasion that they have had a major story like this, they have held it after being badgered by Republicans. They only print the stories when there are no other options left and the story is about to get printed elsewhere anyway.

Please. If the New York Times was indeed “afraid” of the neocons, they would not have hired the boy wonder of the neocons, Bill Kristol, who urged the feds to prosecute the paper in 2006 for disclosing a secret government program to track international banking transactions. Now that Bill is installed at the Times, he is wasting precious little time hyping McCain, the neocon choice for continued and endless mass murder and misery, as he did on February 4.

Fear? No, the New York Times is engaging in complicity. Everything else, including McCain’s dalliance with the lobbyist Vicki Iseman, is a circus sideshow. Call it the Britney Factor — the corporate media will invariably push sleaze over substance, as the point is to distract and sidetrack the great unwashed as they are once again — and dare I say, perpetually? — hornswoggled on the path to total enslavement. Trick is to get them to cheer and celebrate their incremental enslavement, as they are now doing with the obnoxious hard sell of Barack Obama as an agent of “change.”

Of course, nothing will change unless the bankers want it to change.