Parry writes: "Sadly, some important duties of journalism, such as applying
evenhanded standards on human rights abuses and financial corruption, have
been so corrupted by the demands of government propaganda - and the
careerism of too many writers - that I now become suspicious whenever the
mainstream media trumpets some sensational story aimed at some 'designated
villain.'"
President Vladimir Putin of Russia. (photo: Russian government)
'Corruption' as a Propaganda Weapon
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
05 April 16
Mainstream U.S. journalism and propaganda are getting hard to tell apart, as
with the flurry of "corruption" stories aimed at Russia's Putin and other
demonized foreign leaders, writes Robert Parry.
Sadly, some important duties of journalism, such as applying evenhanded
standards on human rights abuses and financial corruption, have been so
corrupted by the demands of government propaganda - and the careerism of too
many writers - that I now become suspicious whenever the mainstream media
trumpets some sensational story aimed at some "designated villain."
Far too often, this sort of "journalism" is just a forerunner to the next
"regime change" scheme, dirtying up or delegitimizing a foreign leader
before the inevitable advent of a "color revolution" organized by
"democracy-promoting" NGOs often with money from the U.S. government's
National Endowment for Democracy or some neoliberal financier like George
Soros.
We are now seeing what looks like a new preparatory phase for the next round
of "regime changes" with corruption allegations aimed at former Brazilian
President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The new anti-Putin allegations - ballyhooed by the UK Guardian and other
outlets - are particularly noteworthy because the so-called "Panama Papers"
that supposedly implicate him in offshore financial dealings never mention
his name.
Or as the Guardian writes: "Though the president's name does not appear in
any of the records, the data reveals a pattern - his friends have earned
millions from deals that seemingly could not have been secured without his
patronage. The documents suggest Putin's family has benefited from this
money - his friends' fortunes appear his to spend."
Note, if you will, the lack of specificity and the reliance on speculation:
"a pattern"; "seemingly"; "suggest"; "appear." Indeed, if Putin were not
already a demonized figure in the Western media, such phrasing would never
pass an editor's computer screen. Indeed, the only point made in declarative
phrasing is that "the president's name does not appear in any of the
records."
A British media-watch publication, the Off-Guardian, which criticizes much
of the work done at The Guardian, headlined its article on the Putin piece
as "the Panama Papers cause Guardian to collapse into self-parody."
But whatever the truth about Putin's "corruption" or Lula's, the
journalistic point is that the notion of objectivity has long since been
cast aside in favor of what's useful as propaganda for Western interests.
Some of those Western interests now are worried about the growth of the
BRICS economic system - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - as a
competitor to the West's G-7 and the International Monetary Fund. After all,
control of the global financial system has been central to American power in
the post-World War II world - and rivals to the West's monopoly are not
welcome.
What the built-in bias against these and other "unfriendly" governments
means, in practical terms, is that one standard applies to a Russia or a
Brazil, while a more forgiving measure is applied to the corruption of a
U.S. or European leader.
Take, for instance, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's millions of
dollars in payments in speaking fees from wealthy special interests that
knew she was a good bet to become the next U.S. president. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "Clinton Stalls on Goldman-Sachs Speeches."]
Or, similarly, the millions upon millions of dollars invested in super-PACS
for Clinton, Sen. Ted Cruz and other presidential hopefuls. That might look
like corruption from an objective standard but is treated as just a
distasteful aspect of the U.S. political process.
But imagine for a minute if Putin had been paid millions of dollars for
brief speeches before powerful corporations, banks and interest groups doing
business with the Kremlin. That would be held up as de facto proof of his
illicit greed and corruption.
Losing Perspective
Also, when it's a demonized foreign leader, any "corruption" will do,
however minor. For example, in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan's
denounced Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega for his choice of eyewear: "The
dictator in designer glasses," declared Reagan, even as Nancy Reagan was
accepting free designer gowns and free renovations of the White House funded
by oil and gas interests.
