Neocons Cry Foul Over Insignificant McCain-Iseman Story

Text size

Kurt Nimmo
Truth News
February 24, 2008




So afraid are the editors of the New York Times of "conservatives," i.e., neocons, they kept Judith Miller on staff to push for the invasion of Iraq, a war crime resulting thus far in the murder of over a million Iraqis.

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.




	Call it the "Britney Factor." The corporate media is more interested in tawdry sex scandals and meaningless chaff about celebrities than delivering news about relevant and important issues.

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.

Comment Rules

2 Responses to “Neocons Cry Foul Over Insignificant McCain-Iseman Story”

shortround Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
he fucked her!
why wouldnt he
Ed of St. Lou Says:
February 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am
McCain according to Jack Wheeler has at least three mistresses. Viki Iseman is only one of them.
I suspect she’s a Mossad agent that is being used to bring McCain down. This is exactly what Monica Lewinsky was found out to be. She was inserted in the mix to bring Clinton down. The Mossad was monitoring the white house phone calls, and according to Chris Bollyn they had the software installed in the white house computer’s. We are being watched, and controlled by a foreign power. Congressman Robert Graham told Gwen Ifell that this foreign power was behind 9/11. He told Ifell that this information on who attacked us would be sealed away from the American people for thirty years. Now if this was one of the countries who the white house claims attacked us, it would never be hidden for thirty years. When we consider that over 200 Israeli spies were arrested on 9/11, and shortly after released and sent back to Israel. Also Steve Watson’s great article on the eight white vans, loaded with explosives that were all pulled over by the Brooklyn police, and the police discovered that these characters were not Muslim/Arabs but Israeli Mossad agents, with box cutters,etc. Remember the cover story on how these terrorists had box cutters? The only people caught with box cutters were Israeli’s. The Sarasota Newspaper mentioned that a group of MiddleEasterners went to the Hotel where Bush was staying. The spin is that this was a group of Muslims. But is it possible that theis was a group of Israeli’s. Muslims couldn’t have gotten close to the area, but surely Israeli’s could have. This is the part of the 9/11 story that no one ever brings ups. If Bush had been taken out that morning, then Richard Cheney would have taken over as President. Some believe that Cheney is a Jew. Remember that Cheney was protected by the Secret Service on that morning, but Bush wasn’t. He was jogging, and out in the open. He was not whisked away in a bunker like Cheney, but left in the School, reading a story about a goat. The Secret Service failed to act, this is obvious to anyone who has eyes to see.

An Assassination Attempt?

Bush awoke a little before 6:00 a.m. on September 11, pulled on shorts and an old T-shirt and laced up his running shoes. [CBS, 11/1/02] At 6:30 a.m., Bush, a reporter friend, and his Secret Service crew took a four-mile jog in the half-light of dawn around a nearby golf course. [Washington Post, 1/27/02, Washington Post, 09/11/01]

At about the same time Bush was getting ready for his jog, a van carrying several Middle Eastern men pulled up to the Colony’s guard station. The men said they were a television news crew with a scheduled “poolside” interview with the president. They asked for a certain Secret Service agent by name. The message was relayed to a Secret Service agent inside the resort, who hadn’t heard of the agent mentioned or of plans for an interview. He told the men to contact the president’s public relations office in Washington, DC, and had the van turned away. [Longboat Observer, 9/26/01]

——————————————————————————–
How the Clintons will undo McCain

——————————————————————————–
Posted: February 04, 2008

by Jack Wheeler. In Part:

According to T, they reveal that McCain had made an “accommodation” with his captors, and in exchange, T’s father saw that he was provided with an apartment in Hanoi and the services of two prostitutes. Upon returning to his prison cell, he would say he had been held in solitary confinement. That may be why so many of his fellow prisoners said later they saw so little of him at Hoa Loa.

When the time is right, the Clintons will see to the leaking of the GRU archives on McCain to the media. Bet on it, just as you can bet they’ll follow it up with media disclosures of the lady lobbyists in Washington having adulterous affairs with McCain. (There are at least three of them; I know the name of one, but I’m not going to put it in writing.)

Maybe McCain will try to fight back by confirming Hillary’s well-known bisexuality and her lesbian affair with her beautiful assistant, Huma Abedin. Google “Hillary” and “Huma Abedin,” and you’ll get almost 6,000 hits. Turns out Huma is a Muslim who grew up in Saudi Arabia and is strongly suspected of working for Saudi intelligence.

Or maybe he’ll capitulate to Clinton blackmail. You never can tell what a psychologically unstable guy will do.

If McCain does get in office, and makes Joe Lieberman Vice President, how long will it be that McCain is eliminated, by the same forces that were behind 9/11.