How Former Treasury Officials and the UAE Are Manipulating American Journalists
A bizarre neocon/ Israel/ Gulf-dictator coalition is now driving not only U.S. policy but U.S. discourse, as well, aided by ex U.S. officials.
(updated below [Fri.] – Update II [Fri.])
The tiny and very rich Persian Gulf emirate of Qatar has become a hostile target for two nations with significant influence in the U.S.: Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Israel is furious over Qatar’s support for Palestinians generally and (allegedly) Hamas specifically, while the UAE is upset that Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (UAE supports the leaders of the military coup) and that Qatar funds Islamist rebels in Libya (UAE supports forces aligned with Ghadaffi (see update below)).
This animosity has resulted in a new campaign in the west to demonize the Qataris as the key supporter of terrorism. The Israelis have chosen the direct approach of publicly accusing their new enemy in Doha of being terrorist supporters, while the UAE has opted for a more covert strategy: paying millions of dollars to a U.S. lobbying firm – composed of former high-ranking Treasury officials from both parties – to plant anti-Qatar stories with American journalists. That more subtle tactic has been remarkably successful, and shines important light on how easily political narratives in U.S. media discourse can be literally purchased.
This murky anti-Qatar campaign was first referenced by a New York Times article two weeks ago by David Kirkpatrick, which reported that “an unlikely alignment of interests, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Israel” is seeking to depict Doha as “a godfather to terrorists everywhere” (Qatar vehemently denies the accusation). One critical component of that campaign was mentioned in passing:
The United Arab Emirates have retained an American consulting firm, Camstoll Group, staffed by several former United States Treasury Department officials. Its public disclosure forms, filed as a registered foreign agent, showed a pattern of conversations with journalists who subsequently wrote articles critical of Qatar’s role in terrorist fund-raising.
How that process worked is fascinating, and its efficacy demonstrates how American public perceptions and media reports are manipulated with little difficulty.
The Camstoll Group was formed on November 26, 2012. Its key figures are all former senior Treasury Department officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations whose responsibilities included managing the U.S. government’s relationships with Persian Gulf regimes and Israel, as well as managing policies relating to funding of designated terrorist groups. Most have backgrounds as neoconservative activists. Two of the Camstoll principals, prior to their Treasury jobs, worked with one of the country’s most extremist neocon anti-Muslim activists, Steve Emerson.
Camstoll’s founder, CEO and sole owner, Matthew Epstein, was a Treasury Department official from 2003 through 2010, a run that included a position as the department’s Financial Attaché to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. A 2007 diplomatic cable leaked by Chelsea Manning and published by WikiLeaks details Epstein’s meetings with high-level Abu Dhabi representatives as they plotted to cut off Iran’s financial and banking transactions. Those cables reveal multiple high-level meetings between Epstein in his capacity as a Treasury official and high-level officials of the Emirates, officials who are now paying his company millions of dollars to act as its agent inside the U.S.
Prior to his Treasury appointment by the Bush administration, Epstein was a neoconservative activist, writing articles for National Review and working with Emerson’s aggressively anti-Muslim Investigative Project (Epstein’s published resume omits his work with Emerson). His pre-Treasury work for Emerson’s group, obsessed with The Muslim Threat Within, presaged Peter King’s 2011 anti-Muslim witch hunts.
In 2003, for instance, Epstein told the U.S. Senate that “large sections of the institutional Islamic leadership in America do not support U.S. counterterrorism policy” and that “the radicalization of the Islamic political leadership in the United States has developed parallel to the radicalization of the Islamic leadership worldwide, sharing a conspiratorial view that Muslims in the United States are being persecuted on the basis of their religion and an acceptance that violence in the name of Islam is justified.” He declared: “the rise of militant Islamic leadership in the United States requires particular attention if we are to succeed in the War on Terror.”
Camstoll’s Managing Director, Howard Mendelsohn, was Acting Assistant Secretary of Treasury, where he also had ample policy responsibilities involving the Emirates; a 2010 WikiLeaks cable details how he “met with senior officials from the UAE’s State Security Department (SSD) and Dubai’s General Department of State Security (GDSS)” to coordinate disruption of Taliban financing. Another Managing Director, Benjamin Schmidt, worked with Epstein at Emerson’s Investigative Project before his own appointment to Treasury; a 2009 diplomatic cable shows him working with Israel on controlling financing to Palestinians. A Camstoll director, Benjamin Davis, was the Treasury Department’s Financial Attaché in Jerusalem.
On December 2, 2012 – less than a week after Camstoll was incorporated – it entered into a lucrative, open-ended consulting contract with an entity wholly owned by the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, Outlook Energy Investments, LLC (its Emir, the President of UAE, is pictured above). A week later, Camstoll registered as a foreign agent working on behalf of the Emirate. The consultancy agreement calls for Camstoll to be paid a monthly fee of $400,000, wired each month into a Camstoll account. Two weeks after it was formed, Camstoll was paid by the Emirates entity a retainer fee of $4.3 million, and then another $3.2 million in 2013.
In other words, a senior Treasury official responsible for U.S. policy toward the Emirates leaves the U.S. government and forms a new lobbying company, which is then instantly paid millions of dollars by the very same country for which he was responsible, all to use his influence, access and contacts for its advantage. The UAE spends more than any other country in the world to influence U.S. policy and shape domestic debate, and it pays former high-level government officials who worked with it – such as Epstein and his company – to carry out its agenda within the U.S.
What did Camstoll do for these millions of dollars? They spent enormous of amounts of time cajoling friendly reporters to plant anti-Qatar stories, and they largely succeeded. Their strategy was clear: target neocon/pro-Israel writers such as the Daily Beast‘s Eli Lake, Free Beacon‘s Alana Goodman, Iran-contra convict Elliott Abrams, The Washington Post‘s Jennifer Rubin, and American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Rubin – all eager to promote the Qatar-funds-terrorists line being pushed by Israel. They also targeted establishment media figures such as CNN’s Erin Burnett, Reuters’ Mark Hosenball, and The Washington Post‘s Joby Warrick.
In the latter half of 2013, Camstoll reported 15 separate contacts with Lake, all on behalf of UAE’s agenda; in the month of December alone, there were 10 separate contacts with Goodman. They also spoke multiple times with Warrick. At the same time, they were speaking on behalf of their Emirates client with their former colleagues who were still working as high-level Treasury officials, including Kate Bauer, the Treasury Department’s Emirates-based Financial Attaché, and Deputy Assistant Secretary Danny McGlynn.
In the first half of 2014, as the Emirates attack on Qatar intensified, Camstoll spoke multiple times with Lake, Hosenball, and Erin Burnett’s CNN show “Out Front,” and had conversations with Goodman and the NYT‘s David Kirkpatrick. They continued to meet with high-level Treasury officials as well, including Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing Daniel Glaser (highlights added):
This work paid dividends for the UAE. In June, when the Obama administration announced a plan to release Guantanamo detainees to Qatar, Lake published a widely cited Daily Beast article depicting Qatar as friends of the terrorists; it quoted anonymous officials as claiming that “many wealthy individuals in Qatar are raising money for jihadists in Syria every day” and “we also know that we have sent detainees to them before, and their security services have magically lost track of them.” Lake himself pronounced that “Qatar’s track record is troubling” and that “the emirate is a good place to raise money for terrorist organizations.”
He then went on Fox News and said that “there still is a major issue with just terrorist financing in Qatar” and that in Doha there are “individuals who are roaming free who have raised a lot of money for al Qaeda, Hamas and other groups like that.”
Meanwhile, CNN sent Burnett to Doha where she broadcast a “special report” entitled: “Is Qatar a haven for terror funding”? CNN touted it as “an in-depth look into the people funding Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-linked groups, including ISIS.” She began her report by noting that “the terror group ISIS is committing atrocities in Iraq. The Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki blames Saudi Arabia and Qatar for providing ISIS militants with money and weapons.” She then put on a source, former Bush deputy national security adviser and Treasury official Juan Zarate, to say that “Qatar is at the center of this. Qatar has now taken its place in the lead of countries that are supporting al Qaeda and al Qaeda-related groups.”
On camera, Burnett asked her source: “So how high up in the government in Qatar does the support for Islamic extremism for these al Qaeda-linked groups go?” The answer: “Well, these are decisions made at the top. So Qatar operates as a monarchy. Its officials, its activities follow the orders of the government. And to the extent that there’s a policy of supporting extremists in the region, that’s a policy that comes from the top.” She then brought on the GOP Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Michael McCaul, and asked whether he agrees that “money out of Qatar could end up being used to fuel the ambition, the dream, of attacks against the United States directly,” and he quickly said he did.
