BILL MOYERS:There couldn’t be a more timely book than this one -- "935 Lies: The Future of Truth and the Decline of America’s Moral Integrity," by Charles Lewis, one of our premier journalists who has inspired many of us in this craft to aim high and dig deep.

First and foremost an investigative reporter, Chuck Lewis produced some of “60 Minutes” hardest-hitting stories. He left CBS News to found the Center for Public Integrity, one of the largest, nonprofit, investigative reporting publishers in the world. He wrote this "New York Times" bestseller "The Buying of the President 2004" and four other investigative books.

As for his new one, those “935 Lies” in the title were uncovered in a three-year study of the rush to war in Iraq by the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism. It is, Lewis writes, a record of what “…US government officials said to cause most Americans and their elected representatives to completely ignore facts, logic, and reason…”

Timely, too, for another reason: 50 years ago this August, President Lyndon Johnson, at whose side I was then working, seized on obscure and unverified events on the other side of the world to rush Congress into the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, a motion that he turned into a blank check for escalating the war in Vietnam. As Chuck Lewis rightly says, it was “a monumental misrepresentation.” Welcome.


CHARLES LEWIS: It’s great to be here.

BILL MOYERS: Do you think George W. Bush lied about Iraq? Do you think Lyndon Johnson lied about Vietnam?

CHARLES LEWIS: Yes. I do. You know, I've, I tried very hard. You know, in the case of Bush, I actually was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Because if someone believes it, if it's a matter of conviction and they've persuaded themselves of something that's untrue, is that a lie? Or do they just have misguided beliefs that, you know. And I tried to give Bush the benefit of the doubt there.

But over time, each passing year, I've decided that I was way too generous. And the-- I look at flatly: did they make statements that weren't true? The answer is yes. Did they decide they were going to willfully do that over a period of two years? And was it an orchestrated campaign? And it was false statements.

Those were not coincidental. If you look who said what, when. And the when, especially, is quite relevant. This was an orchestrated campaign. Which, of course, Scott McClellan, the press secretary to Bush, publicly essentially said in his memoir after our report, “Iraq: The War Card” came out, by the way, a few months later. So, yeah, I believe in both cases, Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush, they knew what they were saying was not right. They knew it was not precise or accurate. And they knew it would mislead the American people but also do what they wanted to do. In both cases they had an agenda. That's what I believe.

BILL MOYERS: Well, you've said that we should never underestimate the capacity for self-delusion. Who was it who said that convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies? I mean, they can believe it so completely, be so self-deluded, right? That--

CHARLES LEWIS: Wow, exactly. All the Bush folks. Bush, Cheney. No one has done a candid interview with them where they actually pin their ears to the wall and ask them the tough ques-- I have not seen anyone do that. That's not coincidental. They’ve never been called before Congress. Now what is that about? We used to have this idea of checks and balances. We don’t have any checks and balances.

The Bush administration also destroys tens of millions of emails that no one could see. So, I mean, and no one said anything about it. They had 69 emails accounts that were done through the Republican Party while they were conducting business, knowing that's a private corporation, not part of the United States government.

So, all of this deceit and elaborate efforts to deflect the public from, oh, yeah, the truth, it's pretty outrageous. And we don't-- and so we'll never see some of those emails, ever, I think. And that, to me, is tragic. But, I have enough, I've seen enough now to make a conclusion. Yes, we were absolutely misled, and yes, they did lie. And they, maybe they were lying to themselves. Maybe they actually have come to believe what they're saying. They probably, many of them, some of them, at least, probably do. But they'll never say it on television. And I don't even know if they'll tell their spouses. Who will ever say? I don't know.

BILL MOYERS: Your book traces from the Gulf of Tonkin right on through the Vietnam War. And it traces from the buildup to Iraq to the aftermath of Iraq. And in both cases you clearly outline a pattern of deception that was continued over a long while.

CHARLES LEWIS: It's clear. In both cases those in power knew what they were doing. And those in power had a plan. And those in power orchestrated their plan. And the American people, in both instances, were completely in the dark.

And thousands of lives were lost in both cases. And the fact that we did and it's not a partisan thing. They were two different presidents, two different parties, 40 years apart. But guess what, folks? It was the same basic thing. We wanted to do a war of choice.

