Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Dividing Russia

By Mark Ames, The eXile. Posted June 29, 2005.


America has been at war with Russia for nearly two decades; a grossly one-sided war in which the U.S. is quietly conquering more and more territory with the kind of tireless efficiency not seen since the days of the Golden Horde.
Dividing Russia
Dividing Russia
Advertisement

A lake disappeared in a Russian town east of Moscow this past May. And if the Reuters account of the vanishing lake is to be believed, some local residents blamed the disappearance on the evil Americans. The Western press loves stories like these -- it proves that even God has it in for the Russians. And with good reason: they're anti-American, and they're stubbornly backwards, so therefore, bad things naturally happen to them.

It didn't take long for the smug American sneer-machine to respond. One blogger compiled a list of humorous accounts called, "Memo to Self: Don't Waterski in Bolotnikovo." An article by Matt McClurg on the cleverly named e-zine "Spoof.com," titled, "U.S. Steals Lake-Mocks Russian Village," opens with this ham-fisted side-slapper:

The Russian village of Bolotnikovo, where Stalinist Brainwashing remains the religion of choice, is renowned as a peaceful place... But, the greatest pride of tiny Bolotnikovo, the beaming joy of its happy and well-educated serfs turned scientists, was its lake -- its splendor slightly greater than a mud hole, but not as extravagant as an oil slick rainbow on wet tarmac. Briefly: it was a place that the Americans were monstrously envious of.

The joke, you see, is that America is so wealthy and advanced that it would have no need for a wretched lake in a dying stretch of Middle Russia. Americans find it funny -- the same way that rich bullies get off on sneering at poor, doomed losers. You can almost hear the cheerleader sneer at the unpopular loser girl: "Yeah right, I'm like, soooo jealous that I don't have oily skin and that I don't live in a shack like your family. Gawd, it's like, I'd do anything to trade in my family's five-bedroom home for yours!... Not!"

The real story here should be exactly what McClurg mocks: that in fact, Bolotnikovo, like so many villages in this, the largest country on earth, is literally dying, a depressing, slow extinction that normally goes unnoticed, unless an unbelievably grotesque tragedy strikes it -- in which case the people with the SUVs and speedboats can cite it as witty material to celebrate their own health, wealth and progress.

Why would a cruel act of nature visited upon a poor remote village inspire a seemingly absurd anti-American outburst from its inhabitants, and triumphant bully-humor in response?

The answer, incredibly enough, is because the Americans really did steal that lake.

Although I've been living in Russia for most of the last 10 years, I remember my fellow Americans well enough to know that their reaction to this statement is: the "Oh come on, please!" sneer they give you, which is an argument killer that works every time. But the fact is that America has, by any objective standard, been at war with Russia for nearly two decades, a grossly one-sided war in which the U.S. is quietly conquering more and more territory with the kind of tireless efficiency and success not seen since the days of the Golden Horde.

As crazy as this may sound, the fact is that official Russian media reports on this undeclared war almost every day, and off-screen, American analysts have been gloating about it for quite some time. As the intelligence newsletter Stratfor -- which Time magazine ranked as the nation's top intelligence site in 2003, and which Barron's described as "a private quasi-CIA" -- pointed out a few months ago, with Ukraine now firmly in the West's orbit, America, with NATO and the EU, has managed to succeed exactly where Hitler and Napoleon failed: it has dismantled the Russian empire, leaving the rump state exposed, weakened and essentially at the West's mercy.

Indeed right after last December's successful US-funded revolution in Kiev, Stratfor observed, "Without Ukraine, Russia's political, economic and military survivability are called into question...To say that Russia is at a turning point is a gross understatement. Without Ukraine, Russia is doomed to a painful slide into geopolitical obsolescence and ultimately, perhaps even non-existence."

While most Americans are fed stories about a menacing, resurgent Russia behaving like a mini-version of its evil old Soviet self, the real looming threat according to others is that the Russian state might actually disintegrate. Dmitry Medveev, the Kremlin's chief of staff and the man often mentioned as Putin's potential successor, warned exactly of this danger immediately after the so-called "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan.

In a rare interview with the Russian business magazine Expert, Medvedev, a 39-year-old former lawyer, said, "If we don't manage to consolidate elites, Russia may disappear as one state. The disintegration of the Soviet Union would look like a kindergarten party compared to the collapse of the modern Russian state."

