Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton, continue their weekly discussion of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments, now in their fourth year, are at TheNation.com.)

Cohen begins by expressing to the Russian people and government profound sympathy and sorrow for the death of scores of Russians, most of them young children, who perished in the fire at a Kemerovo shopping and entertainment complex. He does so on his own behalf but also, he hopes, on behalf of most Americans.

Cohen then discusses several subjects related to his long, often-stated belief that the new US-Russian Cold War is more dangerous than was its 40-year predecessor, including the possibility of nuclear war. Having previously discussed other factors (see his postings at TheNation.com), he turns to current developments:

1. “Russiagate” and the attempted killing of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the UK have two aspects in common. Both blame Putin personally. And no actual facts have yet been made public.

Having discussed the fallacies of “Russiagate” often and at length, Cohen focuses on the Skripal affair. Putin had no conceivable motive, especially considering the upcoming World Cup Games in Russia, which both the government and the people consider to be very prestigious and thus important for the nation. No forensic or other evidence has yet been presented as to the nature of the purported nerve agent used or whether Russia still possesses it; or, even if so, whether Russia really is the only state whose agents did so; or when, where, and how it was inflicted on Skripal and his daughter; or why they and many others said to have been affected by this “lethal” agent are still alive. Nonetheless, even before the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has issued its obligatory tests, and while refusing to give the Russian government a required sample to test, the British leaders declared that it was “highly likely” Putin’s Kremlin had ordered the attack.

Nonetheless, on this flimsy basis, Western governments, led by the UK and reluctantly by the Trump administration, rushed to expel 100 or more Russian diplomats—the greatest number ever in this long history of such episodes.

It should be noted, however, that not all European governments did so, and a few others in only a token way, thereby again revealing European divisions over Russia policy.

2. This episode increases the risk of nuclear war between the United States and Russia.

Ever since the onset of the Atomic Age, the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction has kept the nuclear peace. This may have changed in 2002. when the Bush administration unilaterally withdrew from, thereby abrogating, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Since then, the United States and NATO have developed 30 or more anti-missile defense installments on land and sea, several very close to Russia. For Moscow, this was an American attempt to obtain a first-strike capability without mutual destruction. The Kremlin made this concern known to Moscow many times since 2002, proposing instead a mutual US-Russian developed anti-missile system, but was repeatedly rebuffed.

On March 1, Putin announced that Russia had developed nuclear weapons capable of eluding any anti-missile system, described it as a restoration of strategic parity, and called for new nuclear-weapons negotiations.

American mainstream political and media elites derided Putin’s announcement. Following the evaluation of several American nuclear experts, four Democratic senators appealed to (now former) Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to (in effect) respond positively to Putin’s appeal. Nothing came of it. Shortly after the Russian presidential election on March 18, President Trump himself, in a congratulatory call to Putin, proposed that they meet soon to discuss the “new nuclear arms race.” Trump was widely traduced as having revealed further evidence that he was “colluding” with Putin, perhaps even somehow controlled by the Kremlin.

The result has been, reflected in the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats, even more fraught US-Russian relations and with them, of course, the increased risk of nuclear war.

3. Many Americans, including political and media elites who shape public opinion, have been deluded into thinking, especially since the pseudo–“American-Russian friendship” of the Clinton 1990s, that nuclear war now really is “unthinkable.” That the mass expulsion of diplomats was merely “symbolic” and of no real lasting consequence. In reality, it has become more thinkable.

Diplomacy kept the nuclear peace during the preceding Cold War, but the mass expulsions—even pending the Kremlin’s response—seriously undermines the diplomatic process. They even criminalize it, as illustrated by denunciations of Trump’s phone conversation with Putin and by widespread political-media demands after he expelled a large number of Russia’s diplomats that he do “more”—such demands ranging from more sanctions on Russia to more military responses in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere—to prove he is not under Putin’s control. (Identifying all expelled diplomats as “intelligence officers” is also misleading. Posting intelligence officers as diplomats has long been a mutual de facto arrangement tacitly, if not explicitly, agreed upon and known by both sides. Moreover, the designation might apply to embassy officials who study the other country’s economic, social, cultural, or political life. They gather and report “information.”)