BILL MOYERS: When the reports came back from the Gulf of Tonkin, Lyndon Johnson believed them. I know that. I was--


BILL MOYERS: --right there by the tragedy is he acted before they could be verified and before--


BILL MOYERS: --he could get it right. And then he started telling himself that he did the right thing even though the initial information was misleading. And the more he told himself that he was doing the right thing, because there was this danger out here, and that he used it to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed, he then felt he had to keep telling it.


BILL MOYERS: Pretty soon--

CHARLES LEWIS: Then you're a prisoner to your statements.


CHARLES LEWIS: I understand that dynamic.

BILL MOYERS: What have you learned about how Washington goes to war?

CHARLES LEWIS: What I learned is that it's orchestrated. They frame it in a way that’s palatable to the largest possible audience. And they'll say it many, many, many times. That's the most recent way to do it.

BILL MOYERS: Why is the press so complicit in helping them frame it?

CHARLES LEWIS: Well, they basically do the stenography of listening to whatever those in power say and reporting it. They see their first duty wrongly, I think, to just report what's said with very little analysis or critical commentary. And they've been doing that, actually, for a very long time. But they've done it. It's gotten worse over time.

The Washington press corps is a prisoner of what they're assigned to cover. And that's basically whatever officialdom tells them.

But if you say something several times, hundreds of times; there are scientific studies that show we will tend to believe it if we've heard it a lot, even if we actually are not clear at all whether it's true. We just come to assume it's true, why otherwise we wouldn't be hearing this, right? And so we're basically prisoners of whatever folks tell us who are in power.

The problem now is government has more PR people and public relations firms than journalists. And we actually have 1/3 fewer professional reporters. That's a really rotten combination there. No wonder we're easily bamboozled.

BILL MOYERS: So for the last two weeks you could hardly turn on the television set without seeing the architects and the cheerleaders of the invasion of Iraq 11 years ago being asked their opinion now of what the US should do in Iraq.

So there was ABC's Jonathan Karl just the other day turning to Dick Cheney and asking, "What would you do in Iraq?" There wasn't a bit of irony in his voice or in his eyes.

CHARLES LEWIS: Well, it's an abomination. There's a moral problem here. They're not telling the full truth. And they're presenting themselves, the media, a false image. But I know, as a veteran from the networks, actually, I know exactly what that dynamic is. And you are rewarded for the gets you have. The people you-- big names that—

BILL MOYERS: The interview you get. Yeah, the--

CHARLES LEWIS: Right. And if you rip them to shreds, guess what, they're not going to come on your show. I've noticed that, as Mike Wallace's producer.

BILL MOYERS: You've lived in Washington how long now?

CHARLES LEWIS: Boy, wow, it's really scary; 40 years.

BILL MOYERS: So what did you learn in doing this book over the last nine years that you didn't know?

CHARLES LEWIS: Well, it's possible I was in danger of becoming cynical before. But I have to say the extent of the lies. I actually didn't realize the pervasiveness. I just thought that occasionally some turkey would lie. I mean, and but the, it was the extent of this. This is a systemic problem we have here. We have an inability to get the truth in real time. And the media has complete inability to find out the truth in real time. And when it's right in front of their face, they don't always report it. And so we really have a problem here because if we don't know what the truth is in this country, we don't have a country. It's end of story. It's not our country anymore. This is fundamental. And if the public doesn't care about facts then journalists, frankly, are not terribly relevant either. I had a professional crisis. Like, why am I doing this if no one cares and false information is what they believe, not the actual information?

BILL MOYERS: You know James Risen, "The New York Times" reporter, right?


BILL MOYERS: He has refused to testify before a grand jury, under subpoena, and reveal a confidential source of information in his book, "State of War," about the secret US campaign against the Iranian nuclear program. The Supreme Court has refused to hear his case. And Risen now says he will go to jail if necessary. What are the stakes in this case?