Camstoll’s work with the Post‘s Warrick also proved quite productive. Camstoll spoke with Warrick on December 17, 2013. The very next day, the Post reporter published an article stating that “private Qatar-based charities have taken a more prominent role in recent weeks in raising cash and supplies for Islamist extremists in Syria, according to current and former U.S. and Middle Eastern officials.”
Camstoll representatives spoke again with Warrick on December 20 and December 21. The day after, he published another more accusatory article citing “increasing U.S. concern about the role of Qatari individuals and charities in supporting extreme elements within Syria’s rebel alliance” and linking the Qatari royal family to a professor and U.S. foreign policy critic alleged by the U.S. government to be “working secretly as a financier for al-Qaeda.”
As one of his sources, Warrick in the first of his articles cited “a former U.S. official who specialized in tracking Gulf-based jihadist movements and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because much of his work for the government was classified.” That perfectly describes several Camstoll Group members, though Warrick did not respond to questions from The Intercept about whether this anonymous source was indeed a paid agent of the UAE working at Camstoll.
Also on Camstoll’s list of journalistic contacts was Kirkpatrick, who produced the article in the NYT two weeks ago headlined “Qatar’s Support of Islamists Alienates Allies Near and Far.” It noted that Qatar “has tacitly consented to open fund-raising” for Al Qaeda affiliates.
But unlike all the other reports helpfully produced by Camstoll’s journalistic allies, Kirkpatrick expressly described, and cast skeptical light on, the concerted campaign to focus on Qatar, not only mentioning Camstoll’s behind-the-scenes work but also reporting that “Qatar is finding itself under withering attack by an unlikely alignment of interests, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Israel, which have all sought to portray it as a godfather to terrorists everywhere.” Kirkpatrick also noted that “some in Washington have accused it of directly supporting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,” a claim he called “implausible and unsubstantiated.”
In response to questions from The Intercept about Camstoll’s role in his reporting, Lake refused to answer any questions, stating: “I don’t talk about how I do my reporting. I meet with many representatives and officials of foreign governments in the course of my job.” (So many journalists pride themselves on demanding transparency and accountability from others while adopting a posture of absolute secrecy for their own work that would make even a Pentagon spokesperson blush: “I don’t talk about how I do my reporting”). Goodman similarly said: “as I’m sure you understand, I can’t discuss my private conversations with contacts.” Camstoll’s contacts with Goodman and Hosenball appear to have produced no identifiable reports. Camstoll, Warwick, and Hosenball all provided no response to questions from The Intercept.
The point here is not that Qatar is innocent of supporting extremists. Nor is it a reflection on any inappropriate conduct by the journalists, who are taking information from wherever they can get it (although one would certainly hope that, as Kirkpatrick did, they would make clear what the agenda and paid campaign behind this narrative is).
The point is that this coordinated media attack on Qatar – using highly paid former U.S. officials and their media allies – is simply a weapon used by the Emirates, Israel, the Saudis and others to advance their agendas. Kirkpatrick explained: “propelling the barrage of accusations against Qatar is a regional contest for power in which competing Persian Gulf monarchies have backed opposing proxies in contested places like Gaza, Libya and especially Egypt.” As political science professor As’ad AbuKhalil wrote this week about conflicts in Syria and beyond, “the two Wahhabi regimes [Saudi Arabia and Qatar] are fighting over many issues but they both wish to speak on behalf of political Islam.”
What’s misleading isn’t the claim that Qatar funds extremists but that they do so more than other U.S. allies in the region (a narrative implanted at exactly the time Qatar has become a key target of Israel and the Emirates). Indeed, some of Qatar’s accusers here do the same to at least the same extent, and in the case of the Saudis, far more so. As Kirkpatrick noted: “Qatar is hardly the only gulf monarchy to allow open fund-raising by sheikhs that the United States government has linked to Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, the Nusra Front: Sheikh Ajmi and most of the others are based in Kuwait and readily tap donors in Saudi Arabia, sometimes even making their pitches on Saudi- and Kuwaiti-owned television networks.”
One U.S. government cable from 2009, also published by WikiLeaks, identified Saudi Arabia, not Qatar, as the greatest danger in this regard:
Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.
The writer of that cable complained that “it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.”
Prior to his appointment as a Treasury official – and before he began working as a paid agent of the UAE to finger Qatar as the key threat – Camstoll’s founder and CEO, Epstein, himself fingered Saudis as the key financiers of Al Qaeda and anti-American terrorism. His 2003 Senate testimony included this statement: “the Saudi Wahhabists have bankrolled a series of Islamic institutions in the United States that actively seek to undermine U.S. counterterrorism policy at home and abroad”; he added: “in the United States, the Saudi Wahhabis regularly subsidize the organizations and individuals adhering to the militant ideology espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood and its murderous offshoots Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda, all three of which are designated terrorist.”
While the 2009 cable claimed claimed that “Qatar’s overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region,” it said this was “out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals.” But the cable also identified other U.S. allies in the region as key conduits for terrorist financing, stating, for instance, that “Al-Qa’ida and other groups continue to exploit Kuwait both as a source of funds and as a key transit point.” It also heavily implicated the Emirates themselves: “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups, including al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups, including Hamas.”
One of the most critical points illustrated by all of this tawdry influence-peddling is the alignment driving so much of US policy in that region. The key principals of Camstoll have hard-core neoconservative backgrounds. Here they are working hand in hand with neocon journalists to publicly trash a new enemy of Israel, in service of the agenda of Gulf dictators. This is the bizarre neocon/Israel/Gulf-dictator coalition now driving not only U.S. policy but, increasingly, U.S. discourse as well.
Margot Williams and Andrew Fishman contributed additional reporting
Photo: Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, president of the United Arab Emirates (Murat Cetinmuhurdar/Turkish Presidency Press Office/AP)
UPDATE [Fri.]: It’s obviously ancillary to the article, but several people have raised valid objections about the claim here that the forces in Libya now being supported by the UAE are accurately characterized as Gadaffi loyalists, arguing that the UAE supported anti-Gadaffi rebels during the NATO intervention and many they now support are still opposed to Gadaffi loyalists. The evidence for the original reference is found in articles such as this one, describing how those UAE-supported factions are fighting with “many pro-Gaddafi prisoners” who have been released. But those raising the question are right that the description is an over-simplification about the groups fighting in Libya who are supported by the UAE. The important point is that Qatar and the UAE are supporting different factions, but it’s more complex than the phrase “supports forces aligned with Ghadaff” suggested.
UPDATE II [Fri.]: Prior to publication of this article, Lake categorically refused to talk about his reporting in response to questions from The Intercept (“I don’t talk about how I do my reporting”). He has now apparently changed his mind, claiming today on Twitter:
I spoke to no camstoll officials for this piece http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/05/u-s-spies-worry-qatar-will-magically-lose-track-of-released-taliban.html … as @ggreenwald implies in his piece.
Lake does not deny the more-than-a-dozen contacts with Camstoll, nor, when asked, would he deny that he spoke with them about Qatari funding of or support for terrorism prior to his article (indeed, he expressly said he is not denying that). Nor has he contested any of the specific claims actually made here. Everyone should review the evidence presented – both here and in Kirkpatrick’s original NYT article – and decide for themselves what it shows.
“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”-Patrick Henry
Another great Greenwald piece. Biased news sources are becoming the 1%’s best way to mislead us.
Hi GG and others,
In anticipation of meeting you on 10/25, I want you to have the whole story in case the NSA prevented you from getting it when I uploaded it this summer. It is now here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/241300461/Freeing-My-Mind
Thank you,
David Vognar
An interesting article, but in reality whereas the media complex has acknowledged sending articles directly to the White House for vetting, this expose’ seems a bit inane. Further, when every Department of the Executive Branch has embedded nonprofit personnel, whom btw are being funded with federal taxpayer money, this article borders on insipid. One might research the political appointments within the EPA and say the Sierra Club, and one will understand just how unrepresented the interests of the TaxPayers truly are. The same can be found with the various civil rights sections of the various Departments, say for instance HUD, and its Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Again, nonprofits embedded into this section, even training the civil rights investigators on how the nonprofits believe fair housing law/regulations should be interpreted and consequently how funding should be allocated. Finally, a slight sneer developed with the “neocon” bloody rag waving, meant to stroke the believers of a cabal usually meaning subservient to the Joooos. If you don’t want corruption and influence peddling, you might want to work toward ending grant money averaging $600 billion per annum, and while you’re at it, start cutting these Department’s budgets enough that their paper work alone will hamper their abilities to infect their office with so much Empire delusions of grandeur. Personally, I ‘d be more interested in an analysis of just how much do the interests of the Israeli and Wahabbists SA gov’ts intersect, and why fellow Wahabbists Quater is on the outs.