Or, the "corruption" for a demonized leader can be a modest luxury, such as
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych's "sauna" in his personal residence, a
topic that got front-page treatment in The New York Times and other Western
publications seeking to justify the violent coup that drove Yanukovych from
office in February 2014.
Incidentally, both Ortega and Yanukovych had been popularly elected but were
still targeted by the U.S. government and its operatives with violent
destabilization campaigns. In the 1980s, the CIA-organized Nicaraguan Contra
war killed some 30,000 people, while the U.S.-orchestrated "regime change"
in Ukraine sparked a civil war that has left some 10,000 people dead. Of
course, in both cases, Official Washington blamed Moscow for all the
trouble.
In both cases, too, the politicians and operatives who gained power as a
result of the conflicts were arguably more corrupt than the Nicaraguan
Sandinistas or Yanukovych's government. The Nicaraguan Contras, whose
violence helped pave the way for the 1990 election of U.S.-backed candidate
Violeta Chamorro, were deeply implicated in cocaine trafficking. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "The Sordid Contra-Cocaine Saga."]
Today, the U.S.-supported Ukrainian government is wallowing in corruption so
deep that it has provoked a new political crisis.[See Consortiumnews'com's
"Reality Peeks Through in Ukraine."]
Ironically, one of the politicians actually named in the Panama Papers for
having established a shadowy offshore account is the U.S.-backed Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko, although he got decidedly second-billing to the
unnamed Putin. (Poroshenko denied there was anything improper in his
offshore financial arrangements.)
Double Standards
Mainstream Western journalism no longer even tries to apply common standards
to questions about corruption. If you're a favored government, there might
be lamentations about the need for more "reform" - which often means
slashing pensions for the elderly and cutting social programs for the poor -
but if you're a demonized leader, then the only permissible answer is
criminal indictment and/or "regime change."
One stark example of these double standards is the see-no-evil attitude
toward the corruption of Ukraine's Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, who is
touted endlessly in the Western media as the paragon of Ukrainian good
governance and reform. The documented reality, however, is that Jaresko
enriched herself through her control of a U.S.-taxpayer-financed investment
fund that was supposed to help the people of Ukraine build their economy.
According to the terms of the $150 million investment fund created by the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Jaresko's compensation
was supposed to be capped at $150,000 a year, a pay package that many
Americans would envy. But it was not enough for Jaresko, who first simply
exceeded the limit by hundreds of thousands of dollars and then moved her
compensation off-books as she amassed total annual pay of $2 million or
more.
The documentation of this scheming is clear. I have published multiple
stories citing the evidence of both her excessive compensation and her legal
strategies for covering up evidence of alleged wrongdoing. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "How Ukraine's Finance Minister Got Rich" and
"Carpetbagging Crony Capitalism in Ukraine."]
Despite the evidence, not a single mainstream Western news outlet has
followed up on this information even as Jaresko is hailed as a "reform"
candidate for Ukrainian prime minister.
This disinterest is similar to the blinders that The New York Times and
other major Western newspapers put on when they were assessing whether
Ukrainian President Yanukovych was ousted in a coup in February 2014 or just
wandered off and forgot to return.
In a major "investigative" piece, the Times concluded there was no coup in
Ukraine while ignoring the evidence of a coup, such as the intercepted phone
call between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria
Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who they
would put into power. "Yats is the guy," said Nuland - and surprise,
surprise, Arseniy Yatsenyuk ended up as prime minister.
The Times also ignored the observation of George Friedman, president of the
global intelligence firm Stratfor, who noted that the Ukraine coup was "the
most blatant coup in history." [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT Still Pretends
No Coup in Ukraine."]
The Propaganda Weapon
The other advantage of "corruption" as a propaganda weapon to discredit
certain leaders is that we all assume that there is plenty of corruption in
governments as well as in the private sector all around the world. Alleging
corruption is like shooting large fish crowded into a small barrel. Granted,
some barrels might be more crowded than others but the real decision is
whose barrel you choose.
