iran, the cia and hollywood

They were not " mistakes".  They were carefully planned and executed crimes - war crimes and crimes against humanity .

One can see the  same planning in place again. Against  Iran. The country that the "men" were heading to once the 'boys' had done with Iraq , Syria etc and paved the way for the big Prize that Iran is.  

The CIA films, Argo and Zero Dark 30 are but the  sweetners for the Empire's  larger grab  game .  A continuing Echo of the Great Game that another Empire (the one that my country was a 'jewel in the crown' in) began in the 19th century. 

And let us not fall for the "public relations" line. This is pure propaganda . Propaganda for War. War against  Iran

Former UN Weapons Inspector: Don't Repeat in Iran the 'Tragic and Terrible' Mistakes of Iraq

10 years after Iraq invasion, Hans Blix warns against those pushing false arguments for attacking Iran

- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer

Former UN inspector Hans Blix talks to a small group of journalists at a press gathering in Dubai. "In the case of Iraq," he says, "there was an attempt made by some states to eradicate weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, and today there is talk of going on Iran to eradicate intentions that may not exist." (Photo: Getty images)As the ten year anniversary of the US-led invasion on Iraq approaches, the former UN weapons inspector from Norway Hans Blix said this week that world powers should heed history's lessons by not repeating the same mistakes with Iran.

"Memories of the failure and tragic mistakes in Iraq are not taken sufficiently seriously," the 82-year-old Blix told a group of reporters in Dubai.

So far Iran has not violated NPT (the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and there is no evidence right now that suggests that Iran is producing nuclear weapons,” Blix said about the current events surrounding Iran.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03/06-9

Hollywood a longtime friend of the CIA

High-level access granted to filmmakers researching a movie about the Osama bin Laden raid is just the latest episode in an increasingly close, cooperative arrangement that has spanned administrations.

May 26, 2012|By Ken Dilanian and Rebecca Keegan

• • 
    

  • Email

    Share

• 

A crew works on a scene depicting Abbottabad, Pakistan, in Kathryn Bigelow's… (AFP/Getty Images )

WASHINGTON — Some Republican lawmakers were outraged when federal records released last week showed that the White House, CIA and Defense Department granted high-level access last year to a pair of acclaimed filmmakers researching an action thriller about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

The documents tell "a damning story of extremely close, unprecedented, and potentially dangerous collaboration" between the filmmakers and the Obama administration, fumed New York Rep. Peter T. King, GOP chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

"When the CIA or the Pentagon says, 'We'll help you, if you play ball with us,' that's favoring one form of speech over another. It becomes propaganda," he said. "The danger for filmmakers is that their product — entertainment and information — ends up being government spin."

The military's symbiotic relationship with movies dates to the 1920s; the Pentagon regularly traded warships, bombers and technical expertise over the decades for a chance to glamorize the military and boost recruitment.

The CIA has kept an entertainment liaison on staff only since 1996. At that point, the Cold War had ended, and the agency was fighting for its budget and its existence on Capitol Hill. The new mission was clear: to overcome the CIA's image in popular entertainment as incompetent, evil or rife with rogue employees.

"I made that a big priority, and we did a lot more with Hollywood than ever before," said Bill Harlow, the CIA public affairs chief from 1997 to 2004. "The reason is that the American public gets a lot more of their information about the CIA from Hollywood than it does the from the news media, and much of what they see about the agency is negative and wrong."

These days, the CIA even posts potential story lines on its website, according to spokesman Todd Ebitz.

"On some occasions, when appropriate, we arrange visits to the agency for unclassified meetings with some of our officers," he added. "Rarely, we have allowed filming on our premises under very tight parameters."

In 1999, the CIA allowed pro

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/26/nation/la-na-cia-hollywood-20120527

AT A TIME WHEN THE CIA is still hiding the details of its extrajuridical drone strike assassination program from congressional watchdogs and the media, one would think it an awkward moment for Hollywood to confer Academy Awards on films that celebrate its secret agents.

But apparently not. While a robust debate has emerged about Zero Dark Thirty’s depiction of torture, the film largely celebrates the tireless spycraft of a CIA analyst who was complicit. Meanwhile, Argo is an unqualified nod towards the CIA’s collaboration with Hollywood in liberating hostages held in Iran in 1979.

Argo and Zero Dark Thirty are only the latest film productions the CIA has influenced in the 15 years since the Agency opened its official liaison office to Hollywood. Tricia Jenkins examines the history of this version of “Hollywood confidential” in The CIA in Hollywood: How the Agency Shapes Film and Television. Short and dry, her book raises serious ethical and legal questions about the relationship between the CIA and Hollywood, and the extent to which we consume propaganda from one through the other.

Think about that: it’s not that Hollywood is in bed with the CIA in some repugnant way, but that the Agency is looking to plant positive images about itself (in other words, propaganda) through our most popular forms of entertainment. So natural has the CIA–entertainment connection become that few question its legal or moral ramifications. This is a government agency like no other; the truth of its operations is not subject to public examination. When the CIA’s hidden persuaders influence a Hollywood movie, it is using a popular medium to spin as favorable an image of itself as possible, or at least, prevent an unfavorable one from taking hold. If incestuous enough, Jenkins argues, these relationships violate the spirit or letter of government laws.

It’s hard for the public to contextualize what we’re told are the CIA’s spectacular feats; it’s relatively easy for the CIA to bury inconvenient, illegal, or catastrophic failures. For example, the producers of Argo chose not to explore why, precisely 20 minutes after Ronald Reagan’s 1980 inaugural address, Iran released all remaining American 66 hostages after a 444-day ordeal. It smelled like a secret deal, though its exact nature was buried in controversy. (Prominent in the arrangement with Iran was William Casey, the Reagan confidant who went on to become CIA director immediately after the hostage release.) The basic point, not mentioned in Argo, is that parties in the Reagan camp were pushing Iran to delay the hostage release until after Carter lost the election. If proven, that would be treasonous. In any event, the relationships evolved to be known as Iran–Contra, which would have muddled Argo’s happy message. By minimizing or ignoring the bookends of the 1953 coup and the 1980 hostage release, Argo could stand alone as a heroic feel-good tale. The rest of us still live with the real-world consequences.

Does it matter whether Zero Dark Thirty endorses or rejects torture, or ultimately applauds it for leading stalwart CIA heroes to our greatest enemy? Not really. In the end, perhaps the debate around the film is really just a distraction from what actually does matter: Zero Dark Thirty — by being such an entertaining, edge-of-your-seat thriller about the CIA that it would compel us to have a debate about it at all — is the greatest public relations gift a secret agency could possibly wish for. There we are, a captive audience, twisting our popcorn bags and Juicy Fruit boxes with nervous, sweaty palms while watching an obsessed, passionate, dedicated female CIA analyst named Maya, played by the beautiful and talented Jessica Chastain, dodge bullets, bombs, and boyfriends on her way to exacting bloodthirsty revenge. Is her revenge our own? By rooting for her, which we doubtlessly do, are we not rooting for the Agency she signifies? When she wins in the end, doesn’t America win too? If that’s not great public relations, I don’t know what is.

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/28/is_hollywood_secretly_in_bed_with_the_cia_partner/