In this connection, historians remind us of how the great powers gradually “slipped” into World War I. The lesson is the crucial role of diplomacy, now being undermined. Consider, for example, Syria. Recently, US-backed proxies apparently killed a number of Russian citizens also operating there. The Kremlin, through its Ministry of Defense, issued an ominous warning: If this happens again, Moscow will strike militarily not only at the proxies but also at US forces in the region who provided the weapons and launched the missiles. The same razor’s edge could easily occur where the United States and Russia are also eyeball-to-eyeball, as in Ukraine or the Baltic region. (Again, as Trump is being crippled to the extent that he probably could not negotiate a crisis the way President Kennedy did the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.)

4. The causes of the new risks of nuclear war are not “symbolic” but real and primarily political.

As diplomacy is diminished, the militarization of US-Russian relations increases.

Every weapon developed as extensively as have been nuclear weapons have eventually been used. Washington dropped two atomic bombs, genetic predecessors of their nuclear offspring, on Japan in 1945. (Before 1914, some people thought gas, the new weapon of mass destruction, would never be widely used in warfare.)

On both sides today, but especially in Washington, there is talk of developing “more precise nuclear warheads” that could be usable. Use of even a “small, precise” nuclear weapon would cross the Rubicon of apocalypse.

Meanwhile, the extreme demonization of Putin and growing Russophobia in the United States are elevating today’s small, less formidable Russia into a threat even graver than was the Soviet Union, against which US nuclear weapons were developed and intended. And this, again, in the context of diminished diplomacy and Trump’s diminished capacity to negotiate.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/422673-russiagate-skripal-cold-war/

“When the presidents talked on the phone, Trump suggested holding a meeting in Washington DC,” Ushakov told reporters on Monday. He added that it was the US leader who had proposed the idea of the meeting.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/422966-trump-offers-putin-meeting-washington/

Under no circumstances can Putin trust the US's protection should he be in New York, Washington or Buford...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc

Russia’s ambassador has accused Australian journalists of denying his “freedom of speech” and warned that some of the coverage of his infamous press conference last week would have prompted criminal prosecutions in Russia.

Grigory Logvinov issued a statement on Tuesday saying reporters had humiliated themselves by repeating “unfounded accusations and personal attacks” about the Skripal nerve agent attack in Britain, which has been widely attributed to Moscow.

Quoting passages from Australian news stories after his colourful press conference last week addressing the Skripal case, Mr Logvinov said some were insulting towards Russians.

“In the wild Russia, such statements would trigger criminal prosecution as the deliberate incitement of discord between different ethnic groups,” he said.

Journalists had used “cheap jeers, flat jokes and simply personal insults”, he said.

...

Mr Logvinov cited Moscow’s description of British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson as a “shrew” and added that a “similar level of culture” was shown by the Australian media at last week’s press conference.

“Until then, I expected from them a display of the genotype of British self-restraint and reasonableness.”

The British media are widely regarded as among the most aggressive in the world.

Mr Logvinov said he had used “reasonable arguments and explanations” in his press conference.

His statements, however, consisted largely of blanket denials and demands for proof to be produced of Russian involvement.

At one point he said Moscow bore no responsibility to show it was not behind the attack, rather it was up to Britain to prove it was. He cited the principle of a presumption of innocence, though this is a principle that applies to criminal justice trials, not to demands for transparency of governments.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop have said Moscow must explain how one of its nerve agents was used on British soil.

Mr Logvinov also denied during the press conference that the two Russian diplomats expelled from Australia at the weekend were spies as the Turnbull government says.

In his statement on Tuesday Mr Logvinov also said the embassy had received “a great number of letters” from Australians apologising for the “disgraceful behaviour of both the Australian media and authorities” and thanking the embassy for “clarification of the real state of affairs”.

.....

Read more:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/russian-ambassador-australian-pr...

"Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop have said Moscow must explain how one of its nerve agents was used on British soil.????"

