Let’s roll back to 8 presidential elections ago and see how the media has helped us understand what has been going on.
In 1980, then President Jimmy Carter was confronted with the hostage taker, Ayatollah Khomeini, who ironically was earlier brought to power by Carter himself in his “human rights pursuit” against the Shah. Carter had no idea what role the 1953 US conspiracy against Iran was playing in the 1978 Iranian revolution. While strategizing not to lose the election to Ronald Reagan, Carter asked the Saudis to advise Saddam Hossein, on his first State visit to Saudi Arabia on 10 August 1980, to invade Iran and crush the Ayatollahs. Carter assured Saddam of total US backing of Iraq’s invasion of Iran, as long as it could be done fast enough to free the American hostages before the November 1980 elections in the US.
The stupid Saddam obliged Carter and attacked Iran on 22 September 1980. Little did the idiotic Carter and Saddam know that the Reagan boys (Oliver North) had already made a deal with the Ayatollahs to give them arms (Iran-Contra scandal) as long as the Ayatollahs kept the hostages for 444 days till Carter lost the election in November 1980. And sure enough, the hostages were freed as soon as Ronald Reagan was elected.
It took 25 years for all of the above facts to surface. Has the media educated anyone?
And here we go again. It is 2004 elections in the US. How stupid the American voter is going to be, not knowing the role of the media to get George W Bush re-elected.
Subject of this debate: How long is it going to take for the American voters to recognize that they are being brainwashed by the Corporate media?
I fail to see how the media played any particular role in the 1980 “October Surprise.” And I fail to see any parallels between that election year and this one. (GWB hasn’t announced bin Laden’s capture yet . . .)
This is one of the least coherent OPs I’ve seen in months.
Where is the proof, in the OP’s assertions, that “American voters are being brainwashed by the corporate media”? Sorry, just don’t see it.
What is the connection between what Carter may or may not have done in regards to the Iranian hostage crisis (got a cite that he promised Saddam full US support if he invaded Iran) and thei year’s presidential election? Sorry, just don’t see it.
Which specific media organizations does the OP accuse of (presumably) continuously brainwashing us since 1980?
What is the specific objective of this brainwashing, and approximately what year did it start?
Where does the OP obtain information that he accepts as factual, since presumably he does not accept anything he reads in “the corporate media”, whatever that is?
What is the OP’s professional expertise in this field, and if he has none, why should we accept anything he says as factual without any citations to back it up?
The hostages released on Inauguration Day in 1980 were not the same hostages that were involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. Some of THOSE hostages weren’t even released until the early 1990s, IIRC.
If an “October Surprise” happens this year, I would find it too incredible to believe that they “just happened” to find Osama a week before the election. I would have to change my belief that Bush is just severely misguided to believing that Bush is actually Evil.
You have evidence that Carter is responsible for the Shah’s downfall? While Carter may have issued statements against human rights abuses in Iran, the U.S. approval of arms sales to Iran actually increased during Carter’s Presidency. Carter also invited the Shah to the White House, and called Iran ‘an island of stability in a troubled region’. Jimmy Carter also went to Teheran for New Year’s eve in 1978 to show support for the Shah.
Where Carter may have contributed to the Shah’s downfall was when Carter pressured him to allow more civil rights at home. The Shah’s response was to publically support things like free association, while at the same time cracking down heavily in secret using the SAVAK secret police. That caused greater unrest.
But the bottom line is that the Iranian revolution was an internal development. The Ayatollah began inciting the people by writing letters from France to the Iranian people. Unrest grew, opposition forces mounted, and a revolution took place. The U.S. position on Iran really had little to nothing to do with it.
Cite? This is the first I’ve heard that Iraq attacked Iran on the order of Jimmy Carter.
Cite?
You’ve got some major problems with your timeline. Reagan didn’t initiate anything with the Contras until 1983. The Sandinistas didn’t even come to power until July of 1979.
I think we need some quotes around “facts”.
And just what do you think the role of the media is in ‘getting George W Bush re-elected’?
Geez, talk about begging the question. How about we establish first that the ‘Corporate Media’ is trying to get Bush Re-elected? Could you provide some evidence of this? And I’m unclear what you think the role of the media was in the 1980 election. You suggest that Carter was nefariously manipulating events in the Middle East. And yet, he lost. Wasn’t that what you’d want given your accusations? Just what are you saying?
