Dan Rather's outrageous comments on coasttocoastam

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.adweek.com/fishbowlny/dan-rather-george-noory-coast-to-coast/376025

[Ron Ecker]

It's Rather ironic that in the photo Lone Nutter Dan is standing at perhaps the best location for a shooter in Dealey Plaza.

[Pat Speer]

Rather blames the Kennedy administration for two successful assassinations. He must be thinking of Lumumba--who was murdered just before JFK took office (that is, before he could do anything to stop it)--and Trujillo--who was murdered a few months after JFK took office by a group who'd been only marginally supported by the CIA (during the Eisenhower Administration) and whose continued support under the JFK Administration was concealed by Tracy Barnes, (that is, it was conducted without JFK's knowledge).

[Michael Walton]

It's Rather ironic that in the photo Lone Nutter Dan is standing at perhaps the best location for a shooter in Dealey Plaza.

Love your word play on old Dan. Nice.

[Tom Neal]

Considering the beating "Mrs. C" usually receives from the media, and on THIS website, this is an interesting quote from Mr. D.:

“Hillary Clinton is so much different in person from what she projects on TV. In person, she’s a very personable personality. She relates to people very, very well. She listens; she’s a very good listener in person. She is also smart, very smart… She doesn’t project on television anywhere near what she projects in person.”

Considering his evaluation of Trump and his comments about JFK's womanizing, I don't see any reason for him to state this, other than he actually believes it.

[Tom Neal]

It's Rather ironic that in the photo Lone Nutter Dan is standing at perhaps the best location for a shooter in Dealey Plaza.

Love your word play on old Dan. Nice.

Dan Rather ridicules the statements of the workers standing at this precise spot, who observed a shot from the knoll, smoke, and counted 4 shots. Yet where does he choose to stand to show the best view of the shooting?

[Michael Walton]

Dan Rather ridicules the statements of the workers standing...

Agreed and old (or rather young) Dan started misleading the public 52 years ago about what he "saw" when he completely left out the "back and to the left" violent reaction of the JFK head shot. The fix was already on at that point.

[Don Jeffries]

Boy, it sure is hard to tell just who this "unbiased" journalist supports for president, isn't it? On the contrary, Dan- it is virtually impossible to find a positive personal anecdote about Hillary Clinton. She appears to have a Madonna-like diva personality, and to treat people with consistent disdain. Kind of like LBJ.

You almost have to feel sorry for dying and decaying dinosaurs like Rather. The professional journalists and high-profile historians are never going to admit just how inaccurate their reporting and analysis was and is, on the JFK assassination. Walter Cronkite went down swinging, too- still lying and distorting the truth in his nineties. Well, he did have that yearly gig at Bohemian Grove, after all- where he served as the voice of the owl for decades.

Rather's career took off with his reporting on the assassination. Small wonder that he feels so strongly about protecting his legacy. He's never had to explain his early description of the Zapruder film showing JFK's head moving forward.

Dan Rather, like Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and countless others, epitomizes why Americans are so woefully uniformed about the most important issues, and have become all but historically illiterate. Every one of these wildly overpaid mouthpieces for the state should be castigated for their significant contributions to the mess we're in today. The only way one could have the least bit of admiration about a Dan Rather is to be totally ignorant of history.

[James DiEugenio]

Here is my question: What the heck is Coast to Coast doing with Dan Rather on talking about JFK and his assassination?

Dan Rather, and what he represents, is why there is a Coast to Coast. Because the mass of the public does not buy the dying MSM.

Its also one reason why this country is such a mess, and has so many people leaving for places like Costa Rica, Belize, Ecuador, the south of France, Portugal and Spain. (I soon may be one of them.)

Having Dan Rather talk about the JFK case is like having Pat Buchanan talk about what a great guy Nixon was.

Pat is correct, the Church Committee figured out that Kennedy was not involved with either the Lumumba or Trujillo assassinations. In fact, the latest research on the former says that Dulles hurried up the Lumumba hit because he knew JFK would veto it since he backed Lumumba.

As per the whole womanizing thing, I wrote about this years ago in my essay, "The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy." Much of it is exaggerated and the MSM has been at work doing that exaggerating. Because they missed the truth about the assassination.

Someone send Rather by report, based on Roger Feinman's documents, on the CBS cover up of the JFK case.

Edited May 23, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[David Andrews]

I don't want to pick fights, and certainly not with a researcher whose work I respect, but I doubt that radio shows preoccupied with Nazi aliens building the pyramids are the answer to the MSM. If anything, they're a paraphilia intended as an "alternative" palliative for the masses.

Viz Alex Jones, surely a future presidential candidate - to speak of, in the year of Trump, a rival alternative palliative. (Anyone want odds on Trump becoming a talk radio personality after the pre-ordained Clinton victory?)

The late Mae Brussell, for all of her own non sequitur conspiracy tangents, was closer to an alternative to the MSM. We don't have her like anymore; instead we have Amy Goodman to prove that history comes around again as farce.