Obsequious was the word that came to mind as I read this article. Before you go calling me names, I had to look it up as I had never used it before and was unsure of it’s meaning. Surprise, surprise, surprise. It is exactly the correct word for our MSM(we have to think of another acronym) and their relationship to anyone who has an exciting headline. There’s little fact checking and no investigative journalism left in the MSM(sigh).
Just call it what it is, Corporate Media, or MegaCorp Media. Most large corps own each other. It’s not about conspiracy, it’s about conglomeration into one big brainless enemy of humans and other breathing Earthlings.
Hong Kong should have quietly handed us Snowden. Then they would never have all these sponsored protests now. Some people refuse to learn from others.
How about them Pro-Fascist Israel, anti – Islam propaganda posters on the NYC busses ?Designed to fan the flames of domestic mistrust and division- incite violence and stroke the egos of zionist bankers.
But your post isn’t??
Trolling for Stratfor ?
Mr. Greenwald,
Thank you so much. We love you!
Corky
PS I’ve seen about one small typo per article, as in this one. Just a note from a typo OCD person…..
Rabid Zionist hatred and violence against perceived “leftists” is growing increasingly alarming in Israel. From an op-ed in today’s NYT:
Zionists like our own Craig Summers have long deployed “leftist” against critics of Israel, using it in the same manner others hurl “Nazi” as an epithet. In Israel, this incitement is now (or, again) turning violent. Jews, especially younger ones, who are left-of-center, are fleeing the country in the thousands. It is becoming almost as dangerous to be designated “far left” in Israel as it was in Germany c. 1933.
Entire op-ed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/opinion/how-israel-silences-dissent.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytopinion&_r=0
Mona, you are the rabid hater I’m afraid. What you are talking about has happened about two month ago, during protests that were hampered first by alarms sending everyone, left and right, running for shelter. The responses of the Israeli mainstream media to the violence you mention was mostly shock and dismay. I’m a leftist and I’m worried about what I saw and heard during this war both from right wing protesters but more about the police and government, but let us not get too confused – the thousands fleeting are still Syrians being slaughtered by whoever it is, funded by Qatar or UAE or Saudi Arabia. The Israeli young are leaving Israel not because of left-right issues but because of the Hamas and Hizballa missiles and the crazy neo-liberal economic policy that has been ruining the middle classes and creating U.S like gaps between rich and poor since 1996.
The article this link by Max Fisher, which deals with another aspect of American media failure, adds something to the theme of Glenn’s article.
It’s a distraction and also to somehow add credibility to the bombing. It’s odd too because women can’t vote or even drive a car in the UAE. I have never understood why a woman’s right of passage for equal citizenship requires her to participate in all the violent acts men do. What about the women’s voices against war? Where are the accolades for them? Can the media not find one prominent Arab woman who is speaking out against war in general?
The American media are shamelessly taking the bait again.
I’m sorry, I will have to say you are very much wrong about women cannot vote in UAE or drive. Do some research before you assume! ok ? I lived in UAE more than 15 years. I’ve seen many female leaders, drivers, they are allowed to work and they are allowed to vote. ok ?? dont BS ok?
I’m sorry, I meant Saudi Arabia on driving and voting. And in the UAE, women are only allowed to vote in special circumstance, but generally women do not have the same voting rights as men. Partial voting rights are no voting rights at all as far as I’m concerned. Women also can’t inherit as much as men when the parents pass on because women are still not considered a whole person in the UAE.
And people in the UAE and Saudi Arabia can still get their heads lopped off for being gay.
So no former US official should be doing the bidding for countries with such poor human rights records. It’s disgusting!
Once upon a time in any of those countries in the Middle East you could drop your wallet on the street and come back the next day to find it. After that the Pakistanis arrived for jobs.
Kitt
“……there have been many rounds of congratulations and chest-thumping in the United States over this triumph of feminism and humiliation of ISIS……”
There is no question that this is a triumph of feminism, but it is hard to feel any pity for the “humiliation” of ISIS. After all, they have been murdering and ethnically cleansing Iraqis for quite some time (worse than humiliating). They haven’t exactly been emulating Amnesty International in Syria either. In fact, ISIS is even making Assad look much better to some although secular murder seems to end with the same result (IMO). I guess, I don’t understand why you (or anyone) would even care if ISIS was humiliated – or just fucking bombed into the stone age.
Thanks Kitt.
The article isn’t about the humiliation of ISIS. If you read it, you know that. Your comment is just fake ragging about nothing.
I didn’t read it, but you highlighted that section – for what reason??
You have what I will call a bad habit of not clicking links to articles and then reading the articles that you comment on. I didn’t “highlight” that section, I block quoted it for the purpose of giving a peak into what is written and can be seen if one were to bother to click on the link. It happens to be a part of the opening paragraph, which made it less labor intensive to refer to the link. Since you consider clicking a link to be labor intensive you should understand that.
It still doesn’t explain why you picked that particular passage of the article which appears sympathetic to ISIS. I wouldn’t link to anything unless I was making a point. So what is your point for linking to this particular passage?? I’m just curious.
I don’t post comments with the lowest common denominator of readers in mind. So I’ll continue to disregard any “advice” from you.
You’re not welcome Craig.
This has nothing to do with the article – and has everything to do with why you highlighted this particular quote in the article. That was your decision apparently to make a point.
I already answered the question. I have no control or say over how obtuse you are or choose to be.
“……I have no control or say over how obtuse you are or choose to be…..”
No. You are avoiding the issue, but never mind. I wouldn’t highlight a passage that shows apparent sympathy for brutal Islamic terrorists and call it another “aspect of American media failure”. You might try a qualifier next time if you don’t believe the passage which you quoted.
Thanks kitt
Kitt also “highlighted” that the article was by Vox’s Max Fisher. As a politically literate person I, therefore, knew how to interpret Fisher’s use of the word “humiliate.” It is outside the bounds of reality that Max Fisher is sympathetic to ISIS. And, indeed, he is not objecting to smashing ISIS; his point is the troubling, triumphalist racism in constant heralding the fact of a female Arab bomber to undertake said smashing.
This is empty tokenism, it’s not a triumph for feminism. Who cares if a single female can kill for the UAE?
There will never be a serious challenge to the support the Saudis give to militant groups. Bush 41, 43, Clinton and the Department of State have created a culture of looking the other way to ensure the steady flow of oil. Saudi Arabia is the major player in OPEC and can in an instant slash oil production and set the price of oil globally–sending western industrialized nations into a depression.
It’s also no surprise that former American officials can be easily bought to drive the narrative against the Saudis’ and AUE’s competition. What’s sad is that this is not a surprise.
Actually Qatar is on a more positive trend of tolerance towards western thought than the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Georgetown University has an extension school there; women in Qatar can vote, run for office and even drive…none of these basic rights are afforded to women in the countries represented by this newly formed American propaganda machine.
The Saudis still perform beheadings at the onset of soccer games — while beheadings in Qatar have been non existent for many years. Female genital mutilation also rages on in the UAE and Saudi Arabia while it is on a steady decline in Qatar. I’m not saying that Qatar is a model of human rights, but they are nit nearly as bad as the Saudis or the UAE, or the even the US. We lost any inkling of credibility we might have had at Abu Ghraib and in our drone wars that have killed far too many innocent people, including women and babies.
STOP KILLING BABIES FOR OIL!
#BlockTheBoat again, in coordination with Longshoremen, succeeded in stopping Israeli Zim vessel cargo ship from docking at Port of Oakland this morning. This is one of the more successful activist campaigns I’ve seen in some while.
Bay Area Activists Again Prevent Unloading of Israeli Ship
“Labor and Palestine solidarity activists in the San Francisco Bay Area came together again in the pre-dawn hours of Saturday morning to greet a cargo ship from the Israeli line Zim at the Port of Oakland.”
Nice to see the Intercept is up and running full steam, and this was a good post by Greenwald.
I would just like to point out that there are no journalists in the mainstream media. The MSM exists for propaganda proposes and for the furtherance of power and control by the central government and its minions. It is true that sometimes one might be fooled into thinking that some mainstream outlet has “let the cat out of the bag” on some issue or the other, but it is all part of the overall game plan — just like making people think that there is a dime’s worth of difference in the two major political parties in the USA.
There are a few real journalists working in the “alternative” news outlets or blogging on their own, but even that source of journalism is far smaller than one would think at first as some “independent journalists” are doing propaganda themselves.
All in all, it is amazing how much people think they know that is, in fact, not true at all. Such is our world today.