CHARLES LEWIS: Well, they're very high. I mean, there's very-- they're very high for Jim in particular, obviously. He could end up in prison, found in contempt by a judge for not testifying, not answering some questions the government asks. If it gets to that point. There is a chance that the US Justice Department will choose to not proceed at this point. There's been at least some indication that's possible. I don't know that it'll happen. I'm certainly hoping that happens. But there's a dirty little secret about national security reporting. There's only about 15 or so people that do that full-time in the United States. In a country of 300-plus million people, only 15 or so do it for a full-time job. And Jim Risen happens to be one. And as you know he's the one who co-authored the domestic surveillance stories that won the Pulitzer back in '05.

Today the dirty little secret in Washington is that we have thousands of cameras. Every cell phone has a GPS tracking device. And you also can't check into any government agency and sign in to get into meet with someone because the government has that information, and they'll know who came.

And if you call them, their calls are potentially monitored. And there is a general belief widely shared that your emails are scraped, or at least accessed. And I know journalists who've been told privately by folks in the NSA and elsewhere that that's basically not untrue. And so you have a situation here. They know who his source was.


CHARLES LEWIS: They do. And they have multiple ways in which they've identified who it is. And that's why they brought a case and they have enough evidence that they hope and they think to convict this person. They've already--

BILL MOYERS: They want to convict the source.

CHARLES LEWIS: They want to convict the source. And they want to have Jim Risen be the one who helps them do it. But they don't want to necessarily betray their intelligence ways that they found out that may or may, they may be legal, because they're government employees, but they're going to appear to be unseemly because they involved monitoring of employees and pulling all kinds of things.

So we have a little-- another strange thing going on here where the government doesn't really want to go anywhere near this subject. And so they would like-- so we're all looking at Jim Risen and whether he goes to prison. And the real issue is actually the government. What are they mad about? Well, he did a story and a chapter in his book, “State of War,” that actually showed that the CIA sent nuclear information to Iran. Oops. And they are livid.

BILL MOYERS: Something we might want to know about.

CHARLES LEWIS: Yep. Yeah, yeah. Exactly.

BILL MOYERS: Right? Might want to know that the government responsible to the people was actually making these serious mistakes?

CHARLES LEWIS: Yeah. It's unbelievable that they were doing that. And it's unbelievable. And so Risen breaks that story in the book. And they are mad that he did this. And they, frankly, embarrassed them. And so they're trying-- this is retribution. I think it has very little to do with anything but retribution.

But I also think what is really disturbing now is the difficulty of doing this type of reporting was never easy. Now it is probably more difficult than it's ever been in US history. And President Obama has used the Espionage Act against journalists more than any president in US history.

BILL MOYERS: I think even Nixon only used it once against--


BILL MOYERS: --Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers. And Obama's used it how many--?

CHARLES LEWIS: Eight times. It's unbelievable. And--

BILL MOYERS: The Espionage Act.

CHARLES LEWIS: Right, the Espionage Act. And who would've ever imagined that? This is something Obama never talked about in campaigns. He never publicly said he was going to go do this. And like a lot of things in his administration, he's trying to have it both ways.

He's supporting a shield law, to some extent, in Congress for journalists. But on the other hand he's criminalizing investigative reporting by going after sources. And so he's throwing a bone, or being accommodating to the national security establishment in Washington, which, you know, in just a couple-year period did 76 million classified documents. Far more than any time in US history. And so he's a prisoner to that community to a large extent. And this is a fellow who didn't know anything about foreign policy. Was a state legislator in Illinois and was a one-term senator. And suddenly he's become more hawkish against reporters than George W. Bush. I don’t know anyone who saw that coming.

BILL MOYERS: What does he know we don't know about?

CHARLES LEWIS: That is really a peculiar thing. And it's not been adequately ventilated. And journalists haven't asked Obama directly the few times they had direct access.

BILL MOYERS: So what's at stake if we do silence and punish whistleblowers?

CHARLES LEWIS: Well, what's at stake is whistleblowers won't come forward. They know they're going to be prosecuted. They know they're being monitored. A lot of sources have dried up. There have been some panels in the last year, too, in the journalistic realm. And folks have talked about how it's harder to find people to talk now because they fear retribution.

They know that the surveillance has gotten incredibly intense. And the stakes are incredibly high. And they get that. And so a lot of folks are who might be inclined to leak and leakers are wonderful. Because they tell reporters what they don't already have and they can't find in any document. They're very essential.