He warned that the Russian elites, who have become increasingly divided lately, should unite behind the idea of "preserving an effective state system within the existing boundaries."

It is interesting that Medvedev emphasized preserving Russia's "existing boundaries," since this shows that Russia's biggest worry now is not so much losing its former vast sphere of influence -- that's already pretty much gone -- but rather, it may lose whole chunks of its own territory. Much as Serbia, its one lone ally in Europe, did after it opposed the West.


Digg!

Mark Ames is editor of the Moscow English alt weekly, The eXile.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Incredible article
Posted by: keffiya on Jun 29, 2005 1:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So... basically, if you were rooting for the U.S., and thinking in realpolitik terms, we actually drove Russia into the ground. And continue to drive it into the ground.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mazur
Posted by: mazur on Jun 29, 2005 1:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This screed may look like an explanation to some Americans. Possibly. People tend to like conspiracy theories. But I'd like to ask the author how his theory explains the "state banditism" in Chechnya -- when units of the Russian General Staff Intelligence Service descend on villages and demand ransom from males in exchange for not being labelled "terrorists", and haul away those who don't pay -- or just anybody if they so fancy. And they summarily executed a female village council head in one village who dared to oppose them. She was the fourth murdered council head in this village.

Regarding Ukraine -- Western funds sure helped some, but if the people had not been good and tired of state corruption, poverty and insecurity of the last 20 years, the revolution would gain no traction at all. In Russia, only state bureaucrats feel secure these days, so it's small wonder that Ukrainians don't want to join Russia. We've had enough, thank you.

Kyrgyzstan was virtually a monarchy, with Akaev's extended family controlling everything. Uzbekistan is still that. Would you Americans like to live in such a country? Then don't doubt that peoples of those countries don't like it either.

To summarize, sad as it is, Russia doesn't need Uncle Sam's intervention to disintegrate. It only needs him as a convenient, established scarecrow for its own people. Oh, and to buy oil, of course.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mazur Posted by: redstarwraith
» RE: mazur Posted by: mazur
Bear-baiting
Posted by: GeoffW on Jun 29, 2005 3:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've come to suspect for a while that as much as President Bush is accused of trying to finish his father's war, the bigger and untold story is the group of Cold Warriors surrounding him wanting to finish their own war. It must be terribly frustrating to them that the Evil Empire collapsed not after our troops planted an American flag on St. Basil's, but rather from the inside due to internal political and economic pressures. How anti-climactic! Now they're in a position to do what they've wanted to for the last 40 years: put the Russian bear in a cage of their making.
I fully acknowledge mazur's comments above. Certainly if the people of Central Asia and Eastern Europe think it's time to shake things up and elect better leaders then more power to them. But I would think any involvement in this matter by the US can't be seen as altruistic at this point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bear-baiting Posted by: mazur
» RE: Bear-baiting Posted by: royrogers
How about the lake?
Posted by: roguezombie on Jun 29, 2005 4:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article is very interesting, but I missed the part that explained how the US stole the lake. More generally, it's hard to feel sorry for Russia, whose name has long been a synonym of opression for its own and many other peoples. After all, it was Putin who got Russia into this mess, by starting the 2nd Chechen war, thus wrecking the modus vivendi by which Chechnya quietly ran itself while officially remaining part of Russia. Furthermore, the Russian people were tricked into supporting Putin's adventurism by means of terrorist attacks on Russian civilians staged by the Russian secret police pretending to be Chechens! It is Putin, a former KGB spook, who lets the FSB/KGB do what it wants. US imperialism may be distasteful, but when it thwarts monsters like Putin, I cannot help but sympathize with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil!!!!!!
Posted by: Pepper on Jun 29, 2005 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any of you who thing this administration did someone a favor, might be right, but all that happened is they traded one dictator for another emperialist owner, the US. And it was all for oil. There isn't a single idealist or high integrity humanist among the lot of those mentioned who are US reps. I specifically mean such indictees as Kissinger. Here is a man who has been indicted for "Crimes against Humanity" for what he did in Timor back in the 70's under the poor idiot, Nixon.

Baker, who is the man who ran the Reagan administration once the Bush attempted assassination didn't work. However, Nancy Reagan got the message and pulled Reagan back and let Bush run the country since that attempt. That is why she vehemently speaks against Bush during election time.

The whole family and all the Reagan advisors know what that Bush evil lizard did during that period and all his people are now running this show.