Seems just a wee bit over-generalized. This is a partial list of media venues that Staff of The Intercept have previously either written or spoken on or for exclusively, or have been published on or in, or have appeared on:
The Guardian, Salon, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker, New York Times Magazine, Talking Points Memo, The Huffington Post, Gawker, Wired, The Atlantic, Alternet, CNN, MSNBC, Democracy Now, Chicago Tribune, Mother Jones, Yahoo News, Rolling Stone.com, Rolling Stone, The Village Voice, Slate, Sydney Morning Herald, The Financial Times, The Independent, The New Statesman, The Globe and Mail, NPR, Columbia Journalism Review, ProPublica, Al Jazeera America, RT, theGrio.
So these people used to work at the propaganda sites you mention? You must have not read the part where I wrote: “as some “independent journalists” are doing propaganda themselves” … but of all the misguided people that might have responded to me you would have been my first guess. Good to see some people never change.
Staff of The Intercept
This was not a “post” this was a well sourced news story. This is not a blog, Mark, it’s a news site staffed by experienced reporters.
I think one simple way to see this is that America’s imperial vassal’s are turning against each other for favors, with each worrying that he’ll be next on America’s target so better be his neighbour instead.
I’ve always felt that sooner or later the US empire will turn on its friends when it’s done using them.
Mr. Greenwald
“…….Here they are working hand in hand with neocon journalists to publicly trash a new enemy of Israel, in service of the agenda of Gulf dictators [i.e., US allies]……” my brackets
According to your link to an article by the Times of Israel:
“……Qatar’s rationale — shared by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish leader — was that Islamist groups were proliferating and inevitably would play a role in the region, and therefore it was important for allies of Western nations to maintain ties……”
Of course, Turkey and Israel are not enjoying the best of relations. The idea that Qatar innocently funded Hamas with hundreds of millions of dollars for “reconstruction” in 2012 without expecting retribution from Israel is absurd. According to the same article, their falling out took place after Qatar backed Hamas after the 2007 coup in Gaza. Hamas is the number one enemy of Israel. So I don’t see Israel as doing anything wrong by protecting her interests – and Qatar clearly could foresee the problem. In addition, Qatar and Turkey also supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt who are vehemently opposed by the military of Egypt. Possibly Qatar is attempting to fight above her weight class also by taking on Saudi Arabia. There is a bit of ganging up on Qatar, but this was entirely predictable.
Regardless, outside of the parts Israel and the UAE are playing which (presumably) includes influencing neoconservative writers to post articles which support their interests over Qatar (like defunding Hamas, for example), there really isn’t much to this article. In fact, if Israel wasn’t involved, this would never be published at the Intercept.
As the story involves a corrupt nest of neoconservatives revolving in and out of the US. government, lobbying firms and the media, all involved in an attempt to manipulate public opinion regarding an Arab country, the odds that Israel would be involved are surpassingly high. There is no equivalent to the neocon presence and activity in these fields (i.e., govt, lobbying, media) for any other foreign nation.
Well, as DocHollywood beat me to the one straw man sentence I intended to point out and then use as a spreading acid from the mouths of Aliens to dissolve the rest of Chief MuddiesTheWater, I decided not to respond. I second your applause below.
However, we all slip too easily in trying to use language to manipulate how people think by sliding in adjectives and such into descriptions (my own brother uses brackets extensively to editorialize and thus guide thinking when quoting from the New Testament), I must take you up on one potentially misleading and definitely unnecessary addition of a word in your own reply, when you begin a sentence with, “As the story involves a corrupt nest of neoconservatives revolving in and out of the US. government, lobbying firms and the media, all involved in an attempt to manipulate public opinion regarding an Arab country…”
Corrupt? Where does ‘corrupt’ come from. (Lest we drift into false dichotomies, I am not implicitly inferring or implying that these people are not corrupt – how would I know to begin with – and, further, I would myself tend to assume that they likely are corrupt.)
The above post, lightly edited [in brackets] for truth:
“Of course, Turkey and Israel are not enjoying the best of relations [especially with the increasingly brutal occupation of Palestine]. The idea that Qatar innocently funded Hamas with hundreds of millions of dollars for “reconstruction” in 2012 without expecting retribution from Israel is [an] absurd [straw man. The clearly articulated point of the article is that there has been a coordinated media attack on Qatar by the Emirates, Israel, the Saudis and others to advance their agendas using highly paid former U.S. officials and their media allies to plant a false narrative about the extent of Qatar’s funding of extremists while some of Qatar’s accusers do the same, and in the case of the Saudis, far more.
But I don’t have a real response, so I’ll just spew out some more random stuff].
According to the same article, their falling out took place after Qatar backed [the democratically elected government in Palestine following] the [US – Israeli inspired and funded but failed] 2007 coup in [Palestine]. [Palestinians] are the number one [target] of Israel. So I don’t see Israel as doing anything wrong by [propagating falsehoods to mislead the American public and bury the truth, and perhaps even bury a lot more “brownies”, as I call them; if it’s pro-US/Israeli propaganda, it’s good].
In addition, Qatar and Turkey also supported [the democratically elected government] in Egypt. [Arab democracy is vehemently opposed by the US, so it backed and funded the military-coup government] of Egypt. Possibly Qatar is attempting to fight above her weight class also by taking on [the US backed dictatorship in] Saudi Arabia, [one of the many undemocratic regimes favored by the US even though Saudi donors “constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” according to a 2009 U.S. government cable].
There is a bit of ganging up on Qatar, but this was entirely predictable [when some country challenges the brutes favored by the US]. Regardless, outside of Israel,…the [dictators of the] UAE, [the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and any other thugs supported by the US as money and weapons are funneled to terrorists, bribing] neoconservative writers to [plant falsehoods] which support their interests over those of the [American people (like defunding terrorists and making Americans safer instead of making more enemies for them], for example), there really isn’t much to this article.”
DocHollywood: I’m not one to post cheerleading comments, but for that I can’t resist.
Damn fine, and spot on.
I could not have said it better myself. Qatar is the last bastion of freedom and resistance and it is incumbent upon all of us to support this small nation against such cruel vultures.
I could have not said it better myself
Hi Doc
Good to see you are finally responding politically instead of personally which has been your forte for a long time.
“…..The clearly articulated point of the article is that there has been a coordinated media attack on Qatar by the Emirates, Israel, the Saudis and others to advance their agendas using highly paid former U.S. officials and their media allies to plant a false narrative about the extent of Qatar’s funding of extremists while some of Qatar’s accusers do the same, and in the case of the Saudis, far more…..”
I’m not disagreeing with you at all (although this article never proves it’s a false narrative). But “agenda” includes funding an internationally recognized terrorist organization at war with the state of Israel. So where is the strawman?? After all, that’s the reason that neoconservatives are running articles (supposedly “false narratives”) about Qatar funding terrorism. If you recognize and fund the enemy of a friend, you risk that relationship – and that’s a good reason in my opinion. Why should Israel not look after their interests which means planting a truthful narrative that Qatar funds the terrorist, Hamas?
“……According to the same article, their falling out took place after Qatar backed [the democratically elected government in Palestine following] the [US – Israeli inspired and funded but failed] 2007 coup in [Palestine]. [Palestinians] are the number one [target] of Israel. So I don’t see Israel as doing anything wrong by [propagating falsehoods to mislead the American public and bury the truth, and perhaps even bury a lot more “brownies”, as I call them; if it’s pro-US/Israeli propaganda, it’s good]……”
You are not making any sense. That the US and Israel may have been involved in a coup attempt to dispose of Hamas – an internationally recognized terrorist organization – is irrelevant to this story which is about manipulating public opinion in the US. The geopolitics of individual members of the Arab League is complex and split into different clans with each having their own agendas (interests). The Interest of Israel is different, but they certainly can align with members of the Arab League on certain issues. In this case, Qatar funded and supported the number one enemy of Israel – and Israel made the appropriate steps to protect their interests. There is no false narrative about Qatar’s funding and recognition of Hamas – democratically elected or not. Indeed, Qatar understood the ramifications.
“…..In addition, Qatar and Turkey also supported [the democratically elected government] in Egypt. [Arab democracy is vehemently opposed by the US, so it backed and funded the military-coup government] of Egypt……”
That’s a total lie. The US did not back the coup by the Egyptian military – and you know it (you aren’t stupid, just vehemently anti American and anti Israel i.e., an extreme left winger). And just for the record, I didn’t support the coup either.
“……Qatar is attempting to fight above her weight class also by taking on [the US backed dictatorship in] Saudi Arabia, [one of the many undemocratic regimes favored by the US even though Saudi donors “constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” according to a 2009 U.S. government cable]…….”