BILL MOYERS: If Edward Snowden had offered you the NSA documents, would you have published them?

CHARLES LEWIS: I would've liked to. He didn't call.

BILL MOYERS: But if he had?

CHARLES LEWIS: I would. I would have. You know, when I ran the Center for Public Integrity, we posted the Patriot Two Act. We were told by the top aide to the attorney general, "Don't do it. You will be sorry if you do." And we quoted them by name in our article and we posted within minutes.

BILL MOYERS: For my younger viewers, what's the Patriot Two Act?

CHARLES LEWIS: The Patriot-- it was called the Patriot Two Act, the Domestic Enhancement Security Act of 2003, to be precise. And they were introducing it just days before the invasion of Iraq, perhaps hoping no one would notice. It took the Patriot Act, which substantially limited civil liberties for large number of Americans and in general, upped the ante about security in America and it took it to a whole another place.

CHARLES LEWIS: The Patriot Two Act was far more restrictive.

BILL MOYERS: When you released this document against the wishes of the government, were there any personal repercussions to you and your organization?

CHARLES LEWIS: There weren't any repercussions from that. But I, you know, I had other things happen. We were sued by Russian billionaire oligarchs for a story we did about Dick Cheney and Halliburton and their business activities in Siberia. That suit went on for five years. It was dismissed.

But, you know, generally, we're not this is a fortunate country in that sense. We don't generally kill journalists or even beat them up, unlike other countries.

BILL MOYERS: Can democracy die of too many lies?

CHARLES LEWIS: I don't think there's any question about it. You're usually the one who quotes scripture. But my only thing I could ever quote, I may not even have it perfectly right, but from Proverbs. "When there is no vision, the people perish." That happens to be one of the all-time, most interesting statements I've ever heard.

And I think if you don't know what's going to happen and you don't know what is happening, how are you going to embrace any problem of our time with any seriousness? If all you're ever doing are two parties fighting over everything and everything is debatable, and you can never reach a consensus on any single thing, and you don't even have common goals anymore, what are we here?

Starting to wonder. And so I actually-- it goes pretty deep here. I think this is so fundamental. And I don't-- I think the only thing we have that we can learn is I do believe that old saw, information is power. I think if we learn what the truth is, we find out what is actually happening, and we have the facts, we can act on them. But there are still many Americans who won't. I reconcile that, myself to that. But there are a lot of Americans who need to frankly, start paying attention.

BILL MOYERS: The book is “935 Lies: The Future of Truth and the Decline of America's Moral Integrity.” Chuck Lewis, thanks for being with me.

CHARLES LEWIS: Thanks for having me.

BILL MOYERS: At our website,, we’ll connect you to that Iraq War Card, a searchable database of the “935 Lies” that led us down the path to bloodshed and chaos.

That’s all at I’ll see you there and I’ll see you here, next time.

The Lies That Lead to War

June 27, 2014

As the exploding crisis in Iraq spotlights once again the tragic record of American policy in the Middle East, Bill speaks with investigative journalist Charles Lewis, whose new book, 935 Lies: The Future of Truth and the Decline of America’s Moral Integrity details the many government falsehoods that have led us into the current nightmare.

Lewis details the deceptions and illusions that have caused “most Americans and their elected representatives to completely ignore facts, logic and reason in the rush to war.” A complicit partner, he says, is a media intent on preserving the status quo and never offending the ruling elite.

Lewis tells Bill, “An outrageous thing happened. We lost $2 trillion. More than 100,000 people died. Folks are going to be maimed for life in the tens of thousands… And no one has ever acknowledged that this was a war on a lark. It was a complete war of choice, because a certain little faction wanted to do it and they orchestrated it… Did they make statements that weren’t true? The answer is yes.”

This week’s show begins with an essay by Bill on the foresight of the legendary Lawrence of Arabia, who, after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, predicted the trap in which the West would fall attempting to interfere in the Middle East.

Producer: Gina Kim. Segment Producer: Lena Shemel. Editor: Donna Marino. Intro Producer: Lena Shemel. Intro Editor: Sikay Tang.