Please read the book “Thinking About National Security” by Harold Brown, the US Defense Secretary during 1997-1980. In page 157, he clearly indicates his advice to Carter “ the United States should prepare plans and capabilities for intervention, but should avoid an explicitly declared policy to this effect”. Please recognize that replacing the Shah with the Islamic Republic provided a barrier against then perceived Soviet capability for a military drive through Iran to the Persian Gulf. Ref. “Memories of the National Security Advisor 1977-1981” by Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Of course it was the Iranians who poured in the streets, removed the Shah, and hailed Khomeini into power in 1978, just as it was also the Iranians who removed Mossadegh in 1953 and brought back the Shah. No one can prove that Carter was responsible for the Shah’s downfall, even though he did send General Heiser to Iran in 1978 to tell the Shah to get out.
The arm sales to Iran during the first 2 years of the Carter administration were mere deliveries of the lucrative contracts signed during Nixon era, when Iran was given a carte blanche by Kissinger to buy whatever toys the Shah desired from “Weapons R Us”.
I agree with you that the Iranian revolution was an internal development. While the Shah and his SAVAK were as bad for Iranians as the Saddam atrocities were bad for Iraqis, history will only judge the US role and the aftermath of removing support for the Shah in 1978, and invasion of Iraq in 2003.
.
We are just beginning to get hold of Saddam’s historical documents and what was actually discussed during his first State Visit to Saudi Arabia on 10 August 1980 when Carter wanted to get the US hostages out of Iran BY ANY MEANS. Carter’s re-election in November of that year depended on getting the hostages out of Iran.
Several other factors point to the reasons why Carter wanted Saddam to invade Iran prior to the US elections.
1- In 1978, replacing the Shah with Khomeini’s wall of Islam in front of the godless Russians seemed to stop the Soviet’s attempt to get a foothold in the Persian Gulf through Iran. So, in 1979, the Soviets decided to find another route to the Gulf. They invaded Afghanistan. Having been successful in Iran, the strategic move by Brzezinski was to put another wall of fanatic Islam in front of the Russians in Afghanistan. So, the US arms started to pour into the hands of the Taliban (and eventually Osama Bin Laden). Meanwhile, back in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini strengthened his position by awakening the Iranian populace to the US conspiracy in 1953 that overthrew Mossadegh, bringing back the Shah and his SAVAK to power. This led to the overtaking of the US Embassy in Tehran by the angry Iranians and taking the American hostages for return of the Shah to stand trial. That is when Carter started going sour towards the Mullahs in Iran, as it was threatening his re-election.
2- An Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980 (on the pretext of resolving border disputes) solved two major problems for the US. Over the course of the following decade, two of the region’s leading military powers, neither of them hitherto friendly to the US, were tied up in an exhausting conflict with each other. Historically, such conflicts among third world countries create a host of opportunities for more powerful nations to seek new footholds.
3- Meanwhile, back in Iraq, Saddam had drawn on the country’s oil wealth to carry out a major military build-up, with military expenditures swallowing 8.4 per cent of GNP in 1979. Despite its strong ties to the USSR, somehow after Saddam’s visit to Saudi Arabia in August 1980, the US and Iraq decided to re-establish diplomatic relations—broken off after the 1967 war with Israel—just before Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980 (the actual implementation was delayed for a few more years in order not to make the linkage too explicit). Diplomatic relations between the US and Iraq were formally restored in 1984—well after the US knew, and a UN team confirmed, that Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranian troops.
No. I have no problem with my timeline. The “understanding and agreement” between the Reagan/Bush boys and the Ayatollahs were made before the November 1980 elections. The assurance of the US Arms help was given to the Ayatollahs in exchange for not freeing the hostages until the US election. The actual details and logistics of arm deliveries from the US to Iran did not take place till 1983.
Do you get the “fair and balanced reporting” of the Fox Channel in Canada? That is were a large segment of the US voters get their news and perception of what is going on. I think the role of the media is currently not to expose the LIES. The role of the media and its journalists is to “be embedded” with the current administration. Why isn’t Phil Donnahu back on TV? Why isn’t there any pictures of American soldiers actually getting killed in Iraq on the major TV networks. What is the censorship all about? Why doesn’t the main stream media expose the lies?
Dick Cheney’s speech is broadcasted saying “if you don’t vote for us you’ll have another terrorist attack”. Well, hello. You never hear anyone in the media saying that the 9/11 occurred under this administration. Maybe if we vote for them again, we’ll get another 9/11.
Yes. Listen to Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Riley and many others.
The same role the media played in 1956 election. They either did not do a good investigative journalism, or if they did, it was not shown to the American public. How could the public vote intelligently --whether in 1980 or today – not knowing the facts? It seems we find out the facts 25 years after the election. I suppose the problem is that we have to “establish the need to know”, before we are given the facts of today, so that we can make the right choice.