Fuck! Fuck these two clowns who pose as representative of Australia! Any clown in the west, from the CIA to Jo Putnick with a bath tub can make up a "nerve agent".  So far, there is no proof that the so-called nerve agent came from Russia. And there is not a single proof that a nerve agent was used in the poisoning of the Skripals. At this stage we have to rely on the "fairy" story from British Secret Service which is as bent as all get out — considering the Sexed-up Dossiers made up in regard to "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" and other capers. NOT A SINGLE PROOF HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD, EXCEPT CONJECTURE and accusations. Our two turdy clowns, Turdshit and Shitshop should know better. Even Menzies who made peace with the Soviets would be appalled at their fucking behaviour.

After the recent allusion of the [French] minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, against RT France to justify a law "anti-fake news", the president of the RT media, Xenia Fedorova, considers that it is primarily a question of "An attack on freedom of expression".

On April 6, Xenia Fedorova, President of RT France and Director of Information, reacted to French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian's comments, accusing RT of being a "propaganda organ" to justify a law "anti-fake news".

"For months we have been hearing unfounded accusations against RT France from Mr Macron and his teams. First qualified as a "fake news" factory without any proof, we would now be, according to Mr. Le Drian, "disinformation engineering specialists" ", says Xenia Fedorova.

It is an attack on freedom of expression and we are all concerned — media and citizens.

Skeptical about the lack of concrete elements put forward by the government and Emmanuel Macron to prove the usefulness of an anti-fake news law, she considers that its objective is not "to protect democracy". "By wanting to censor our media, because our editorial line does not suit the power in place, it is an attack on freedom of expression and we are all concerned, media and citizens," she adds.

Indeed, during a conference on "manipulations of information" on April 4 at the Quai d'Orsay, Jean-Yves Le Drian clarified the contours of the future law "anti-fake news", wanted by the president Emmanuel Macron. Denouncing an "engineering of misinformation", Jean-Yves Le Drian has multiplied allusions to Russia and its "propaganda organs", targeting Russia Today and Sputnik.

An anti-fake news law or an anti-RT law?

These two media are in his viewfinder. And if they do not produce false news, Jean-Yves Le Drian believes they have "more sophisticated strategies that consist in creating a source of information that is reliable in almost all cases [...] in order to give credibility when the time comes, to a false news ".

Read more:

https://francais.rt.com/rt-vous-parle/49492-parce-que-ligne-editoriale-n...

American journalism is in a strange state these days. We all (readers, editors, and writers) know it. We all have been grappling with the seismic changes that have shaped media in recent years—technological, ideological, economic, and geographical. But we don’t all agree on what’s wrong with journalism and we can’t figure out what the profession ought to look like going forward.

This has become exceedingly clear over the last few days as a video montage of several local broadcast stations belonging to Sinclair Broadcast Group went viral. Sinclair owns nearly 200 television stations in the United States, more than any other media company, and is seeking to acquire more. In the words of NPR, the company has “long been criticized for pushing conservative coverage and commentary onto local airwaves.”

Much of this criticism remained out of the national spotlight, until news anchors were required by Sinclair to read a particular script on air, one that sought to rebuke the national news media and the spread of fake news:

I’m [we are] extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that [proper news brand name of local station] produces. But I’m [we are] concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country.

The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, national media outlets are publishing these same fake stories without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the national media are using their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control ‘exactly what people think’ … This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

We understand Truth is neither politically “left or right.” Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever.

Some of the statements in the above script seem obvious and uncontroversial. The sharing of biased or false news on social media has become a problem, as any who have followed Facebook’s 2016 election struggles can attest. Many news stories get published that are irresponsible and one-sided. This tendency toward bias isn’t necessarily a new phenomenon; it’s something journalists have struggled with since the dawn of time. But as news becomes a 24/7 cycle of hot takes and quick write-ups, it does seem to be growing ever more present in—and perhaps influential upon—Americans’ minds.

Read more:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sinclair-broadcasting-an...