Featured image: New White House press secretary Josh Earnest speaks to the media during his first briefing as press secretary, Monday, June 23, 2014, in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

  • submit to reddit
  • JC

    Good information all. As a student of history and a Viet Nam vet, I’m always amazed at how our government leaders seem to find a way to embellish the truth. Often it’s for political expediency and a lust for more power and control. But, more recently (through the past 4 presidencies), it seems as though there is a “power elite” in the Nation’s Capitol who feel entitled to do whatever they want. Funny how the closer one gets to Washington D.C. the more affected they become by the strange ether that intoxicates and seduces one to the extent that reality and service to the public are soon forgotten. For those who succumb to this myopic delusion, I say there is a special place in hell for you…..and believe me, THAT reality does exist. For those who seem to conveniently forget about history, at the cost of thousands of lives, resources, equipment, and fortune, you are doomed to repeat history (as in Iraq, which was carved up into borders designed by Europeans, NOT the ethnic tribes of the area). Those who vote with educated minds and seek freedom for all people, are the hope of future generations throughout the world. Cynism is

  • Rita Ihly

    I have followed your commentaries for many years. I am so impressed that you ask the questions, and then allow the answers to flow. You are the ultimate facilitator. I have a question. I read a good deal, I am 86, female, and my reading takes me to many disciplines. I do favor historical fiction however. Currently I am reading “The Vikings” by Neil Oliver. Over all of my reading it has come to me that century after century, the world is at war. Even until this day in history. My question is: given all the carnage and continual wars how is it that we have not run out of males to fight these wars? The males are the general population that does the fighting and dying. Is this part of the mid east mentality, to keep the women in the tents to produce more male progeny to fight for their ideology? I have never read anything that explains how we can sacrifice so many males and ‘not run out’.

    Low blow on controversies, but I cannot help but wonder.

  • ErnestineBass

    Government leaders don’t embellish the truth, they lie, plain and simple.

  • Anonymous

    my Aunty Allison recently got a nice 6
    month old Jaguar by working from a macbook.this website C­a­s­h­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

  • Lee Cox

    I want the job where you get to make up the lies. How do you apply for that?

  • JonThomas

    Lol… It’s the quid pro quo for selling your soul.

  • FDRliberal

    Go to William Kristol’s website. He has a form you can fill out.

  • NotARedneck

    When I was in university, there was another student I occasionally liked to talk with. He was reasonably well read and occasionally introduced me to ideas and facts that I was unfamiliar with. This was very unlike about 99% of the other students there – most of whom had absolutely no interest in things like history, politics, current events and other similar areas of study.

    He was also the president of the campus conservative political organization. This I found a little mystifying since, if I pushed him a bit I found that he usually seemed to have ideas that were very much at odds with the mainstream right wing views.

    One day he put it rather succinctly. “The people who fund these political clubs can do me a lot of good. They have money, power and connections and I want to tap into this. You should consider this too.”

    Tapping into this largess often requires doing unpalatable things. Persistently lying on their behalf is one of them.

    This also explains the success of the right wing criminals of our society – 99% of the voters hardly care and many of the remaining 1% are corrupted and co-opted.

  • Alan D Smith

    Again, you mistakenly called America a democracy. That’s the cornerstone of the banksters’ matrix of lies. There has never been a democracy on Earth, yet. What we have makes a mockery of the concept of democracy: government designed to define and fulfill the true will of the People. Our system only promotes the will of the .001%. So, let’s call that deMockery!

    Not until we’ve created a system to publicly define the will of the People will we have had democracy on Earth. Nothing is ever achieved until it has been defined. And, most folks only want peace, justice, truth and prosperity. Don’t you?

    If you want help Mankind win the banksters War On Humanity and trigger our prophesied thousand years of peace, justice, truth and prosperity for posterity…. all from your easy chair, then sign the Real Democracy Petition to End Political Corruption at

  • Gary Graham

    Ten years ago the book “When Presidents Lie”, by Eric Alterman, was published. Another book: “Imperial Hubris” by an anonymous author also came out. Both described environments structured upon misinformation and outright lying. I can understand (but not accept) reporters and those they report upon coming to believe, over time that lying is just part of the fabric of their careers. What I do not understand is the failure of schools of journalism to find a solution that can dissolve this fabric before it smothers the conscience of these bright and high minded journalism graduates and destroys any immunity they might otherwise have to a political theater so rife with corruption, cynicism and lying.