That's part of the reason why the U.S. government has spread around hundreds
of millions of dollars to finance "journalism" organizations, train
political activists and support "non-governmental organizations" that
promote U.S. policy goals inside targeted countries. For instance, before
the Feb. 22, 2014 coup in Ukraine, there were scores of such operations in
the country financed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), whose
budget from Congress exceeds $100 million a year.
But NED, which has been run by neocon Carl Gershman since its founding in
1983, is only part of the picture. You have other propaganda fronts
operating under the umbrella of the State Department and USAID. Last year,
USAID issued a fact sheet summarizing its work financing friendly
journalists around the globe, including "journalism education, media
business development, capacity building for supportive institutions, and
strengthening legal-regulatory environments for free media."
USAID estimated its budget for "media strengthening programs in over 30
countries" at $40 million annually, including aiding "independent media
organizations and bloggers in over a dozen countries," In Ukraine before the
coup, USAID offered training in "mobile phone and website security," which
sounds a bit like an operation to thwart the local government's intelligence
gathering, an ironic position for the U.S. with its surveillance obsession,
including prosecuting whistleblowers based on evidence that they talked to
journalists.
USAID, working with billionaire George Soros's Open Society, also funds the
Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which engages in
"investigative journalism" that usually goes after governments that have
fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled out for
accusations of corruption. The USAID-funded OCCRP also collaborates with
Bellingcat, an online investigative website founded by blogger Eliot
Higgins.
Higgins has spread misinformation on the Internet, including discredited
claims implicating the Syrian government in the sarin attack in 2013 and
directing an Australian TV news crew to what looked to be the wrong location
for a video of a BUK anti-aircraft battery as it supposedly made its getaway
to Russia after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in July 2014.
Despite his dubious record of accuracy, Higgins has gained mainstream
acclaim, in part, because his "findings" always match up with the propaganda
theme that the U.S. government and its Western allies are peddling. Though
most genuinely independent bloggers are ignored by the mainstream media,
Higgins has found his work touted by both The New York Times and The
Washington Post.
In other words, the U.S. government has a robust strategy for deploying
direct and indirect agents of influence. Indeed, during the first Cold War,
the CIA and the old U.S. Information Agency refined the art of "information
warfare," including pioneering some of its current features like having
ostensibly "independent" entities and cut-outs present U.S. propaganda to a
cynical public that would reject much of what it hears from government but
may trust "citizen journalists" and "bloggers."
But the larger danger from this perversion of journalism is that it sets the
stage for "regime changes" that destabilize whole countries, thwart real
democracy (i.e., the will of the people), and engender civil warfare.
Today's neoconservative dream of mounting a "regime change" in Moscow is
particularly dangerous to the future of both Russia and the world.
Regardless of what you think about President Putin, he is a rational
political leader whose legendary sangfroid makes him someone who is not
prone to emotional decisions. His leadership style also appeals to the
Russian people who overwhelmingly favor him, according to public opinion
polls.
While the American neocons may fantasize that they can generate enough
economic pain and political dissension inside Russia to achieve Putin's
removal, their expectation that he will be followed by a pliable leader like
the late President Boris Yeltsin, who will let U.S. operatives back in to
resume plundering Russia's riches, is almost certainly a fantasy.
The far more likely possibility is that - if a "regime change" could somehow
be arranged - Putin would be replaced by a hard-line nationalist who might
think seriously about unleashing Russia's nuclear arsenal if the West again
tries to defile Mother Russia. For me, it's not Putin who's the worry; it's
the guy after Putin.
So, while legitimate questions about Putin's "corruption" - or that of any
other political leader - should be pursued, the standards of evidence should
not be lowered just because he or anyone else is a demonized figure in the
West. There should be single not double standards.