You have no argument from me on this issue. Saudi Arabia is a big supporter of terrorism including the funding and support of the Taliban. The Saudis have spread (and funded) a fundamentalist Islamic philosophy world-wide (Wahhabism). However, that is not terrorism per se. There is always the potential for fundamentalist to step across the line into terrorist activities which might not have anything to do with Saudi Arabia. I’m not a big fan of the Saudis and their abuse of human rights at home either. Unfortunately, the greater Middle East is rife with ethnic and religious hatred, bigotry, racism, terrorism and authoritarianism Witness Syria, for example, which is supported by Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. Two hundred thousand people have died without so much as a story at the Intercept. Some Arabs just mean more I guess (and far left wing politics seems to be the deciding factor on which Arabs are newsworthy).
Greenwald doesn’t distinguish between government backed donations and private donations within the various Arab countries that fund terrorists (like Hamas). Arab opinion certainly is at odds with their governments on a wide range of issues which is why there is (in progress) an Arab Spring. But, there is an important difference between funding terrorism by private donors and funding terrorism by private donors who are government backed. This is surely because this is a murky area. This is never clearly distinguished in this article.
“……There is a bit of ganging up on Qatar, but this was entirely predictable [when some country challenges the brutes favored by the US]. Regardless, outside of Israel,…the [dictators of the] UAE, [the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and any other thugs supported by the US as money and weapons are funneled to terrorists, bribing] neoconservative writers to [plant falsehoods] which support their interests over those of the [American people (like defunding terrorists and making Americans safer instead of making more enemies for them], for example), there really isn’t much to this article.”
Brutes? Ha! What a term – like bullies. You really don’t give two flying fucks about (poor abused) Qatar. After all, the article explicitly states they fund terrorists and are therefore responsible for making more “enemies” for Americans. So you are supporting Qatar and their support for terrorism because they stand up to the brutes (Ha!). You are a hypocrite, Doc. But you always have been. I think it’s also interesting while saying the US supports dictatorships like the Saudi monarchy, you talk about the “interests” of the American people like oil and gasoline are not an interest of Americans? Welcome to the real world Doc.
Thanks – a reasonable response for a change.
How amusing. You let the unctuous smarm fly by informing Doc he has heretofore responded “personally” and congratulating him for ceasing, when, like some sort of written Tourette’s, you yourself cannot cease deploying “extreme left,” or “far left” at virtually everyone you disagree with in the comments section here, as you did at CiF. The reality is, it is only one’s irreverence toward Israel that causes you to spew this term, and it thus could not be more meaningless when you use it.
As I’ve noted before, you are left with no descriptor for the Red Army Faction or left-anarchists when you carry on in this typical hasbara fashion. (By “hasbara fashion,” I mean that dedicated Zionists everywhere reflexively vomit forth this same inane “charge.” Dershowitz’s permutation is “hard left.”)
“……How amusing. You let the unctuous smarm fly by informing Doc he has heretofore responded “personally” and congratulating him for ceasing, when, like some sort of written Tourette’s, you yourself cannot cease deploying “extreme left,” or “far left” at virtually everyone you disagree with in the comments section here, as you did at CiF……”
So you consider the use of a political term a personal attack? That is amusing. Doc has leveled personal attack after personal attack at me and suddenly a personal attack bothers you. I don’t have any problem with you congratulating someone on their comment. In fact it was a good comment, but when you suddenly call me out for personal attacks against someone who has made nothing but personal attacks directed at me, then you understand why I don’t take you too seriously. Politics is a grueling sport so don’t pretend you don’t play the same game by defending the king of personal attacks – DocHollywood.
Thanks Mona.
Of course not, you fascist.*
*Not that *I* equate “hard left” with fascist, but the rabid Zionists do.
Unintentional irony can be so self-damning.
“…..Unintentional irony can be so self-damning……”
That is such bullshit Doc. You have made post after post with nothing but personal attacks. Don’t try to equate what I said (which was mostly a response to your political post) with how you have responded to my posts in the past, OK?
Thanks Doc.
Absolutely.
No. Not OK Doc. The difference between me and you is that I have always responded to your posts whenever there is political content. You have not. Your posts – especially over the last couple of months – have simply been personal attacks. That’s the difference. Again – you know it.
Thanks.
A hypocrite engages in the same behaviors for which he condemns others.
CraigSummers engages in the same behaviors (personal attacks) for which he condemns others.
What so extraordinary is that making a personal attack by calling someone a hypocrite while condemning making personal attacks is just more hypocrisy.
There are many differences between a CraigSummer’s post and most others. Hypocrisy is one of those differences: some of his posts are glaringly hypocritical, like the ones above.
It’s not merely his personal attacks: that alone is not hypocritical. What’s hypocritical is BOTH making personal attacks AND condemning making personal attacks.
Another difference is his falsehoods, such as this one. The implication that’s all he’s getting in response is personal attacks isn’t hypocrisy: it’s just a bad lie.
Mona
“……There is no equivalent to the neocon presence and activity in these fields (i.e., govt, lobbying, media) for any other foreign nation……”
Two comments I want to address on your post. The first is your apparent belief that Israel is the only country in the world to “manipulate” the US media even though Greenwald showed that the UAE not only spends more money in the US (and you think it is all for education?) than any other country, but they are clearly involved with manipulating the US media in this story! The idea that Israel is the only country in the world to politically manipulate US foreign policy through the media and lobbying is so absurd as to make you look ridiculous, Mona. Israel clearly has more power (and support) within the US to manipulate public opinion. In general, Americans support that plucky little democracy located in one of the most despotic areas in the world.
The second comment is one you didn’t address simply because you know I am right. The only reason this story appears in the Intercept is because Israel is involved. No other reason. If every Arab was killed in Qatar tomorrow, the story would not appear in the Intercept if Israel (or the US) was not involved in some way. To the Intercept, it simply would not fit their political agenda. Arab deaths don’t matter. Muslim deaths don’t matter (like in Syria). This is not to say that this story is not interesting because it exposes the political reality in today’s world to manipulate public opinion. It’s a perfectly legitimate way to coerce a geopolitical foe like Qatar who funds Hamas – an internationally recognized terrorist organization. The UAE and Saudi Arabia probably have other reasons to slap down Qatar. Regardless, Qatar is in the coalition to bomb the piss out of ISIS. That might be part of the reason.
Thanks Mona
If every Arab in Qatar was killed tomorrow, Israel almost certainly would be involved in some way.
You mean like in Syria?
Every Arab in Syria is dead? Who knew?!
The straw, it is plentiful from this one.
I don’t see eye to eye on everything with Glenn, but this man is fighting for our country against government abuse. I know the cause personally. With all the talk of abuse in the NFL and how that discussion has led to an examination of American abuse culture, it’s pretty amazing that still absolutely no one has spoken up for me, despite my desperate attempts to learn the truth and then speak it. Rachel Maddow talks about a post-truth politics; it’s really crazy where we’re headed to in the name of safety and security. And whenever I try to speak up, people either won’t say anything or the bastards reign me back in again. How big are the fines and how blind are you all to abuse when you see it? I’m left to taking madcap trips halfway across the country before the abusers coax me back. Or confronting just how milquetoast our press really is in their constant kowtowing to the powerful. (I’ve reached out to everyone from the Huffington Post to the New Yorker; nobody dares stand up to the federal government, because Big Brother knows best.) Listen, psychological abuse is still abuse. I can’t tell you the crazy things my mind has been through over the past 6 years when they started to try to convert me to their cause, when people wanted to turn me into a more willing religious symbol and political pawn. I don’t care if now is not the opportune time to speak out. Look at what America has become; everyone is afraid to speak out. Post-truth politics will be the end of this country.
Rachel Madcow deplores post -truth politics;Hillaryious.
400 grand a month! That’s the noble spirit of public service right there.
The recent vilification of Qatar by the UAE may be better understood in context to its role as a leading exporter of natural gas:
1. Russia has the largest Natural gas reserves in the world – followed by Iran and Qatar.
2. Russia is currently Europe’s biggest supplier of natural gas.
3. Russia and the EU have had a falling out over the Ukraine. In spite of these tensions, the European Union has been attempting to broker a deal between Ukraine and Russia that, is successful, would supply Kiev at least 5 billion cubic metres of gas to help prevent a winter shortfall.
4. While openly negotiating with Russia over the Ukraine, the European Union is also quietly increasing the urgency of a plan to import natural gas from Iran to reduce its reliance on Russia. To this end the development of production and delivery (pipeline) infrastructure is already being weighed by European-based energy concerns.
5. Iran and Qatar both have drawing rights in the giant South Pars gas field that borders each country.
6. With the aid of US based energy companies, Qatar has enjoyed far greater access to the South Pars gas field. Qatar had raw gas reserves totaling 872tn cubic feet, giving it the third largest proven reserves of natural gas in the world.
7. Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah proposed two years ago for a stronger union with Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the UAE who are all members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
8. The GCC was set up in 1981 to counter the rise in the region of non-Arab and predominantly Shiite Iran, which Riyadh views as its principle rival for hegemony in the Gulf and wider Middle East.
9. Qatar’s originally planned to fund development of its North Field gas reserves by marketing to its neighbors via a GCC gas grid. Failure to obtain large-scale long-term supply contracts resulted in an alternate plan develop domestic projects to utilize Qatari gas.
10. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates – are importers of natural gas and only two are exporters – Qatar and Oman.
11. In 2006, Qatar surpassed Indonesia as the world’s largest LNG exporter.
12. A rise in US shale gas production has predictably resulted in a redirection Qatar’s LNG to European markets which, in turn, has swelled the spot market for gas, putting significant downward pressure on natural gas prices and eventually contributing to conditions that forced Gazprom to refund $2.7 billion to its European customers in 2012 alone.
13. In spite of competing interests, Russia and Qatar have been forging closer ties via their mutual participation in Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF). The GECF has publicly articulated a broad goal of “supporting the sovereign rights of member countries over their natural gas resources. Characterized as an OPEC-like cartel, the GECF is an instrument of Russian design to “further enhance its energy leverage with an OPEC-like cartel that Russia could lead by virtue of its position as the world’s largest holder of natural gas reserves.” The GEHF is headquartered in Doha, Qatar.
14. Although the UAE is a participating member in OPEC, GEHF, and the GCC it has recently announced plans to unilaterally increase oil exports that, in affect, will further lower global energy prices in a way that undermines the coordination of output policy among constituent members. Absent said policy, the emergence of a global natural gas cartel is severely hampered. Thus the current actions of the UAE can be closely equated to those of Saudi Arabia who, during the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s, increased production that offset the intended political aims of OPEC production quotas. The UAEs actions could start a price war between the members of these organizations as each struggles to offset the loss of revenue associated with falling global energy prices into the near future.
15. The UAE has also recently announced it intends to reduce its Natural Gas imports from Qatar by importing natural gas from North America. In reducing its dependence on Natural gas exports from the Qatar, the UAE is directly placing the Dolphin gas project in potential jeopardy as the Dolphin gas pipeline runs directly between the two countries across the Arabian Gulf. Oman is the only other country who receives LNG via the Dolphin pipeline – a mere .2 billion of the 1.9 billion cubic feet that flows per day.
Outstanding post, Wilhelmina. I confess to my detriment that I hadn’t even considered wondering about practical special interests, which is kind of amazing (and disheartening) at this stage in my life – that is, that I wouldn’t immediately at least wonder, which requires no factual knowledge to begin with. I certainly should know better by now, but somehow the soporific effects of so-called education and culture in a modern democracy, dating back generations in epigenetic terms, is not so easily shaken off, even after decades of hard work.
It’s easy to neglect questioning, for instance, what Russian interests were invisibly affected by the Austra-Serbian crisis prior to WWI, or why France tried to rewrite history after commencement of the war by changing the wordings of things like telegrams or interdepartmental memos.
I will say that I think I’m in good company. Christopher Clark, who wrote the most magnificent “The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914″, recently wrote a piece in Der Spiegel about the Ukraine crisis which was astonishing in its pure ignorance and inspidity.
I guess the moral of the story is that it’s easy to kill a cancer cell; difficult to be rid of a cancer.
So thank you for that post. Brilliance often lies in pointing out the obvious. Kudos.
Wait, wait, before we go on, we must close the US skies to all traffic and then create an exception that will allow the Saudi royals to go home before we discuss this any further.
It’s always amazing to me how much reporting, commentary, and congressional statement issuing is NOT done about Saudi Arabia. For that alone, I would give kudos to this article.
This is one of the most detailed, sourced, in depth stories on how a single line of news coverage is created and distorted that I think I’ve read (I confess to not having read Chomsky’s books) on how public opinion is shaped, how half truths create lies, how deception by omission in the media works. The theologian Ronald Knox (who also, interestingly enough, wrote detective stories) once defined evil as a removal of portions of a whole which would otherwise be naturally good; that is the theology that evil is not the counterbalancing force to good, but that the universe is good and evil fragments it; that evil’s EFFECTS can be very pronounced, but that they are akin to the effects of a carving in bas relief.
I tend to look at the obviousness of American reporting for the simple and its blatant propaganda factor as compared to, say, RT, which is far superior reporting even as it is pretty obviously biased as much as anyone else. I tend to forget about layers. This article seems to to me to address a deeper, more insidious and far more clever layer of news distortion than would become apparent to 99% of us without stories like this one by GG.
It also serves to remind me of going to sleep in smug satisfaction about the childlike simplicity of the American sap factor. This is probably the result of European arrogance and self-satisfaction in their own sophistication. We – I, at least – forget betimes of the deeper layer of American intelligence (I don’t mean agencies, just collective smarts) which can be stunningly penetrating. After all, ‘we’ didn’t get to be masters of the universe solely through brute force and evil deeds. And somehow, I suspect this all ties to that phenomenon of highly intelligent Americans looking all around and seeing only stupidity. Sort of metaphorically like a room full of people who all know the secret, but none will say under the presumption that no one else in the room knows.
Anyway, good article and very impressive analysis.
In which the current Economist manipulates the President.
http://www.economist.com/printedition/covers/2014-09-25/ap-e-eu-la-me-na-uk
Thank you for the great article
Glenn’s detailed critique reveals (yet again) the extent to which corporate-serving media presents highly selective information to suit the interests of a) the highest bidder; and/or b) the political biases of the reporter – in an effort to manipulate the American electorate to support actions that are almost certainly illegal and unconstitutional when described in their natural light. And isn’t this, in microcosm, what the US political, military and economic elite routinely do to keep concerned citizens (from all over the world) from discovering the true meaning of their actions – i.e,, to present one-sided, grossly misleading, and self-serving narratives under the banner of “objective reporting” to justify the further erosion of international law and the further consolidation of global resources?
It’s not just that military analysts in the media are never questioned about their financial ties to defense industries and how much they stand to profit from their advocacy of militarism, it’s that I have yet to see any genuine acknowledgement concerning America’s role in destabilizing the Middle East or Ukraine and how those considerations might affect our national actions (including our use of force and the circumstances under which force may legitimately be used.)
Or about how this whole latest spasm of American militarism was predicated upon Obama’s need to defend his political “manhood” once the execution videos became widely disseminated?
Or about the underlying causes of global terrorism and why so many in the world are willing to join a violent struggle against the US.
Or about why this is all happening at the exact moment in history when sexual difference is no longer taboo.
Or about why men – those from the developed world and those from developing ones – feel that strength lies solely in aggression.
What is the media for if not to at least make an effort to uncover the truth we try to hide from ourselves?
I can’t help wondering if part of the campaign against Qatar isn’t an indirect attack on Al Jazeera, which, as you well know, has long been seen by the US Govenrnent as a dangerous enemy. Of course, three Al Jazeera journalists remain imprisoned by the current Egyptian government on obviously trumped up charges, and that government, which has now restored close ties with Israel that lapsed under Morsi, is now an enemy of Qatar. Also, while the award of the 2022 FIFA World Cup to Qatar was absurd and seems almost certainly to have been the result of the usual corrupt FIFA administration, recent efforts to overturn that award, while probably ultimately a boon to soccer and even to FIFA if successful, clearly seem to tar Qatar as being corrupt, too. While that may be true, Qatar is probably no more corrupt than Russia, which will host the 2018 World Cup, but not so much is being said about that, so far. FIFA is run by a bunch of wealthy old white guys, so the problem undoubtedly lies elsewhere.
As all tales of Russian corruption come from ejected serial liars,why do you believe them?The oligarchs who fled to London to spew their BS love your ignorance.And America can’t point fingers at anyone for corruption,when our whole govt bow down to money supplied by Zionist oligarchs who have with those pols help,robbed our treasury.
As to Syria & Ukraine Putin kept his head on his shoulders. He learned from history & doesn’t let himself be lured into a war as his predecessors did in respect to Afghanistan.
This article is about the viable plan for Syria:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/09/09/putin-offers-surprise-plan-for-international-control-of-syrian-chemical-weapons-moves-to-steal-obamas-thunder/
NATO reacted to the ceasefire with muscle flexing:
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/8/headlines#985
Two quotes from Eli Lake. First one was his answer to “The Intercept” after being asked by “The Intercept” prior to publication about his reporting noted in this article. The second one he posted on twitter after publication of this “The Intercept” publication. Does number 2 cancel out number 1?