  • Anonymous

    This loss of male lives has been with us for a hundred thousand years. Archeologists have determined that ancient Stone Age tribes typically lost a third of their males to skirmishes. Suggest you read the book “Us Against Them” by Bruce Rozenblit.

  • Anonymous

    Our deadlocked congress indirectly promotes war for it is only in the foreign policy area that a president can act.

    Our corporate-controlled media is totally compromised and our educational system is designed to produce unthinking worker bees. When is the last time someone took a civics class?

  • Anonymous

    I’m still amazed at the brazenness of the campaign to bring about an invasion and occupation of Iraq. It seemed to me that the it was SO OBVIOUS that the Bush administration wanted a war and was willing to say and do anything to bring it about. A big “tell” was that they would make outrageous demands of the Iraqi regime and then, when the regime acceded, they would never see that cooperation as a positive. Instead, they would claim that the Iraqis weren’t complying well enough. You could tell that administration officials were pissed, not pleased by the cooperation, because the hope was that the Iraqi regime would say no, and then the administration could say, “See, you can’t deal with these people. War is the only option.”

    The whole premise – that if Hussein’s regime had anything that could be deemed a WMD, we had to go to war – was absurd. The idea that somehow, if they had these weapons, they could “hold the world hostage” (or “hostile,” in the words of Dubya) was ludicrous. How would they do that, even if they had a nuclear weapon? The rest of the world could just say, “Do your worst, but bear in mind that we will annihilate your country if you do.” I mean, many countries have WMD, and none of them can hold the world hostage. And the idea that the regime would give or sell these weapons to terrorists was equally ludicrous. No regime, especially a dictatorship relying on complete control, is going to give their most powerful weapons to lunatics they can’t control.

    I was stunned at the time that media didn’t take apart this ridiculous illogic and seemed to generally accept whatever framing the Bush administration offered. Then, when the Downing Street Memos were exposed, a bombshell if ever there was, they yawned, and some (Michael Kinsley comes to mind) even had the temerity to write, in effect, that “there’s nothing to see here. We already knew the administration was lying.” Yet, their previous reporting hadn’t reflected this knowledge. Another case in which mainstream media dropped the ball was the massive anti-war protest held in D.C. in October of 2002, the largest protest in our nation’s capitol since the Vietnam War. There were protests all around the world on that day, but the most important, naturally, was the one in D.C. Yet when I got home afterwards and got a chance to check out CNN’s coverage, I could see that they deliberately downplayed the affair. There coverage started with a brief description of the coordinated worldwide protests, and a mention that organizers were (I kid you not) “disappointed with the low turnout in Madrid [Spain]” After a quick pan of part of the crowd, CNN finished with a repeat of the supposed disappointment with the low turnout in Madrid. It’s clear to me that CNN got a phone call from the administration and was encouraged to minimize the importance of the protest. So much for the fourth estate.

  • valib

    unfortunately, most of our citizens are too poorly informed (“low information voters”) to make a true democracy work; of course, a lot of those jokers up on the Hill are pretty “low informed” also….sad sad

  • Rita Ihly

    Thank you, I’ll check my library.

  • MikeD

    Why are facts, logic and reason often missing in the rush to war? It’s not just
    war, it has seeped into the body politic. In the 2012 elections, I thought Paul
    Ryan was trying to beat the 935 lies record with just one speech. And though it
    came mostly from the right, the other side were no slouches either.

    blame can be placed squarely on the population who are happy to live in a
    see/hear/speak-no-evil bubble. Democracy means We the People but the social contract we have is that the government does
    whatever the heck it wants to do, the media provides the distract-ainment and
    the people merrily “Go down to Disney World in Florida,” as George W. Bush urged
    just over two weeks after 9/11.