Wanting to get rid of a nefarious manipulator does not mean that you want to replace him with even a worse manipulator.
What I am saying is that the voter is not given the facts and the reality of what is going on to make an intelligent decision on who to vote for.
1980 hostages were in Iran
1983 hostages were in Lebanon
Throughout 1980, Bill Casey was Reagan’s Election Campaign Manager
Throughout 1980, Bush Sr. was helping Reagan get elected
From 20 January 1981 to 1987 Bill Casey was the Director of CIA
From 20 January 1981 to 1988 Bush Sr. was the US Vice President
Now, consider the two gentlemen making a deal with Ayatollahs in 1980 to keep the hostages in Iran till Reagan got elected, then the same two gentlemen were running the deal with the Ayatollahs in 1983 which eventually blew out as the Iran-Contra scandal.
Now. What part of making a 3-year deal between the 2 gentlemen and the Ayatollahs don’t you understand?
Of course the hostages released on Inauguration Day were NOT the same ones involved with Iran-Contra. But the players were the same. First deal was made in 1980. Then it continued through 2003 until it blew out as the scandal.
:rolleyes: What part don’t you understand **Guinastasia ** dear?
We provided a barrier against a Soviet drive to the Persian Gulf by engineering the overthrow of a staunchly pro-American, anti-Communist regime and its replacement by an ardently anti-American regime?
The CIA was responsible for the overthrow of the Mossadegh government in 1953. Therefore, the CIA is responsible for everything that has ever happened.
Since the Taliban didn’t exist yet, this was quite a trick on our part. I guess the CIA’s crack Special Temporal Operations Directorate handled that one.
Oh, so that’s what Dan Rather was trying to do. Well, he’s done a damn good job. Quite clever of ol’ Dan to accomplish such a feat, all the time pretending to to be trying to bring President Bush down.
Sorry. Meant Mujahedin, typed Taliban.
In the 1980s, US did supply the Stingers and trained the Mujahedin to use them against the Soviet helicopters. Eventually, in the 1990s , the very same Stingers ended up with the Taliban and the Osama’s boys.
You can’t (and you don’t have to) always engineer events. Sometimes, the best strategy is to grease the unfolding events so that they end up going towards your desired direction.
Look, by the late 70s, the Iranians had enough of the despotic Shah, his SAVAK and his cronies. The the country was ready to revolt. Unfortunately, the very revolutionaries that poured in the streets had no post-Shah plan. Suddenly, the Ayatollah showed up from Najaf (via Paris) after the Guadeloupe meeting, and a “plan” appeared in front of the Iranians as a referendum. It was simply: Do you want the Shah or an Islamic Republic?. And we all know what the answer was going to be.
I spent ten years in the TV News business. Six of those were spent as a producer. That meant I was responsible for deciding what content went into the newscast and I supervised all writing. The largest market I worked in provided news to over fifty thousand people at a time. Not once was I asked to add or drop a story because it’s content didn’t fit corporate ideology. Media corporations are too busy worrying about each station making money to engage in some sort of evil conspiracy to shape American Public Opinion.
You know…I almost mentioned the bias issue in my post and decided that it would muddle the message. If you have a working knowledge of current events and of politics, liberal bias at the national level is easy to detect. The only ones that deny it are those that don’t see it as bias, but the truth as they see it. But we’ve had media bias threads out the wazoo here with not much accomplished. Anyone looking for specific examples can look to http://www.mrc.org
Yes, it is run by conservative folks…but try to put your own bias aside as the site uses the words of the subjects themselves to examine leftward bias. If your mind is totally closed to the idea, don’t bother.
The point I was making is that I was never pressured to lean one way or the other. My job was to fill the time between the commercials. But it was only my own common sense and committment to impartiality that kept me from tilting the content of my newscasts as I saw fit. You have to be subtle about it because people are paying attention, especially in an election season, but it can be done. Some people can’t resist the urge to push their own beliefs on viewers.
And how many times did you initiate a story that went against corporate ideology? Or did you just receive assignments from the folks higher-up?
Funny, Michael Moore did the same thing in Fahrenheit 9/11, but that didn’t stop the bushes of Bush-apologists from smearing the film as “lies and conspiracies.”
Rjung, my job was to put butts in the seats. I chose the stories that I thought would interest the most people for the longest period of time. We decided whether to do stories based on time constraints, content and estimated viewer interest. Corporate ideology was never considered or mentioned.
I fail to see how the media played any particular role in the 1980 “October Surprise.” And I fail to see any parallels between that election year and this one. (GWB hasn’t announced bin Laden’s capture yet . . .)