Western media outrage about "corruption" should be expressed as loudly
against political and business leaders in the U.S. or other G-7 countries as
it is toward those in the BRICS.
________________________________________
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
President Vladimir Putin of Russia. (photo: Russian government)
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/04/corruption-as-a-propaganda-weapon/http
s://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/04/corruption-as-a-propaganda-weapon/
'Corruption' as a Propaganda Weapon
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
05 April 16
Mainstream U.S. journalism and propaganda are getting hard to tell apart, as
with the flurry of "corruption" stories aimed at Russia's Putin and other
demonized foreign leaders, writes Robert Parry.
adly, some important duties of journalism, such as applying evenhanded
standards on human rights abuses and financial corruption, have been so
corrupted by the demands of government propaganda - and the careerism of too
many writers - that I now become suspicious whenever the mainstream media
trumpets some sensational story aimed at some "designated villain."
Far too often, this sort of "journalism" is just a forerunner to the next
"regime change" scheme, dirtying up or delegitimizing a foreign leader
before the inevitable advent of a "color revolution" organized by
"democracy-promoting" NGOs often with money from the U.S. government's
National Endowment for Democracy or some neoliberal financier like George
Soros.
We are now seeing what looks like a new preparatory phase for the next round
of "regime changes" with corruption allegations aimed at former Brazilian
President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The new anti-Putin allegations - ballyhooed by the UK Guardian and other
outlets - are particularly noteworthy because the so-called "Panama Papers"
that supposedly implicate him in offshore financial dealings never mention
his name.
Or as the Guardian writes: "Though the president's name does not appear in
any of the records, the data reveals a pattern - his friends have earned
millions from deals that seemingly could not have been secured without his
patronage. The documents suggest Putin's family has benefited from this
money - his friends' fortunes appear his to spend."
Note, if you will, the lack of specificity and the reliance on speculation:
"a pattern"; "seemingly"; "suggest"; "appear." Indeed, if Putin were not
already a demonized figure in the Western media, such phrasing would never
pass an editor's computer screen. Indeed, the only point made in declarative
phrasing is that "the president's name does not appear in any of the
records."
A British media-watch publication, the Off-Guardian, which criticizes much
of the work done at The Guardian, headlined its article on the Putin piece
as "the Panama Papers cause Guardian to collapse into self-parody."
But whatever the truth about Putin's "corruption" or Lula's, the
journalistic point is that the notion of objectivity has long since been
cast aside in favor of what's useful as propaganda for Western interests.
Some of those Western interests now are worried about the growth of the
BRICS economic system - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - as a
competitor to the West's G-7 and the International Monetary Fund. After all,
control of the global financial system has been central to American power in
the post-World War II world - and rivals to the West's monopoly are not
welcome.
What the built-in bias against these and other "unfriendly" governments
means, in practical terms, is that one standard applies to a Russia or a
Brazil, while a more forgiving measure is applied to the corruption of a
U.S. or European leader.
Take, for instance, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's millions of
dollars in payments in speaking fees from wealthy special interests that
knew she was a good bet to become the next U.S. president. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "Clinton Stalls on Goldman-Sachs Speeches."]
Or, similarly, the millions upon millions of dollars invested in super-PACS
for Clinton, Sen. Ted Cruz and other presidential hopefuls. That might look
like corruption from an objective standard but is treated as just a
distasteful aspect of the U.S. political process.
But imagine for a minute if Putin had been paid millions of dollars for
brief speeches before powerful corporations, banks and interest groups doing
business with the Kremlin. That would be held up as de facto proof of his
illicit greed and corruption.
Losing Perspective
Also, when it's a demonized foreign leader, any "corruption" will do,
however minor. For example, in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan's
denounced Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega for his choice of eyewear: "The
dictator in designer glasses," declared Reagan, even as Nancy Reagan was
accepting free designer gowns and free renovations of the White House funded
by oil and gas interests.