  • dj j

    I too was shocked they trotted out Paul Wolfowitz on Meet the press! and now we have Cheney running his mouth as well. The democrats should have held hearings and prosecuted them for war crimes. Since nothing happened to them, they have nothing to apologize for. They can just blame the media, which is worthless corporate owned blech. Maybe if the democrats treated the republicans like they treat the dems..give them a taste of their own medicine with endless obstruction and trumped up scandals, maybe something will change…but dems are too nice and weak to do the evil idiotic stuff that republicans get away with

  • Kelsey Ness

    Mr, Moyers,
    You remain America’s greatest journalist and source of truth.
    I wish for all who view your shows, to share this material.
    The sad part of this is, you remain the LAST of the great journalists; I suppose it’s fitting that you’re the last one standing.

    Please, people….share this mans broadcasts as often as possible.
    The Liberty Lantern in the barn has fallen and the fire is starting .
    It takes no time at all for a fire to spread.

    The whole thing will be in flames before you know it.

  • Alan D Smith

    Democracy will be dictated by Mankind’s best minds.

  • Vera Gottlieb

    As Nazi Minister of Propaganda Goebbels said: repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it. It is a poor reflection on our society when dishonesty (lies) is the only way to achieve a goal. Can’t help but notice that in both the 20th and 21st centuries, it is the Christian culture that keeps gracing this planet with wars. It isn’t the ‘Axis of Evil’ that needs watching, it is the Anglo/Saxon one.

  • Vaughan Galustian

    There is nothing left to fight for. All is lost.

    Perhaps our problem is that we struggle too much. Perhaps we should try a different approach…and do nothing at all. Do not indulge the lies, do not participate, do not vote, do not join the wars, do not respect the laws, do not recognize the institutions that hold this thin fabric of civilization in place.

  • William Wood von Wollmuth

    THE media is complicit in the distribution of misinformation and propaganda – because almost all news reporters are talking heads given scripts to read – proffessional media talent NOT journalists – all the news networks, print & media now subscribe to distributors to get their news – NYTimes, Reuters, or AP distribute the CFR’s propaganda / misinformation, and all news reporting agencies subscribe to one of these sources .. besides almost all of the news media are also CFR members – the CFR has put an editor / censor at the helm of almost all news / media outlets to insure that if the CFR doesnt want something to get reported on it is not reported, the stories are buried – OR – the CFR spins the story the way they want it spun and the subscribers are given a script and pretty much follow it word for word. Examples can be found by reviewing past video – one in particular was that “Ron Paul is not electable” this was repeated again and again and that the media blacked out anything to do with Ron Paul because the powers that be were afraid of how many people in the nation were for him, and did everything in the CFR’s power to discredit him and subvert the media from reporting the truth about Ron Paul, and prevented him from entering into many debate venues .. and of course we never heard anything about it because the entire media was complicit in not reporting anything positive about Ron Paul or reporting any of the negative things that were going on such as people who were put in place by the presidential election committee to under report Ron Paul’s delegates or would swap Ron Paul’s high delegate numbers with Romney’s lesser delegate numbers, and report romney’s numbers as Paul’s and Ron Paul’s as Romney’s and then destroy the evidence right after the numbers were reported. If the election would have been done totally honestly – Ron Paul would be sitting in the Whitehouse today, and the Federal Reserve eliminated, and the IRS reduced to almost nothing because of a flat tax system. This is what the Fascist Corporate Oligopoly was afraid of ~ somebody like Ron Paul upsetting their corrupt graft riddled political apple cart and having to play in politics fairly, pay their fair share in taxes, and have to comply with honest rules no longer made by them through their clandestine briberous behavior and well paid corporation-owned lobbiests.

  • Friedrich VonDeitsch

    All who did not previously know about these facts are either under five years old or, most likely, are too patriotic to ever admit our nation could ever be wrong, deceitful or motivated by the greed of people who are hopelessly irresponsible.

    The sitting United States president who did nothing to stop the wars we are now suffering the loss of humans by the thousands and tax payers hard earned money in excess of two trillion dollars, is sitting “pretty” in his Texas life of luxury and nothing will ever be done to himself or the rest of his sociopath family.

    What was done to Americans by this irresponsible and heartless bunch fools was like having been raped by a man, then being sued wrongly in divorce court because you were never married, and losing to him and forced to pay alimony to him for the rest of your life. We were lied to, and about so we must live in shame for another person’s faults for all time.