So, while Russia is not exactly your best example of a good country government, it is not the idealism of the Americans that is doing this to that nation. Its the greed brigade and OIL, OIL, OIL. Lets get Fusion energy so they have no one to sell that oil too. LOL Now that would be poetic justice wouldn't it?????

France is building a fusion reactor, it was in the news today. If they succeed, they will make America (the neocons) eat it. I love it. P

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Demockracy in AmeriKa
Posted by: rob_low on Jun 29, 2005 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of the responses to this article have castigated any "conneting of the dots" as conspiracy theories. However, any perusal of the definition of a conspiracy will show that one of its main attributes is that it's done in secret. Brzezinski's bragging about how he and the Carter administration lured Russia into the Afgahnistan War and his subsequent involvement in the Chechyan dispute, with the administration again coddling jihadists who share their short-term goals, belie any accusations of conspiracy. What they do now , such as the dismantling of the US economy, they do in full view of the world. For they know that their power is now so absolute, that they will never be held accountable for their actions. As Tony Blair said in a May issue of "The New Yorker": "The Difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, is that in a Democracy, when something massive occurs, someone is held accountable. In a Dictatorship, they're not."
Baker, Perle, Bush, et. al. can do whatever they please, they will never be asked, "Gee, Dubya...Why'd ya have to kill all those people?" Because as DeToqueville wrote in 1835 about the American populace in his epic tome "Democracy in America", is even more true today:
"They have an immmensely high opinion of themselves and are not far form believing that they form a species apart from the rest of the human race".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Contemporary Russia
Posted by: alexir on Jun 29, 2005 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fellow travellers such as Mark Ames never seem to ask why it might be that so many former Soviet peoples wish to escape the Russian orbit.
The answer is quite simple: The current Russia is still an empire, dominated by ethnic Russians. The republics of the FSU and those of the Federation simply are/were colonies. Most, for reasons that really shouldn't be that hard to conprehend, do not wish to continue in this status.
It's true that the US has tried to influence various movements within the FSU, but so what? It's unlikely that anything would every had happened had not the people themselves wished for a change. It's not even the case that the US has received that much in return: for example, Ukraine is pullng its contingent out of Iraq this Fall.
In any case, Russia seems to have more pressing problems than the disintegration of its empire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah Mother Russia
Posted by: nakis on Jun 29, 2005 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's hard to argue against the fact that Russia is paying for it's 'sins' of the past (and present). Just as Mother America must. It's hard to feel any compassion for the government that brought so much suffering to so many people.
Unfortunately it's a fact that it's the American empire that is slowly swallowing the former USSR live. As bad as Russia was/is allowing the US to do the same is not right either.

This article names a list of actors in the world play that reads like a list of demons incarnate. Viscious monsters salivating over the corpses of people and hungry for money and power. DRBs.

Why do Muslims hate America? Because our government seeks global hegemony. All the while claiming democracy and freedom when that is the last thing they want. No profit in it. The only freedom they desire is the freedom to reap from the people everything they can. AARRRGGHH!!

This article is just too good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good Topic (but could have been more focused)
Posted by: Moaz on Jun 29, 2005 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I ackowledge and agree with the points made in the articles. However, I have a few comments:

1. The article could have been structured better. There is something called the pyramid style of writing: You tell the reader upfront your purpose of writing this article and the main point that you want to convey right in the beggining and the rest of the article supports your point and shows various angles and aspects of it. However, in this article, the purpose and objective was scattered all over and it was left for the reader to pick up the pieces and understand what exactly it is that the writer was trying to say.

2. It seemed that the writer was most upset about Serbia breaking up. Serbia? Which slaughterd hundreds of thousands of innocent people? It somehow seems diffucult to sympathize with the writer's strong personal feelings about the break up of Serbia. And may I remind that it was not Serbia that broke up but Yogoslavia, of which Serbia was just a part. And this lamment appears again and again in the article, sometimes incoherently.

3. Even if US is supporting the Chechen struggle, nothing can justify its brutal supression. Also, I may ask, what is wrong, moraly or ethically for the Chechens to seek their independence from Russia? Their fight against the Russians dates backs many centuries. In the nineteenth century, they even got their freedom for a brief period only to be defeated by the Russians and forcefully annexed. One can justify Russian occupation of Chechniya as much as American occupation of Iraq. Imperialism and Empire building in any form is wrong whether it is by US or by Russia. If Russia has to be a great country,a great power in the world, it need not have an Empire. It could be strong within its most tightly defined and controlled context and still influence the world through foregin and economic policies. I think what is sad is not why Ukraine and others fell out of Russian influence and into American, but that any country should be forced to be controlled and dictated by another country.