Bias isn’t necessarily a new phenomenon?.... Yes, bias isn’t a new phenomenon. Historical recorded bias and FAKE NEWS go back more than 650 BC... Search this site for "Blood Rivers of Babylon" for example... All religious beliefs are based on "fake news".

Read from top.

I felt disgusted by Simon Tisdall's opinion piece in The Guardian today.  I felt disgusted that a so-claimed fair paper would let this utter crap run. And on top of this they place their begging bowl at the end. Rack orf! So, I tried to get a fix on Tisdall whose opinion pieces are all more disgusting than the other and all published in that Guardian rag which looks more and more like a Breitbart for failed bourgeois intellectuals...  Someone called Jonathan Cook placed the line of sight onto Tisdall, back then in 2013:

Simon Tisdall was once my boss at the Guardian. Either I've changed a lot since I left the paper more than a decade ago (undoubtedly true!), or he's subsequently become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the US-Israeli security establishments (and there's plenty of evidence for that!).

This "analysis" of US options on Syria is a case study in how the Guardian's foreign coverage has become "Americanized". It would take too long to deconstruct the whole article, but here are some key points:

The framing is provided courtesy of the neocon crowd (Jennifer Rubin) and liberal fellow travellers (Bill Keller) who should have been entirely discredited following their cheerleading of the attack on Iraq a decade ago. Instead, they are presented by Tisdall as learned authorities on US strategic interests.

Obama's "failure", in Tisdall's view, is not that he has backed those forces trying to bring Syria to its knees through the stoking of a civil war; it's that he's been "dithering" and "shilly-shallying". Tisdall's presumption is that the US needs to behave more like Israel: that is, waging wars of aggression, dressed up as "humanitarian intervention". 

Next, he contributes, like his colleagues at the paper, to the discrediting / marginalising of this week's UN investigation suggesting that it was the rebels, rather than Assad's regime, that used the chemical weapon sarin. Yesterday, the Guardian mentioned the news of the UN investigation very belatedly, and only in the context of US denials of its findings. Tisdall, meanwhile, adds a new bit of misinformation: "UN investigator Carla del Ponte's uncomfortably off-message claim that the rebels may have reciprocated strengthened the impression that the anarchic Syrian crisis is becoming uncontainable." 

In other words, Tisdall is claiming that the rebels' use of sarin was only "reciprocation" for Assad's prior use, without a shred of evidence for his claim - instead based presumably on the word of his US security agency handlers. At the same time he twists his unsubstantiated claim to imply yet again that the US needs to "intervene" in an "anarchic" Syria.

The US failure to attack Syria is again framed by Tisdall as a "hands-off approach", despite the evidence that the US is deeply involved, even if chiefly through proxies like Israel and the Gulf states. 

So what are Obama's options, according to Tisdall? 

"That leaves a minimalist decision to arm the rebels, an idea floated by the Pentagon and encouraged by Britain and France despite fears that anti-western Islamist jihadis may benefit.

"Beyond that, options include creating a no-fly zone, similar to that imposed on Saddam Hussein's Iraq after the first Gulf war; so-called "surgical" strikes intended to take out Assad's airfields, anti-aircraft batteries, artillery and arms dumps and thereby protect the civilian population; a wider, open-ended air campaign to bring the regime to its knees (as in former Yugoslavia during the Kosovo crisis); or an all-out ground intervention if all the above fail."

Those are the *only* options, it seems. The lessons of the Iraq misinformation campaign have not been learnt by the media, least of all the UK's supposed bastion of "liberal" journalism.

https://www.facebook.com/Jonathan.Cook.journalist/posts/372381569537163

see also: 

https://off-guardian.org/2018/04/08/douma-chemical-attack-facts-so-far/

A couple of weeks after declaring that The Guardian, along with other “crazy lefties”, was "completely dead to me," Peter Dutton was granted an exclusive interview resulting in not one but two articles in Saturday’s (7 April) edition of that publication.

