Jump to content
The Education Forum

Distorting History by Don Bohning


Recommended Posts

Well, finally Bohning has outed himself, and his fellow traveller Ayton, as the fascistic anti-democrats that thinking persons have long known them to be. Imagine the nerve of John Simkin being educated in a school of which these two do not approve, and then being a member of a perfectly legal trade union. Good thing you weren't raised a Jesuit, John, or they'd have you strung up by the thumbs for spreading that dreadful liberation theology that keeps getting good priests killed in Third World hellholes to prevent the spread of anti-capitalist thought.

Brave men and women refute bunkum through rigorous intellectual debate of the facts. Scared and tiny little men cannot muster the courage or intellectual skills to do this, and resort instead to impugning the messenger rather than the message.

The truth remains the truth, no matter who speaks it. And, conversely, lies remain lies no matter how often the likes of Bohning and Ayton repeat them.

They no doubt fancy themselves to be defenders of liberty and justice, yet the record of the Agency in whose service they toil is an entirely different tale. While loudly extolling the virtues of a democracy they claim should be global, they are hypocritical apologists for an agenda devoted to preventing democracy from spreading wherever it might impinge on profit.

Since 1947, we have seen a trail of despots, military juntas, death squads, "disappeared" and shallow graves, all with the blessing or connivance of CIA. This is what they seek to defend, doing so here and elsewhere by asserting that people like John Simkin have no right to free association, freedom of thought or freedom of expression.

That's some "democracy" they espouse. What easily frightened and feeble little fellows they be.

When do the witch trials begin?

Don Bohning's reply:

John,

as i told you before, I would believe Mel Ayton before I believed anything you said, given all the factual errors on your website; errors which reflect your ideological positions. As I noted before, I wouldn't be surprised if you got your training in the defamation of people from the KGB.

This shows just how much Bohning cares for the truth. It shows what kind of journalist he was. He would rather believe Ayton's wild accusations than my detailed account of my past. It is the same with his original article. He made it clear he preferred to believe the statements of compromised CIA operatives than declassified CIA documents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I have just seen this thread for the first time and read all the way through it.

Just a few thoughts:

DB writes, "It is inconceivable that had Operation 40 been an assassination unit, as Simkin claims, that either or both the Church Committee and the CIA's Inspector General's Inspector General's report would not have made some made mention of it."

Mmmm, yes, it is truly inconceivable that an off-the-books black ops, would remain as such because nobody would 'fess up' to the Church Committee or the IG or anyone else for that matter.

It was i believe, a CIA director (sorry, i forget which one) who blatantly told a Congressional committee that: yes, he would lie to them and yes, he had instructed his agents to also lie. I'm sure someone here can back me up on that.

DB writes, "According to Simkin's website - and without identifying the source, although it is likely to have been Wheaton - Quintero is quoted as once saying: "If I were ever granted immunity, and compelled to testify about past actions, about Dallas and the Bay of Pigs, it would be the biggest scandal ever to rock the United States." Quintero categorically denied to me in informal luncheon conversations before his death that he had ever made such a statement."

Let me get this straight: a man who proclaims to be in on the murder of a U.S. president (or have inside knowledge of), as well as the infamous Bay of Pigs (which broke i don't know how many laws) -it's possible that he lied?

Inconceivable.

DB writes, (about John) "The following response from Mel Ayton. I find him find to be much more credible as a serious historian than you and your website which are a font of both misinformation and disinformation regarding numerous people and things which I have documented for you but to which you pay no attention. Thus, i stick with my original description of you and your background."

Seriously, i'm having elementary school-yard flashbacks here.

DB writes, (about John) "As I noted before, I wouldn't be surprised if you got your training in the defamation of people from the KGB"

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

John, i always knew there was something about you, i just couldn't put my finger on it.

To Don, and for the record: It is NOT anti-american to know the difference between right and wrong.

To create and fund and supply both sides of a civil war -is wrong.

CIA bringing drugs into the country, and creating huge epidemics in the population -that's wrong

The systematic policy of genocide against the American Indians -including the use of biological warfare; is so far beyond wrong, it's evil. I was born and raised in this land, i was taught that we stood for something, that as a nation we had ideals and standards. And it breaks the hearts and shatters the dreams of my generation, to find out the sanctioned evil that goes on (the Vietnam POWs), much less the unsanctioned evil. Because we want our nation to stand for something, we want to see it achieve the potential that it has.

As the saying goes: All that's required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.

So don't you ever again, call any person "anti-american" simply for speaking out against evil.

R.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 years later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...