Each week, we cover the stories that are just left out of the US propaganda machine. News that the people in charge, the corporations and your government want keep from the public eye.
Agence France Presse:
"European NATO allies are to urge President Barack Obama to remove all remaining US nuclear weapons from European soil, as domestic pressure grows to rid its soil of outdated Cold War-era aerial bombs.
Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Norway will call 'in the coming weeks' for more than 200 American warheads, mostly stocked in Italy and Turkey, to be taken back, a spokesman for Prime Minister Yves Leterme told AFP.
A joint proposal by the five NATO members will demand 'that nuclear arms on European soil belonging to other NATO member states are removed.' Dominique Dehaene said.
Only the United States has nuclear arms stored in other NATO member states in Europe, he added."
-->Even NATO growing impatient with US nuclear aggressiveness around the globe? The US media, however, portrays the US as eager to reduce the threat of nuclear war. More PR brought to you from the Pentagon and the nuclear weapons industry.
"Here we go again. A report issued Thursday by the new Director General of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano, has injected new adrenalin into those arguing that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.
The usual suspects are hyping—and distorting—thin-gruel language in the report to 'prove' that Iran is hard at work on a nuclear weapon. The New York Times’ David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, for example, highlighted a sentence about 'alleged activities related to nuclear explosives,' which Amano says he wants to discuss with Iran.
Amano’s report said: “Addressing these issues is important for clarifying the Agency’s concerns about these activities and those described above, which seem to have continued beyond 2004.”
Sanger and Broad play up the 'beyond 2004' language as 'contradicting the American intelligence assessment…that concluded that work on a bomb was suspended at the end of 2003.' Other media have picked that up and run with it, apparently without bothering to read the IAEA report itself.
The Times article is, at best, disingenuous in claiming: 'The report cited new evidence, much of it collected in recent weeks, that appeared to paint a picture of a concerted drive in Iran toward a weapons capability.'"
-->What evidence? Judith Miller style reporting indicates that The New York Times is once again beating the drums of war, and this time for Obama.
"In the weeks before and after the Copenhagen climate change conference last December, the science of climate change came under harsh attack by critics who contend that climate scientists have deliberately suppressed evidence - and that the science itself is severely flawed...
The fact is that the critics - who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks - are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill...
Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organizations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulfur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing 'acid rain.' Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too."
-->US media like The NY Times gives about equal coverage to the scientists warning us about global warming and debunkers paid for by Exxon Mobil. Corporate money just talks louder in this country. Maybe that is why the Supreme Court recently decided that corporations can pour their unlimited millions into national campaigns. America has the best media and election campaigns that money can buy.