So this is where Rather ends up, flogging his ancient authority like Ozymandias on some Alien Presence-hour radio show. His hatred for the regime that laid him low has to be tempered - in fear for his own gluteus maximus and those of his loved ones - in order to obscure his past sins supporting the predecessors of that regime. Which means in short that JFK's head still moves violently forward, and that the Kennedys were running a damned Murder Incorporated in the Caribbean.

Edited May 23, 2016 by David Andrews

[Sandy Larsen]

Considering the beating "Mrs. C" usually receives from the media, and on THIS website, this is an interesting quote from Mr. D.:

“Hillary Clinton is so much different in person from what she projects on TV. In person, she’s a very personable personality. She relates to people very, very well. She listens; she’s a very good listener in person. She is also smart, very smart… She doesn’t project on television anywhere near what she projects in person.”

Considering his evaluation of Trump and his comments about JFK's womanizing, I don't see any reason for him to state this, other than he actually believes it.

I don't understand how it is that so many people perceive Hillary Clinton so negatively. The clips I see of her on the telly scream "professional" and "intelligent" to me. (Well, okay... I do hear an occasional cackle. But that may be just me.) I wonder if some folks would prefer that she be more of an Aunt Bee like character.

(Now go back and read Tom's quote -- in red above -- and see if I'm right. At least regarding the people Dan meant that statement for.)

I totally understand why some on this forum don't like the fact that Hillary supports the CIA fighting -- in foreign lands -- the terrorists that they created. I don't like it either. But I'm not convinced that the alternative would be a better choice.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

Well, if the alternative is Trump, yes HC looks OK.

But compared to Sanders, no she is not.

Her record as Secretary of State was simply awful: Honduras, Libya, and Syria? I mean, I am not crazy about Obama, but if it was not for him and Kerry we would be fighting big time in Syria, and would have rejected the treaty with Iran.

Many people, including the excellent Bob Parry, think that HC is really a disguised neocon. I mean she takes advice from Robert Kagan, and get this, HENRY KISSINGER! Which is utterly nuts. That guy should be in jail.

Then if you go back to the Clinton presidency. I mean, consider the whole welfare reform program which put hundreds of thousands of people on the poverty line; then the crime package, which put more and more minority groups in jail. I mean, Bill Clinton was actually talking with Gingrich about privatizing Social Security before the Lewinsky scandal broke.

The Clintons come from the DLC crowd, Al From and those other Republican Lite groups. Nixon used to tell his media advisors to talk about his ChIna trip as something only he could have done. (When in fact JFK was going to do it in his second term) Well, the Clintons were the equivalent of that idea in the Democratic ranks. They could do neocon and conservative policies since they were Democrats.

Except they really aren't. As their Sec. of Labor Robert Reich later said, they actually thought of themselves as Eisenhower Republicans.

Edited May 23, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

Wow... and I thought I was far left.

To get elected you have to look like you're a hawk. (Or at least that used to be the case.) To get stuff done, you have to compromise with the opposition. To be a reasonable person, you have to listen to what those on the other side have to say. Sometimes you do things you normally wouldn't do to help guarantee a second term.

Maybe I'm too pragmatic to be considered far left. Plenty on the left complain that Obama's healthcare initiative didn't go far enough because it didn't include a single payer system. They don't understand that he couldn't have gotten the votes to pass the bill had he not compromised on that (and other) provision. (Or maybe they would rather have the initiative fail than to accept a less-than-desired program.)

When Bill Clinton was talking about "privatizing" Social Security, I'm certain that he didn't mean abolishing Social Security as we know it. I'm sure that what he was thinking was to let people (the wealthy) save some of their money in some kind of Social-Security approved account. And I'm sure that he and the Democrats would have negotiated something good for low-income folks in return for Clinton's signature..

BTW, I agree that Sanders is a better candidate. I'm just afraid he might lose to Trump. Which is why my primary vote went to Hillary.

Also BTW, my understanding regarding the idea of Clinton being an Eisenhower Republican is that it came from none other than Bill Clinton himself. But it wasn't with great pride that he said it. He was complaining (privately) that the policies he was being asked to take by his advisers were ones Eisenhower would take. And he complained that those policies would hurt the people who had voted for him.

But he did follow what his advisers told him. And so, yeah, my fellow lefties can blame him for that. But they should also consider that the goal of bringing the economy out of stagnation was thereby accomplished. And that helped the poor and everybody else.

Poverty Dropped Under Clinton

Crime Rate Went Down Under Both Clinton and Obama

The crime rate is another measure of poverty, because poverty begets crime.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Douglas Caddy]

There are many reasons why I shall never vote for Hillary but this is among the foremost. It shows that she is cackling psychopath and left that country filled with multi factions of terrorism. Among the victims there of her neocon aggression was our late U.S. Ambassador who died in a most horrible way.

[Ron Ecker]

I can't discuss the Clintons without getting sick so I won't. I don't want to ruin my own day.