Home Affairs Minister Dutton is described by Ben Smee in 'Peter Dutton: "Some leaders fall into the trap of abandoning principles"', as possessing 'unflinching conviction that looks like indifference', as well as 'steadfastness' and an 'unshakeable world view'. He is also, according to Independent Member for Indi Cathy McGowan, “a man of great conviction”.

I don’t doubt that Dutton has these qualities, as do all despots and tyrants. Indeed, without those capacities, it would be impossible to consistently inflict severe damage on others in the blind pursuit of ideology and Dutton is, without any shadow of a doubt, an ideologue.

Read more:

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/dutton-and-th...

The bizarre UK/US “action on Syria” narrative is falling apart before our eyes. Germany, Italy, Canada and the Netherlands are bailing on any immediate involvement. The impression is strong that the UK’s Theresa May is being pressured into a statement of resolve she is by nature too cowardly to get behind. Even Mad Dog Mattis and Mike Pompeo are sounding notes of caution. Meanwhile the Russians are going all out on claiming the alleged gas attack was a hoax or a false flag, and a gutsy presser this morning from the Russian ambassador to the UK has been followed by more allegations about the UK’s direct involvement in pushing for a fake or false flag chemical attack in Douma. 

The establishment’s collapsing confidence in it’s ability to sell this newest and most insane war is best exemplified by this brief clip in which Sky News experiences sudden technical trouble while interviewing a British military expert on chemical warfare who unexpectedly veers from the approved script.

See more:

https://off-guardian.org/2018/04/13/watch-sky-news-experience-technical-...

--------

Read from top. Please note that the CIA, MI6 and other "intelligence" agencies' main work is disinformation. I have explained all this in various studies of "intelligence gathering" on this site. We saw this fakeness fully exposed in the open with the "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" and there they even did not bother "planting" some fake WMDs in Iraq. They thought they could get away with "the intelligence was faulty". Bollocks! Now they try their hardest to make us swallow a loot of their bullpoop.

Remember the "Rainbow Warrior" as well...

see also: http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/33845

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/26689

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/34144

http://yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/30461

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/26238

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/32752

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/11276

Imagine this: Navalny, a highly-polarizing and outspoken opponent of the Russian government, beloved by the Western press despite his nationalist background, was sentenced to 50 years of hard labor in a Siberian borscht mine after being found guilty of high treason. (Actually, he received a 30-day prison sentence for something illegal in basically every developed nation – “blocking traffic without the correct permits” – but we’re sure the Siberian exile story must be floating around somewhere, even without restrictions on media reporting.)

Now, just really stop whatever you’re doing, put on some relaxing whale sounds music, and try to envision the blue checkmark scream-fest that would immediately break Twitter if, “in an effort to guarantee a fair trial and avoid prejudice,” a Russian court put a blanket media ban on reporting on the activist’s arrest and court proceedings.

Is it even possible to comprehend the number of hernias that would ripple through every Western news outlet and internet content farm if Russia had a law that inhibited Radio Free Europe’s ability to report on the latest abortion of Russian justice? Or even BBC and CNN?

This completely, utterly imagined out-of-this-world story still reminds us of something. The internet seems to be really unhappy over a UK court order prohibiting media outlets from reporting on the details surrounding the arrest and trial of Tommy [Redacted]. [Redacted] was [redacted] for breaching the public [redacted] outside [redacted] Crown Court on Friday.

“This is [redacted], I haven’t said a word…I’ve done [redacted],” [Redacted] said while being [redacted] by [redacted]. He would say that, wouldn’t he? Typical [Redacted].

According to the BBC, court-ordered media blackouts – like the one used to restrict reporting on Tommy Robinson’s current legal difficulties – are not entirely uncommon, and they are usually put in place to “prevent the publication of material which might prejudice a fair trial by influencing jurors to think that a defendant might be guilty.”

As for [redacted]: There may be perfectly innocent, even very reasonable reasons why the media can’t report that [redacted] was [redacted] while [redacted], and that he is now facing [redacted] for [redacted]. But we can’t help but wonder if Western media would display the same uncritical and dutiful obedience if such a decree were actually issued by… a Russian court.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/428061-tommy-robinson-media-ban-russia-uk/

On this note WE MUST DEMAND THE FREEDOM FOR JULIAN ASSANGE NOW! Shame UK shame!