  • Anonymous

    At the onset of the televised invasion, I remember standing next to my dad, a man of few words, and I could see a bit of concern in his face about the thing that was unfolding. Unusual, because he was not particularly political. At that moment I felt that he was sensing what I was, that we didn’t really trust the veracity of this thing, but, had no way to resolve the truth of it.
    Many months later, as the “victorious” invasion became an unmitigated disaster, news of the truth started to appear. Grudgingly, and inch by contested inch, the whole war was revealed to be completely bogus and a traitorous act against democracy and the sovereignty of the citizens of the United States.

  • EthanAllen1

    Re: irrefudiate 30 Dec 2014
    Thanks for your succinct and erudite revisiting of this topic! While there is no informed doubt that multiple crimes were committed in the name of the citizens of the United States by the Bush II administration, facilitated by a complicit Congress, corrupted legal establishment, and marketed by corporate media sycophants, this sordid period of our national history actually began long before the Cheney/Bush regime was anointed by SCOTUS.
    As long as the majority of our citizens, rather through indifference, complacency, or willful ignorance, remain comfortably uninformed and uninvolved in their own governance, the institutions of our government will continue to be ruled by those who prefer the spoils of private advantage over the welfare of the public good.
    “Work is love made visible.” KG
    As Usual,

  • Anonymous

    A free Press was cited in the Constitution as being “necessary” to democracy. But, from the very outset, the press has, from time to time, been used for nefarious purposes. Besides being used and abused by the Administration, I hold it most complicit in furthering the Bush/Cheney ambitions. As Karl Rove said of his new propaganda machine, “We will create our own reality, and you, reporters, will investigate–as you should–but, by the time you have reached your conclusions, we will have created another reality, and that is just how it will go.” [extremely paraphrased]

  • moderator


    If you choose to use links in your posts, Disqus (the platform used for our comment section) will place them into either the pending or the spam folders. These posts must then be manually approved by the moderator.


  • Anonymous

    Being aware of other comments by you, I assumed that you had sufficient historical knowledge to fill in the gaps, and, I was right. But, your allusion to lazy thinking on my part is, also, correct. I am a terribly lazy person in general and depend upon good, critical writers and thinkers for information. So, thanks for the information and have a good year.

  • EthanAllen1

    Re: moderator – 1 Jan 2015

    Thank you for taking the time to both rehabilitate my original posting and reply to my concerns as expressed on 1 Jan 2015; quoted below in pertinent part:

    EthanAllen1 > irrefudiate – a day ago – Removed

    Note to moderators:

    The reply, resubmitted below, was originally made on 31 Dec 2014. Upon discovering that it had been falsely branded “Detected as spam”, and subsequently not posted to the comments herein, I recovered it from my DISCUS history.
    (1) What conditions of use have allegedly been violated?
    (2) Who made the above determination, and why?

    As a patron and supporter of PBS for several decades, an advocate and user of DISCUS for the past couple of years, and one who is reasonably cognizant of the many obstacles to substantive Internet discourse still occasioned by intentionally disruptive behavior; I truly appreciate and support any attempt to maintain reason and comity through thoughtful moderation.
    My hope is that like-minded technologists will soon improve upon the means to accurately identify disruptive “spamming” and “trolling” without occasioning the abridgement or censorship of equitable participation. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in San Francisco is doing great work in the field of IT security, and are very amenable to inquiry.
    Regarding the inclusion of “links” and “hyperlinks” in the body of comments and replies herein being flagged by DISCUS as “spam” or “pending moderation”; it is my experience, having engaged in discussions on many sites using their service that, other than this instance, Common Dreams is the only other site, to my knowledge, that disallows such bibliographical referencing.
    Thank you again for indulging my concerns.
    “Work is love made visible.” KG
    As Usual,

  • EthanAllen1

    Re: irrefudiate – 2 Jan 2015
    Though I do not actually recall alluding to any “lazy thinking” on your part, I confess that my short-term memory is in disrepair and, at my age, any meaningful rehabilitation is unlikely.
    Actually, your original post (Tuesday 30 December @ 8:16AM) struck me as especially erudite and thoughtful; and I look forward to any future exchanges you may entertain!
    “Work is love made visible.” KG
    As Usual,