Conservatives are 'in the ascendancy' now

[Cees Binkhorst]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

In de Volkskrant van vandaag een artikel door Stephen Pelletiere (ex-
CIA en ex-hoogleraar Militaire Academie) over Koerden in Irak, die in
1988 niet door Irakezen, maar door Iraniers zouden zijn omgebracht
met chemische wapens (mosterdgas).

http://zoek.volkskrant.nl/artikel?text=halabja&FDOC=0&SORT=presence&PR
D=2y&SEC=%2A&ADOC=0 (betalen voor gebruik link)
- Forum - dinsdag 11 februari 2003 (Opinie, 838 woorden)
... harde bewijs dat keer op keer wordt genoemd is de gasaanval tegen
de Koerdische stad Halabja in maart 1988, aan het einde van de oorlog
tussen Irak en Iran. - Maar het enige dat we ...


Een ander artikel van zijn hand:
http://www.alhewar.org/SEPTEMBER%2011/role_of_the_media.htm
Stephen Pelletiere brought his expertise to a discussion of the media
at a 13 September 2001 Center lecture (twee dagen na ...)
[knip]
Pelletiere urged the public to “pay special attention” to the fact
that journalists who are focusing on these stories and opinions are
conservative, as are the newspapers publishing them, mainly The New
York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. The
line between news and opinion has become blurred, mainly through the
op-ed pages of the newspapers. “Spurious” ideas start there and then
filter into the news. This is not only the case regarding
Israel/Palestine, but with other issues as well. The role of the
press is to “serve special interests.” Pelletiere urged those
concerned with these issues to confront to media. The “peace movement
faced the same challenges” in the 1960s and managed to overcome them.
They can be overcome now as well, “but it does take innovative
thinking.”

“There is a cadre [in the government] that knows what’s going on” and
who are “fairly astute,” but if their opinions are heard at all, they
are labeled “alternative.” During his work with the army and Central
Intelligence Agency, Pelletiere met those like him who had
alternative viewpoints but “never got a hearing until there was a
crisis,” such as during Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

Despite his encouragement of innovative thinking, Pelletiere was
keenly aware of the challenges involved. As he explained,
conservatives are “in the ascendancy” now. He already sees trends
developing following Tuesday’s attack. These trends include the
perceptions that: (1) “We’re at war.” (2) America will never again be
the same. However, Pelletiere asserted, “I don’t think we’re any
different” than before. The U.S. is still nearing a recession, the
information technology industry is still failing, President Bush is
still untested. (3) Osama bin Laden is guilty of the attack.
Pelletiere does not believe bin Laden had the resources to organize
such a campaign, but whether or not he is guilty, the U.S. will use
him as a scapegoat. (4) The United States will likely attack
Afghanistan. The administration is already preparing the public for
it through news coverage and government briefings.

This is “not a classic conspiracy,” Pelletiere pointed out.
Government and media leaders do not get together and decide what
these “lines” or trends will be. Rather, there is a “distillation
process” from “thinks tanks” and policy institutes. Certain
approaches seem more plausible than others, are repeated often
enough, and are easier to defend than other arguments, and they
become the “line.” Pelletiere also urged the audience to watch the
stock market and observe how it affects U.S. policies. The only times
he has witnessed “real changes made” were when business interests
were affected. As for what the U.S. leadership will do now,
Pelletiere said, “All they want to do is get themselves through this
period. If it develops into a real exploitation where the
administration begins to single out certain areas for repression-then
we’re in for a very bad period. I don’t see any signs of that now.”
Nonetheless, “there’s a tradition of using incidents like this... to
point American society into a very conservative direction.” This has
occurred “over and over again” in the past. “Whether that will happen
this time, I don’t think anyone has a way of knowing, but it’s a
possibility.”

Groet,

Cees

Twee kleine stukjes uit een hele pagina 'Bonbons voor de ziel' over
o.a. Spinoza & Descartes van Ellen de Bruin in de NRC van 5 januari
2003:
Spinoza beweerde dat het begrijpen en het geloven van een bewering
identiek zijn, dat mensen een bewering dus altijd in eerste instantie
accepteren (want dat komt automatisch met het lezen of horen mee) en
dat ze haar pas daarna, als ze denken dat het toch niet klopt, actief
verwerpen. Volgens Spinoza kunnen mensen onware beweringen die ze
hebben gelezen, alleen verwerpen als ze daar tijd en aandacht voor
hebben, zei Gilbert (Cees: Daniel Gilbert sociaal psycholoog
Universiteit van Texas), begin jaren negentig; anders blijven ze ze
geloven, hoe duidelijk het ook is dat ze onwaar zijn.

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********