I recently commented here regarding the Wikileaks media brouhaha and the NY Times’ involvement in it:
Here’s an interesting question for y’all.
Why is the NY Times promoting this Wikileaks thing?
The NY Times. The paper of untruthful truthiness for the left wing of the US right wing corporate ownership.
Sheer journalistic integrity?
Please.
Only in Alice’s Wonderland. After Judith Miller, the runup to the Iraq War and 50 years of faithful bullshit in the service of the PermaGov and its plots and secrets?
Please.
C’mon.
Naivete squared.
My own take?
They are part of the Obama no-run setup for 2012. The powers that they represent are setting up a third party candidate (or at the very least a DemRat replacement…H. Clinton and M. Bloomberg are my best bets right now) that will run on a platform of “Throw alla dem bums and/or incompetents out!!!”.
Wikileaks thoroughly trashes both the Obama and Bush regimes.
It also throws some bad light on Ms. Clinton, which leans me in the direction of Mr. Bloomberg (Support for Israel, anyone? From the NY Times? Duh.), but a strong media whitewash would get her fences clean enough for the 2012 election as well.
Watch.
Whatever any part of the mainstream powermedia publicizes…do not believe its aims. Truth can be used for fiction.
Bet on it.
Assange is beng used…probably w/out his cooperation although in a John LeCarre world transposed to the digital universe anything is possible…to set up the ducks in a perfect row.
Soon…
The game begins anew.
Watch.
AG
Round II?
Read on.
In today’s NY Times:
Bloomberg Critiques Economic Policies
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Wednesday unleashed a blunt and stinging critique of the federal government’s handling of the economic recovery, saying that lawmakers from both parties have “abdicated their responsibility” in favor of partisan bickering, have vilified success in corporate America and have left the country lagging behind its international competitors.
In a long and sweeping speech, Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire media mogul, offered a wide-ranging plan for reigniting entrepreneurship and growth, calling for tax cuts for businesses, an overhaul of regulations and investments in job training.
Many of his proposals, like immigration reform, are not new and the New York City mayor’s ability to hasten their passage is untested. But at a time when the White House and Congress are struggling to reach consensus on how to tackle a stubbornly high unemployment rate, it was Mr. Bloomberg’s harsh assessment of Washington politics and his call for centrist problem solving that proved most striking.
“Last month, voters turned against Democrats in Washington for the same reason they turned against Republicans in 2006,” Mr. Bloomberg told a gathering of city business leaders at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. “Democrats now, and Republicans then, spent more time and energy conducting partisan warfare than forging centrist solutions to our toughest economic problems.”
The speech, far-reaching in scope and language, and delivered with much fanfare along the Brooklyn waterfront, instantly intensified speculation about the mayor’s political ambitions, whether it was intended to or not.
Mr. Bloomberg, 68, the nation’s most prominent and wealthiest independent politician, has repeatedly ruled out running for president in 2012, saying his chances of victory are too slim. His speech, however, suggested that he is determined to harness the media spotlight and influence the political discourse in the run-up to that election.
He will follow up on Sunday with an appearance on “Meet the Press,” and, next week, plans to attend an event for a group that is in the formative stages called No Labels, which is trying to appeal to disaffected Democrats and Republicans, and perhaps even seeking to become a third party in the next election.
With the skyline of Lower Manhattan as a backdrop, the mayor promoted his own successes in New York, and offered a set of six sober, centrist solutions the country’s economic problems, dismissing what he described as the flawed, overly simplified ideologies of the left and the right.
“Despite what ideologues on the left believe,” he said, “government cannot tax and spend its way back to prosperity, especially when that spending is driven by pork barrel politics.”
“And despite what ideologues on the right believe,” Mr. Bloomberg said, “government should not stand aside and wait for the business cycle to run its natural course. That would be intolerable.”
He said that Congress and the Obama administration needed to pump money into job placement services like those the Bloomberg administration has opened across New York City, which he said have helped tens of thousands of residents find work; promote foreign trade with emerging economies like India that want to invest in the American economy; and simplify federal regulations, especially those surrounding derivatives, which Mr. Bloomberg said had created uncertainty in the market, and made businesses reluctant to invest.
Mr. Bloomberg reserved his strongest language for elected officials in Washington. He said they had indulged in partisanship rather than common sense to tackle complex economic problems.
“Both parties follow the mood of the moment — instead of leading from the front,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “They incite anger instead of addressing it — for their own partisan interests. They tell the world about every real or imagined problem in America, and not what is right with America. Especially in these tough times, we need our leaders to inspire the whole country, not criticize half of it.”
As he has in the past, Mr. Bloomberg defended corporations — and, implicitly, Wall Street — whose success, he said, has become a liability in the wake of the economic crisis of 2008, when the federal government offered emergency loans to big banks and the automobile industry.
“It’s time to take a step back,” he said, “and ask ourselves, `When did success become a bad word in America?’ “
Watch.
“When did success become a bad word in America?”
I dunno…when was John D. Rockefeller (and the rest of the nasty, murderous hustlers to whom the NY Times would now refer as “criminal oligarchs” were they contemporary Russians) busily playing Monopoly with the American continent?
When?
Right about then, Mike.
Right about then.
AG