4. What is the solution for Russia to regain its position in the world? Could it be just through power politics or would it come through following the right principals? Never forget that the great Soviet Empire and its network of Satellite states was built and based on the ideals of socialism (right or wrong) and not just naked empire building and colonialism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

redstarwraith
Posted by: redstarwraith on Jun 29, 2005 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a lot of US misinformation/propaganda people seem to have been fed regarding Putin! The fact of the matter is that Russians overwhelmingly like the guy. The US can beat its chest and claim Putin "clamps down on democracy" all it wants. What Putin did, and what the US media (including that "bastion of progressive liberal thinking" NPR) all purposely fail to report is that those bastards who seized the public resources in Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union all became sickeningly wealthy (a Protestant virtue in the US, but something to be held in high suspicion due to the Russian Orthodox sentiment that wealth=sin) by STEALING WHAT RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE, NOT PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. Of course it's necessary to nip that sort of behavior in the bud, and Putin was right in arresting the oil gangster (which played as "Cracking Down on Democracy" in the US media). These thiefs and shitheels cannot and should not be allowed a foothold in any true democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: redstarwraith Posted by: mazur
» RE: redstarwraith Posted by: redstarwraith
Ty
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Jun 29, 2005 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I knew there was some suspicion behind these conflicts in that part of the world. I really feel for the Russians. After the USSR was "broken up" all those weak states are falling into the West's orbit and are treated like prostitutes; only needed when a western nation wants something (labor, goods, etc).
It's been a goal for the USA to cause havoc in Eurasia since Lenin's time, and I think the West (well, the USA) is the leading culprit behind it all. And after reading the article, it's easy to see why Vladimir Putin is nervous. Russia is heading for a fall. I hope not. Even "Dubya" spoke about "freedom' to Georgians. What does our president know about "freedom"? Ask any Iraqi what freedom means...freedom under a gun.
We've formed military alliances with some of the "Stan" republics, lured Ukraine and the Baltic states away, now big-mouthed Condoleeza Rice wants Belarus to start a revolution. Is this our idea of "democracy"? I'm sick to my stomach. God help this wretched country of ours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ty Posted by: royrogers
Lol
Posted by: icebox on Jun 29, 2005 2:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, I love to see this. I guess this author never heard of self-determination. The Timorese wanted the Indonesians out for decades, and during that time the Indonesians brutalized East Timor. So it was bad to kick the Indonesians out of East Timor? Many on the left castigated the US for doing nothing for so long. Now, this author complains that autonomy for East Timor is all about US punishment of unfriendly regimes (which Indonesia isn't really nor has it ever been since WWII). Ha ha ha.

Whether US and European motivations vis a vis Indonesia were naughty or nice, it certainly wasn't bad for the residents of East Timor to be done with decades of European, Japanese, and Indonesian occupation.

An oh yes, the Ukranians were tools of American foreign policy when they revolted against their corrupt government; revolutions in some FSU countries may be welcomed by the US government, but there was such naked corruption in most of the republics that have had regime change lately that whatever US assistance there was hardly can be seen as creating these revolutions. It's even happening in Central Asian countries where the US cozy up to the corrupt dictators.

Sheesh!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quadruple-Cross
Posted by: lostdoggie on Jun 29, 2005 2:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US is busy trying to destroy Russia and in other ways control the world, and this reminds me of a Roadrunner cartoon where the coyote cuts off a branch while standing on a crumbling ledge. Effectively now NATO is dead, and is being replaced by a European force. Tthe EU and some former Soviet countries will soon merge, the only question is how. Will Russia absorb the EU, or will it merge with Europe? The US intrigue will probably backfire because democracy is coming everywhere, of the type not controlled from Washington. While the popular press is controlled from Washington, the news is free and it travels. For any American the total global dislike and disrespect for US policy has to be frightening. People are discovering who causes global outrage after outrage, from Chechnya to Darfur, where the Chinese now control the oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Quadruple-Cross Posted by: theenglishguy
» RE: Quadruple-Cross Posted by: lostdoggie
America
Posted by: jakealeah on Jun 29, 2005 7:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is wrong with a little empire building?