Read from top.

News coverage over the recent month has presented loads of material for the latest episode of the comedy show.

Like the CNN journalist sent to the Syrian town of Douma specifically to sniff its air, following an alleged but then-refuted chemical attack by Syria against its very own people.

“If there really was sarin gas that reporter would have immediately fallen on the ground dead and Wolf Blitzer would have an awkward rest of the half-an-hour to fill,” the Redacted Tonight host said.

It would not be the first time the US has been brought into a conflict by lies; there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the Gulf of Tonkin incident before the Vietnam War also never actually happened, Camp reminded viewers.

The same thing is happening with the Skripal case in the UK, where the media has been trying so hard to persuade the people that Russia would, for some reason, try to poison an ex-spy that defected a decade ago while, during the same period, the world’s eyes were on Russia, as host of the FIFA World Cup.

The media is always there to cover corruption in Washington, that shows itself through government lies, its hunger for war and its more-than-close ties with corporations, Camp said.

The host applauded the resignation of Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, after numerous scandals, but said that the celebrations were short-lived, when a coal lobbyist was appointed in his stead “to make sure the environmental destruction continues without pause.”

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/usa/433126-camp-evidence-chemical-msm-ratings/

Read from top.

When people are comforted by government lies, trafficking the truth becomes hellishly difficult. Disclosing damning facts is especially tricky when editors en masse lose their spines. These are some of the takeaways from legendary Seymour Hersh’s riveting new memoir, Reporter.   

Shortly before Hersh started covering the Pentagon for the Associated Press in 1965, Arthur Sylvester, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, berated a group of war correspondents in Saigon: “Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you’re stupid. Did you hear that? Stupid.” Hersh was astonished by the “stunningly sedate” Pentagon press room, which to him resembled “a high-end social club.” 

Hersh never signed on to that stenographers’ pool. He was soon shocked to realize “the extent to which the men running the war would lie to protect their losing hand.” Hersh did heroic work in the late 1960s and early 1970s exposing the lies behind the Vietnam War. His New Yorker articles on the My Lai massacre scored a Pulitzer Prize and put atrocities in headlines where they remained till the war’s end. 

Hersh’s 1974 expose on the CIA’s illegal spying on Americans helped spur one of the best congressional investigations of federal wrongdoing since World War II. (Many of the well-written reports from the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities remain regrettably relevant to the Leviathan in our time.) By the late 1970s, despite revelations of CIA assassinations and other atrocities, Hersh was chagrined that “[n]o one in the CIA had been prosecuted for the crimes that had been committed against the American people and the Constitution.” Welcome to Washington. 

Any journalist who has been hung out to dry will relish Hersh’s revelations of editors who flinched. After Hersh joined the Washington bureau of the New York Times, he hustled approval for an article going to the heart of foreign policy perfidy. Bureau chief Max Frankel finally approved a truncated version of Hersh’s pitch with the caveat that he should run the story by “Henry [Kissinger] and [CIA chief] Dick [Helms].” Hersh was horrified: “They were the architects of the idiocy and criminality I was desperate to write about.” A subsequent Washington bureau chief noted that the Times “was scared to death of being first on a controversial story that challenged the credibility of the government.”

After Hersh exited the Times, snaring high-profile newshole became more challenging. When he pitched a piece to the New Yorker on the turmoil and coverups permeating the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, editor Robert Gottlieb told him to “go for it.” But as Hersh was exiting Gottlieb’s office, the editor added: “Sy, I just want you to know that I don’t like controversy.” Gottlieb had the wrong dude. Elsewhere in the book, Hersh slams a gutless specimen at Life magazine, “If there is a journalism hell, that editor belongs there;” he also clobbers the Times business section’s “ass-kissing coterie of moronic editors.” On the other hand, throwing a typewriter through a plate glass window would perturb even the paper’s non-moronic editors.  

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/seymour-hersh-and-the-d...

Read from top.