Or, the "corruption" for a demonized leader can be a modest luxury, such as
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych's "sauna" in his personal residence, a
topic that got front-page treatment in The New York Times and other Western
publications seeking to justify the violent coup that drove Yanukovych from
office in February 2014.
Incidentally, both Ortega and Yanukovych had been popularly elected but were
still targeted by the U.S. government and its operatives with violent
destabilization campaigns. In the 1980s, the CIA-organized Nicaraguan Contra
war killed some 30,000 people, while the U.S.-orchestrated "regime change"
in Ukraine sparked a civil war that has left some 10,000 people dead. Of
course, in both cases, Official Washington blamed Moscow for all the
trouble.
In both cases, too, the politicians and operatives who gained power as a
result of the conflicts were arguably more corrupt than the Nicaraguan
Sandinistas or Yanukovych's government. The Nicaraguan Contras, whose
violence helped pave the way for the 1990 election of U.S.-backed candidate
Violeta Chamorro, were deeply implicated in cocaine trafficking. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "The Sordid Contra-Cocaine Saga."]
Today, the U.S.-supported Ukrainian government is wallowing in corruption so
deep that it has provoked a new political crisis.[See Consortiumnews'com's
"Reality Peeks Through in Ukraine."]
Ironically, one of the politicians actually named in the Panama Papers for
having established a shadowy offshore account is the U.S.-backed Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko, although he got decidedly second-billing to the
unnamed Putin. (Poroshenko denied there was anything improper in his
offshore financial arrangements.)
Double Standards
Mainstream Western journalism no longer even tries to apply common standards
to questions about corruption. If you're a favored government, there might
be lamentations about the need for more "reform" - which often means
slashing pensions for the elderly and cutting social programs for the poor -
but if you're a demonized leader, then the only permissible answer is
criminal indictment and/or "regime change."
One stark example of these double standards is the see-no-evil attitude
toward the corruption of Ukraine's Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, who is
touted endlessly in the Western media as the paragon of Ukrainian good
governance and reform. The documented reality, however, is that Jaresko
enriched herself through her control of a U.S.-taxpayer-financed investment
fund that was supposed to help the people of Ukraine build their economy.
According to the terms of the $150 million investment fund created by the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Jaresko's compensation
was supposed to be capped at $150,000 a year, a pay package that many
Americans would envy. But it was not enough for Jaresko, who first simply
exceeded the limit by hundreds of thousands of dollars and then moved her
compensation off-books as she amassed total annual pay of $2 million or
more.
The documentation of this scheming is clear. I have published multiple
stories citing the evidence of both her excessive compensation and her legal
strategies for covering up evidence of alleged wrongdoing. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "How Ukraine's Finance Minister Got Rich" and
"Carpetbagging Crony Capitalism in Ukraine."]
Despite the evidence, not a single mainstream Western news outlet has
followed up on this information even as Jaresko is hailed as a "reform"
candidate for Ukrainian prime minister.
This disinterest is similar to the blinders that The New York Times and
other major Western newspapers put on when they were assessing whether
Ukrainian President Yanukovych was ousted in a coup in February 2014 or just
wandered off and forgot to return.
In a major "investigative" piece, the Times concluded there was no coup in
Ukraine while ignoring the evidence of a coup, such as the intercepted phone
call between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria
Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who they
would put into power. "Yats is the guy," said Nuland - and surprise,
surprise, Arseniy Yatsenyuk ended up as prime minister.
The Times also ignored the observation of George Friedman, president of the
global intelligence firm Stratfor, who noted that the Ukraine coup was "the
most blatant coup in history." [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT Still Pretends
No Coup in Ukraine."]
The Propaganda Weapon
The other advantage of "corruption" as a propaganda weapon to discredit
certain leaders is that we all assume that there is plenty of corruption in
governments as well as in the private sector all around the world. Alleging
corruption is like shooting large fish crowded into a small barrel. Granted,
some barrels might be more crowded than others but the real decision is
whose barrel you choose.