“I don’t talk about how I do my reporting.” –Eli Lake
“To clarify. I spoke to no camstoll officials for this [Daily Beast] piece.” –Eli Lake
Glenn’s Twitter TL this morning has been most entertaining. I liked Josh Rogin’s tweet best:
Yeah Glenn. Just keep trying son, and Josh’ll give you a gold star someday, approval we all know you live for. LOL pffft
#pretentiousasshole
Israel and Saudi Arabia sitting in the tree,k-i-s-s-i-n-g.How much do you want to bet those 28 pages detail Saudi Israeli collusion re 911?
Completely idiotic conspiracy theory.
From one like you,a Zionist mole,it’s a badge of honor,And I wear it proudly.
Good repartee! :D
http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html
In Update II, the link under “expressly said” should go here:
https://twitter.com/EliLake/status/515513834040483840
Good article. Western nations should not be allowing foreign ideological propaganda to influence public opinion, and certainly should not be pandering to these belligerent foreign nations.
So far as Israel’s issue with Qatar it may also have to to with Al-Jazeera English, a Qatari based news organization which is actually quite good so far as world news. Thing is, they don’t lie about Israel like most MSM, or hide their crimes. There was huge opposition to allowing them on the air in Canada, opposition from Israel firsters and Christian end-timer loons.
Editorial opinion.
Notice how crappy the Intercept webpage looks on a big monitor? It’s because it is designed for a 5 inch screen. It’s the new squeezably soft “responsive” website style where the page adjusts in size automatically to the device it is being displayed on. If you are on a big monitor right now, resize your browser so it is the size of a smartphone.
See? If looks halfway decent that way, like a Twitter feed or similar.
I understand the reason for this. You don’t have to code separate webpages for phones, tablets , laptops and big desktop monitors. The Guardian beta website is stretchable too. It’s shit though on a big monitor.
Smartphones rule the internet now.
No anti-Qatar lobbying influenced the posting of or the content of this comment.
I’m boycotting smartphones from now.
LiberalinCalif –
I think you may have something. I’ve been complaining about The Intercept’s front page. Since I don’t own a smartphone, should I start borrowing someone else’s to read it now :-) ???
What is needed is an elaborate flow chart with arrows going from donors and their countries to the groups they are funding. Can’t know the players without a program.
“who’s on first”
“what’s on second”
Geo-economic ambitions in the lands of others often imposes a need for a firm hold on information creation, packaging and flow. It’s all critical for narrative construction. The real beef behind all the acrimony directed at Qatar, is that Qatar dared to create Al Jazeera, a news organization that, to a significant degree, produces UNWELCOME alternative analysis and ‘take’ to this nice little information manipulation scheme. Message in all this? If journalism fails to ’embed’ in official narrative constructs, the sponsor (Qatar) will be made to pay through principal and proxy alike.
Google ” Nanodevices in mind control torture Lefora “.They are killing me. Spread the document to anyone that reads anywhere on earth. Please. We need help. Thanks.
Well Glen you promised hard hitting articles and this is certainly one. A blue steel hammer blow. Naming the “baddies” publicly. Well done. I admit to being a daily gullible MSM reader, fully taken in by the Qatar as the most active “financiers of IS” line, and guilty of repeating this garbage I have swallowed. I need to sharpen up.
The article is right on target. Complex stories are slanted by omission of information rather than blatantly wrong information. This allows the focus to change frequently and on-demand. I rather read Wikipedia, and this site, for a less slanted version of events. It’s the next best thing to spending days researching topics on my own.
Why is Glenn Greenwald shilling for Qatar here? What’s the purpose of this article? Did Eli Lake and the rest report inaccurate things about Qatar? Like, who really cares why they were reporting about Qatar. Did they report inaccurate things? Did they leave key info out?
Wouldn’t a better article be to report on Qatar, the good and the bad? There’s a lot of bad. There’s terror-support, extremist-support, human rights violations, bigotry, etc.
Is Greenwald a reporter, or now basically just a shill for basically anybody who hates America or Israel?
“Like, who really cares why they were reporting about Qatar.”
Like, if lobbyists want to spin the news with blatant falsehoods that serve special interests, who cares?
Like, if a false narrative that serves the interests of Israel and big moneyed interests is being broadcast as objective news in the US who cares?
Like, if the media wants to pretend that Qatar funds more terrorism than Saudi Arabia despite being demonstrably untrue, who cares?
Why are you even on this site?
Brad demonstrates a failure of reading comprehension by asking: “What’s the purpose of this article?”
For the author directly told you the point in these two paragraphs:
Yes, you’re right. But Brad’s reading comprehension difficulties become apparent also in the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted, i.e., “Why is Glenn Greenwald shilling for Qatar here?” I suppose that one might be harder to respond to as it would involve citing things not written, lol. Nice catch. I confess I pretty much gave up on that post after that first sentence and let my eye drift down to your reply, where I learned about the second sentence. It’s like getting another doughnut I hadn’t even asked for. Or at least the doughnut hole.
What? Is Qatar now the good guys? Everybody knows they have been destabilizing the secularist regimes in the Middle East and funding Islamist terrorists. Qatar is a despicable regime, akin to a new richman who thinks he may buy off everything: people, countries, mercenaries, the media, even a football championship! And who doesn’t care the human cost his whimsical ambitions will imply.
From the article:
“What’s misleading isn’t the claim that Qatar funds extremists but that they do so more than other U.S. allies in the region (a narrative implanted at exactly the time Qatar has become a key target of Israel and the Emirates). Indeed, some of Qatar’s accusers here do the same to at least the same extent, and in the case of the Saudis, far more so.”
So no, not ‘good guys.’ This article is in fact quite explicit that Israel, Saudi and US agendas are apparently manipulating Western propaganda and muddying up the narrative in (more than predictably) dubious ways.
Why do so many people comment on articles they haven’t read?
That was my thought as well. Did Enrique Ferro read anything but the headline? And look at the pictures?
+1
No buddy. The following are the facts.
a) There is a Shia-Sunni divide in the middle east.
b) But the divide is fuelled by Saudi Arabia whose contribution to the world is Wahabism.
c) That is the worst form of Islam and taken to next levels by Al Queda, Al Nusra and ISIS.
d) But Saudis are allies of US and UK. I cringe every time an TV idiot call the Saudis “Moderate” (sic)
e) US and the West is in far more danger from Sunni Fundamentalism than Shia Fundamentalism.
f) Infact US used this behavior to successfully cause the Soviets to fail in Afghanistan.
g) The West + the middle eastern usuals + Turkey did not mind these radicals as long as they were against Assad.
h) Now a gang of Sunni muslim countries(SA, UAE, EGY) ganged up with a jewish country (IL) against another Sunni muslim country (QA) .
i) And they use the American method of lobbying to do that.
j) The “Independent” journalists in the MSM just follow suit..
This may look like a depressing commentary on the state of news today, but when you look at larger patterns, it’s really a beautiful thing. I have been reading over at The Dish about how journalism is becoming indistinguishable from sponsored content, and hey, that will probably result in two wrongs making a glorious right. Straight up and simple paid news would take the middlemen, suspicion, and fingerprinting out of the process entirely. If Qatar wants positive news coverage, after all, they can quit being so f-ing cheap and pay for it like everybody else, or at the very least create their own ‘plucky little startup’ style news blog that appeals to people on some other grounds. Maybe pictures of native animals in comical hats, I don’t know, that’s for them to decide. Let the market work it out. Aside from which, I see great potential for trickle-down economics at work here. 4.3 million up front and 400,000 a month? Um, someone is going to be going to a lot of nice dinners and buying some really cool clothes, and think of all the good that will do for the restaurant and retail industry.
” If Qatar wants positive news coverage, after all, they can quit being so f-ing cheap and pay for it like everybody else, or at the very least create their own ‘plucky little startup’ style news blog that appeals to people on some other grounds.”
Heard of Al Jazeera ? They are way ahead in the game. In a much more matured way too.
Oh thank god. Then we are well on our way to the utopia envisioned by Neal Stephenson in Snow Crash, I’m glad to hear that. I know Glenn likes to get all excited about Big Brother, but that is only because he lacks appropriate faith in capitalism. In real life, Big Brother would have been quickly toppled by Wal-mart, or possibly Alibaba. I want to be able to buy my news from a variety of sources, although the market diversity is still appallingly lacking. Nowhere – *nowhere – can I find a paper dedicated to reporting on my general awesomeness and aligning all world events with it, it’s extremely disappointing. Someone really needs to get on the project of producing more personalized narratives, this one-news-fits-all model is so un-consumer friendly. The story about how parts of Mali’s economy are improving because people are inspired by this picture of my cat I once posted on Facebook (at least I’m pretty sure that’s why) – *totally underreported.
Now I understand Glenn’s especial contempt for courtier reporting.
Awesome job. Glenn put on a clinic.