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare of freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for halcyon skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the enameled plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till souls wax fair as earth and air
And music-hearted sea!

O beautiful for pilgrims feet,
Whose stem impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till paths be wrought through
wilds of thought
By pilgrim foot and knee!

O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife
When once and twice,
for man's avail
Men lavished precious life!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This land - revised
Posted by: sheherezade on Jun 29, 2005 7:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this land was your land
but now it's my land
I took it from you
and I sent you packin
you are the red skin
I am the white skin
I have more money
and lot's of big guns
You were not using it
I built malls and condos
from the gulf stream waters
to the redwood forest
this land was made
for people like me

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This land - original Posted by: hagwind
Consolidating Elites
Posted by: Oleh on Jun 29, 2005 9:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most interesting part of the article is this quote:

“In a rare interview with the Russian business magazine Expert, Medvedev, a 39-year-old former lawyer, said, "If we don't manage to consolidate elites, Russia may disappear as one state. The disintegration of the Soviet Union would look like a kindergarten party compared to the collapse of the modern Russian state."

On reading Medvedev, I was reminded of something that Peter Struve said in 1911:

Should the intelligentsia[’s] “Ukrainian” idea ... strike the national soil and set it on fire ... [the result will be] a gigantic and unprecedented schism of the Russian nation, which, such is my deepest conviction, will result in a veritable disaster for the state and for the people. All our “borderland” problems will pale into mere bagatelles compared to such a prospect of bifurcation and—should the “Belorussians” follow the “Ukrainians”—the “trifurcation” of Russian culture. [Quoted in Richard Pipes, Struve: Liberal on the Right, 1905–1944 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980) 211–212]

The Russian empire began losing the Ukrainian elite in approximately the middle of the 19th century: Ukrainians simply did not buy into the idea of an ‘all-Russian’ Russian nation (namely, that Belarusans, Great Russians and Ukrainians represented a single nationality). The Ukrainian Nikolai Gogol’ was one of the last prominent participants of the empire who straddled the national fence, but the real tendency was toward separatism and independence. Russians tried everything to keep Ukrainians within their state, including genocide. Today, many Russians (as well as other former citizens of the Soviet Union) still cling to this myth, and view it as the hope for a future resurgent Russian state.

Just as the 'all-Russian' nation was improbable, destined to fall apart, so it may be that we are now again witnessing a new improbable Russia, destined to self-disintegration, (perhaps, with a little outside help). We're back to the old question: What is “Russia”? And who among the elite will believe in it? Is wiping out the Chechens the way to consolidate non-Russian elites? Or, perhaps, limiting democracy and local self-government will do the trick?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Consolidating Elites Posted by: lostdoggie
» RE: Consolidating Elites Posted by: Oleh
Ashleigh Banfield - TV Reporter - Her fate?
Posted by: Alusch on Jul 6, 2005 3:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever happened to Ashleigh Banfield, the courageous TV Reporter ?? - Fired!

MSNBC's Banfield Slams War Coverage.

In a speech at Kansas State, veteran TV correspondent takes a courageous stand against her own network's depiction of Iraq war as 'glorious and wonderful.'

The following is the text of MSNBC correspondent Ashleigh Banfield's Landon Lecture given at Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, on April 24. Her comments sparked a media controversy which reportedly prompted her NBC employers to severely reprimand Banfield. ? [Speech]

linked text = Linked text

linked text = Linked text

linked text = Linked text

Former MSNBC anchor Ashleigh Banfield is pregnant. She and husband Howard Gould are expecting a child this fall.


linked text = Linked text

linked text = Linked text


[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mark Ames Needs To Check His Facts
Posted by: Vidiot on Jul 10, 2005 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd been wondering why a particular post on my blog was getting a lot of traffic. Turns out it was one of the ones that Mark Ames referred to in his article. Yes, it was written by a blogger, and yes, it was entitled "Memo To Self: Don't Waterski in Bolotnikovo", but the similarities to the post referenced in his article end there. It was not a list compiled by me of humorous accounts of the story...it was a straightforward link to this BBC News story about the event. Makes me wonder if he actually read my blog post and clicked on the link, or if he just took someone else's word for it. Regardless, he should feel ashamed for stating things as the gospel truth without getting his own facts straight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]