That's part of the reason why the U.S. government has spread around hundreds
of millions of dollars to finance "journalism" organizations, train
political activists and support "non-governmental organizations" that
promote U.S. policy goals inside targeted countries. For instance, before
the Feb. 22, 2014 coup in Ukraine, there were scores of such operations in
the country financed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), whose
budget from Congress exceeds $100 million a year.
But NED, which has been run by neocon Carl Gershman since its founding in
1983, is only part of the picture. You have other propaganda fronts
operating under the umbrella of the State Department and USAID. Last year,
USAID issued a fact sheet summarizing its work financing friendly
journalists around the globe, including "journalism education, media
business development, capacity building for supportive institutions, and
strengthening legal-regulatory environments for free media."
USAID estimated its budget for "media strengthening programs in over 30
countries" at $40 million annually, including aiding "independent media
organizations and bloggers in over a dozen countries," In Ukraine before the
coup, USAID offered training in "mobile phone and website security," which
sounds a bit like an operation to thwart the local government's intelligence
gathering, an ironic position for the U.S. with its surveillance obsession,
including prosecuting whistleblowers based on evidence that they talked to
journalists.
USAID, working with billionaire George Soros's Open Society, also funds the
Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which engages in
"investigative journalism" that usually goes after governments that have
fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled out for
accusations of corruption. The USAID-funded OCCRP also collaborates with
Bellingcat, an online investigative website founded by blogger Eliot
Higgins.
Higgins has spread misinformation on the Internet, including discredited
claims implicating the Syrian government in the sarin attack in 2013 and
directing an Australian TV news crew to what looked to be the wrong location
for a video of a BUK anti-aircraft battery as it supposedly made its getaway
to Russia after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in July 2014.
Despite his dubious record of accuracy, Higgins has gained mainstream
acclaim, in part, because his "findings" always match up with the propaganda
theme that the U.S. government and its Western allies are peddling. Though
most genuinely independent bloggers are ignored by the mainstream media,
Higgins has found his work touted by both The New York Times and The
Washington Post.
In other words, the U.S. government has a robust strategy for deploying
direct and indirect agents of influence. Indeed, during the first Cold War,
the CIA and the old U.S. Information Agency refined the art of "information
warfare," including pioneering some of its current features like having
ostensibly "independent" entities and cut-outs present U.S. propaganda to a
cynical public that would reject much of what it hears from government but
may trust "citizen journalists" and "bloggers."
But the larger danger from this perversion of journalism is that it sets the
stage for "regime changes" that destabilize whole countries, thwart real
democracy (i.e., the will of the people), and engender civil warfare.
Today's neoconservative dream of mounting a "regime change" in Moscow is
particularly dangerous to the future of both Russia and the world.
Regardless of what you think about President Putin, he is a rational
political leader whose legendary sangfroid makes him someone who is not
prone to emotional decisions. His leadership style also appeals to the
Russian people who overwhelmingly favor him, according to public opinion
polls.
While the American neocons may fantasize that they can generate enough
economic pain and political dissension inside Russia to achieve Putin's
removal, their expectation that he will be followed by a pliable leader like
the late President Boris Yeltsin, who will let U.S. operatives back in to
resume plundering Russia's riches, is almost certainly a fantasy.
The far more likely possibility is that - if a "regime change" could somehow
be arranged - Putin would be replaced by a hard-line nationalist who might
think seriously about unleashing Russia's nuclear arsenal if the West again
tries to defile Mother Russia. For me, it's not Putin who's the worry; it's
the guy after Putin.
So, while legitimate questions about Putin's "corruption" - or that of any
other political leader - should be pursued, the standards of evidence should
not be lowered just because he or anyone else is a demonized figure in the
West. There should be single not double standards.
Western media outrage about "corruption" should be expressed as loudly
against political and business leaders in the U.S. or other G-7 countries as
it is toward those in the BRICS.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