America is now Terrorism’s bitch.
eddaaa
Pushing an agenda via propaganda for $400K per month is quite a gig. Not that we didn’t know that the MSM is a tool and too often more about spreading propaganda than reporting real news. But it’s nice to have specific details tracing the money back to its source and thereby exposing the motivation and, in many cases, the lie.
Excellent reporting.
Good reporting. Thanks, Glenn and staff.
“American public perceptions and media reports are manipulated with little difficulty.” This sums it all up with the exception that the establishment media, for lack of a better term,” is not being manipulated. The “press” knows whose hand it is feeding out of and likes it that way. These talking heads have blood on their hands, the blood of countless children. There had better be a place in hell for them.
It appears Epstein/Camstoll, as with all financial/political/technologist leaders are the one’s who’ve been allowed through r1b intels’ many “elimination filters” due to their perceived end result benefit.
Free reign using the intel apparatus to eliminate from contention anyone they want without anyone knowing(evidently).
genocide/eugenics/epigenetics is rampant as a result of Foreign policy/technology/finance being stolen from everyone by r1b 5-eyes+.
a mere continuation of the same genocide: http://s27.postimg.org/7xqt29igz/0_00.jpg
The muslims are no more “terrorists” than native americans, than African americans were, than jews in wwii, than Australian aborigines, eskimos, pacific islanders etc etc etc…
The “democracy” in the west is a 180degree lie, because nobody actually agrees with r1b, they’ve just murdered everyone else.
I think I’ve been buying into the (peddled) reporting that Qatar individually and through some bits of government is funding extremists more than other Arab nations. The Intercept and Glenn show publically released numbers that it’s just not true. That fact is huge! I can only guess why think tank people who peddle info power are doing this. My guess would be, The Saudis have been allies of the USA big time, long time, and poking Qatar distracts and covers more Saudi funding up. That is just a guess. I’d be curious to know why the “info powerhouses” want to finger one particular nation. I’d hope it wouldn’t be something as dumb as TV ratings and newspaper profits, as in, “Now here’s a good story”. That’s all I’ve got, maybe someone knows why. Thank you, Glenn and The Intercept for the outstanding work.
The bidding war between various countries seeking to control US foreign policy is a bit unseemly. However, it is really fair turn around.
The US used to enrich foreign despots who in return would give them lopsided deals for access to markets or natural resources. Now those despots are hiring the US military to do their bidding, at far below market rates, by showering wealth on a small clique of US policy influencers. It really only shows that the desire to sell out one’s country, in return for personal enrichment, is universal.
Speaking of other countries trying to influence US political actions, THINK ISRAEL. If it were not for Israel, USA would likely be a peaceful country! For every flare-up in the Middle East, THINK “What does Israel want the U.S. to do?” And Bush/Cheney and Obama (to some certain extent, though I was shocked that Obama told Netanyahu to quit aiming for civilians in their recent war against Gaza). That ticked “Bibi” off and he told Obama, “Stop second guessing me!” or some such utterance! Bibi needs to but out of American politics!
The US dominates the world financially. Since the $ is the world’s reserve currency, the US sets and enforces the rules for all financial transactions. Look at some of the fines recently leveled against BNP.
The US also dominates the world militarily. With this combination, it effectively rules the world (because the world economy is growing relative to the US, it may eventually lose some of this dominance, but that is another issue).
Vassal countries need to have access to US lawmakers and lobbying allows this to happen. (It would be immoral to rule over others without allowing them the right to petition). Israel may understand the system the best – because their need for US support is greatest – but other countries are quickly learning. They don’t get to elect representatives, but they can influence policy. However, it’s not as simple as just buying the necessary policies – although money is certainly necessary. But they must also create the political conditions that support those policies – that is the tricky part which makes power brokers and media consultants, such as the Camstoll Group, so valuable.
When eating sausages, you don’t necessarily want to watch a film of how they are made. However, Glenn Greenwald insists on exposing the inner workings of the system. It’s interesting, although somewhat unpalatable.
Really pleased to see the Intercept (finally) going after these younger and lesser known stealth neocon reporters who inject propaganda into the dialog.
Anybody who hasn’t already should check out the Truthdig article ‘How Cold War Hungry Neocons Stage-managed Liz Wahl’s Resignation’ it goes into the circles Eli Lake associates with. Miriam Elder and Rosie Gray for Buzzfeed seem to play a similar role to Eli but specifically focus in on Russia. Jamie Kirchick of course is a more typical neocon who isn’t ashamed to be openly racist and war mongering, he’s less interesting to me than people like Lake who manag to get on CNN all the time.
Thank you for the fine reporting Glenn.
This was an enlightening and thorough article. I would prefer that the Intercept continue to publish articles that art this well done. It is not so important to me that there is something published every day than it is that the articles are of the quality this one achieves.
There is plenty of trash around and stories about baby names or eeeek a gov official used a stupid metaphor do not meet the standard that this and other thorough articles do. As I said I’ll wait for the good stuff.
As damning as this article is by revealing not only the duplicitous nature of our “Free Press” and how easily they can be bought, it hardly surprises anyone who has been paying attention the last few years. It seems the voices who decide to speak truth to power are diminishing at a rather rapid rate. There is a lot to digest in this article and many supporting links to view for my own edification and for others seeking the truth. Thanks again Glenn.
p.s. for Jeff A.Taylor. Many if not all news outlets have slashed their budgets to the point that investigative journalism is all but dead. The point is they’re glad to get news from wherever and whomever they can. Been watching the news for six decades and it ain’t gettin’ better.
Investigative? Most dailies do not even have police beat reporters any more. Or dedicated beat reporters of any kind, where you can dig in, master the subject, and hone your BS detector. You saw this in action with the Ferguson fiasco — almost no one “covering” the story understood how a police investigation should unfold, what paperwork is routine, etc. It took a guy at a website to walk back all the steps authorities were dropping. But back to Warrick — the duplicitous conceit at the center of his reporting is that HE went to former government officials to ferret out suppressed nuggets of wisdom that will inform and enlighten the great unwashed not lunching on K Street expense accounts. Thin, but perhaps value-add. In reality, the lobbyists were the pursuers, eager to launder and amplify their agit-prop — perfectly fine as a display ad, and similarly discounted by the public — through the news pages of the WaPo. No reporter worthy of the name is ever THAT desperate for a story.
I have to wonder how much attention is being paid to this by the American public. I’m guessing that the large majority of people in the US have no clue about where or what Qatar is. But, of course, the American public has virtually no control over the purse strings either.
We have the illusion(I say delusion) of control.
After over 2 decades of bombing Iraq + trillions of taxpayer money spent, what percentage of Americans do you think know where Iraq is?
Wait, but Qatar DOES support extremists. Why isn’t The Intercept concerned with that, yet ignoring that and instead just bashing journalists that report the truth, which is… that Qatar does support extremists?
Why does Glenn Greenwald seem to be running interference on behalf of Qatar?
What are readers supposed to get from this article, that truth-telling journalists bash Qatar for accurate reasons, and Greenwald/Intercept don’t like it? Why don’t Greenwald/Intercept like it?
Important and timely article.
Perhaps this murky enterprise is why other players in the region may be diffident, notably Erdogan of Turkey. His latest interview with Charlie Rose (9/21) is now online and it’s rather curious, to say the least. If he’s this ambivalent about all this trouble on his border, it implies a lot.
http://charlierose.com/watch/60449340
Charlie Rose is an interesting and perhaps not complicit guy. Yes, he may have his biases, but not on the payroll. I was being stalked and harassed and happened to walk by CBS headquarters each day on my way to work. Often the stalkers would walk right inside the building. The security guard was involved, I checked, he is is ex-NYPD, not ex-FBI. One day the security guard seemed highly agitated, so I waited. And out walked Charlie Rose and his producing staff…completely oblivious to my presence. The only person who seemed to be aware that there was a “target” aka a non-threatening middle age white woman in front of the building, was the security guard. Two days later Charlie Rose got the interview with Assad in 2013 . This was probably what the meeting at CBS was about.It’s very difficult to say who knows what…under the circumstances.
I don’t understand. Why is The Intercept sticking up for Qatar, a corrupt country that violates human rights quite badly?
Wouldn’t a better article be about discussing Qatar and what’s good or bad about their regime? Instead of just attacking journalists that write about it?
Fantastic article. thanks
Bingo. Giving cover to paid lobbyists is a pretty clear bright line even inside the Beltway. They can help on the fringes, set up talks with primaries whom you’d damn sure ID, etc. but letting them stovepipe their uncut talking points and agenda to your readers via YOUR byline is way out of bounds. Warrick should be cleaning out his desk by 5pm if WaPo actually cares about news gathering.
Hunt not hint