Politico Article

[Eddy Bainbridge]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/24/fidel-castro-cia-mafia-plot-216977

 

"(To the chagrin of conspiracy theorists, the documents contain little evidence that anyone besides gunman Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for the tragedy."

 

I would love to hear what Researchers (I am not a researcher, just interested) think of this article and specifically can someone explain how a journalist, writing for an organisation I respect, is able to write a sentence suggesting there has been no change in the received wisdom since 1963?

 

Reading the article, I kept thinking the writer was avoiding a massive elephant in the room: The mafia appeared to demonstrate a certain slant on patriotism ,that must have taken a severe knock from Kennedy's response to the Bay of Pigs, particularly its leaders named in the article. Isn't it legitimate (and obvious) to question whether the mafia 'patriots' and their CIA contacts reacted in any way?

This article does a grevious disservice to Politico's readers in failing to even mention there may have been plots, as yet uncovered, involving these actors

Edited February 25, 2018 by Eddy Bainbridge
Expanded

[James DiEugenio]

I read this and I share your insight.

I think one can deduce that Politico printed it for three reasons.

First, the writer had to place that sentence in there about there being no new information in the files indicating a conspiracy.  Which is more Rachel Maddow type BS.

Second, it is presented as new, but it really is not.  The IG report was declassified in the nineties and the Scott Breckinridge (co author of the report) interview was declassified several years ago.

Third, the author leaves the door open as to whether or not the plots had presidential approval.  Again, this is simply and utterly false.  Because both the IG report and the Breckinridge interview show that there was no ambiguity about this issue.  By leaving out Hoover's report on RFK's reaction, and the two CIA briefers, you can leave that impression.  Breckinridge and the Church Committee noted that the CIA had deliberately lied to RFK during the briefing. They told him the plots had been discontinued when in fact, they had not been. And RFK did not drop his surveillance on Giancana, he actually increased it to the point that Giancana went to court to complain about it.

This is one reason why the so called liberal blogosphere has been a crashing disappointment.

 

[Don Jeffries]

To my knowledge, there isn't a single mainstream media outlet that doesn't have an editorial policy of "no conspiracy" regarding the JFK assassination (or any other event, outside the ludicrous Russian "collusion" nonsense.).

Even formerly open-minded Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly are now loud and proud lone nutters. I also can't think of a single mainstream journalist who doesn't buy the lone assassin fairy tale, outside of David Talbot or Jefferson Morley. It's almost like they have to sign some kind of contract about this subject when they enter the field.

[James DiEugenio]

Alec Baldwin revealed that about NBC down in Houston during the mock trial.  He said that he wanted to do a JFK special at he fiftieth.  But when he told them what he had in mind, they said, we are aligned with WC verdict.

But I should add there is some good news on the horizon.  I cannot reveal it yet, but its coming.

[Ron Bulman]

The article sounds like a Hollywood script.  Dramatized historical fiction.  "a rather merry affair as 007 might say".  "The mafia spy scheme against Castro".  Jeez, the mafia was used by the CIA in assassination attempts that, as the article does note, all failed.  "given the shadowy nature of this long ago spy tale".  "pesky young Castro".  "Why can't you get things cooking like 007?"  Harvey putting words in RFK's mouth after the fact.  Harvey hated RFK for getting him sent to Italy for insubordination.  Who the hell believes anything Harvey said?  "Project Johnny - Roselli's heroics."  "File never found."  

No matter what they've renamed it (Operation Googlebird?) it's Operation Mockingbird modified, still in action.

[James DiEugenio]

Maybe now its called Blogobird.

[Cliff Varnell]

10 hours ago, Don Jeffries said:

To my knowledge, there isn't a single mainstream media outlet that doesn't have an editorial policy of "no conspiracy" regarding the JFK assassination (or any other event, outside the ludicrous Russian "collusion" nonsense.).

Even formerly open-minded Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly are now loud and proud lone nutters. I also can't think of a single mainstream journalist who doesn't buy the lone assassin fairy tale, outside of David Talbot or Jefferson Morley. It's almost like they have to sign some kind of contract about this subject when they enter the field.

It's always been that way.

 

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is one reason why the so called liberal blogosphere has been a crashing disappointment.

 

Politico isn't part of any "liberal blogosphere."

By ignoring the prima facie case for conspiracy all you "JFK experts" let the MSM lone-nutters off the hook.

Talk about crashing disappointment...6 -5 -1 Mock Trial loss.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

Don just pointed out  a couple of exceptions from years gone by.

But when Rivera and O'Reilly moved to Fox, they evidently got the message from the late Roger Ailes. At least that is what Russ Baker wrote.

What makes the liberal blogosphere so disappointing is that most of those sites are not run by representatives of the Power Elite the way CBS, NBC and ABC were--and, of course, who the Murdoch family is. I mean Arianna Huffington actually rose to fame in opposition to that group.  But, of course now a former NY Times editor runs Huffpo.

This would seem to indicate what I have long suspected: the liberal blogosphere did not really aim at the Ramparts/LA Free Press model as constructed by Warren Hinckle and Art Kunkin.  What they wanted to be was a more trendy left version of the MSM, but still maintaining their taboo strictures in a misguided wish to be "respectable".

The only exceptions I can think of are Salon, because of David Talbot's former influence; the late Bob Parry's Consortium News  and Russ Baker's site.  Techncially these are not blogs but they are part of the new so called online news and comment media. And, unfortunately, they are really not part of the Tier One statistically rated ones.

Its really discouraging I think.

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Don Jeffries]

Jim,

Remember that Arianna Huffington permitted no talk of "conspiracy theories" in her organization, and Jesse Ventura lost his place as a columnist with them because of that. Arianna would later lecture Luke Rudkowski of We are Change when he brought up the subject. 

[Joe Bauer]

Kudos to almost every post above.

Our JFK truth guardians may be less in number these last decades, but they never stop their brave and courageous efforts ( after 55 years!) to stand up against the still perpetrated MSM false reality lies whenever they can.

Our Knights Of Truth.

[Eddy Bainbridge]

I am very resistant to the idea there is a body of media outlets (The 'liberal blogosphere') that resists a frightening truth. I suspect the truth is a little more dull. I think the heavy lifting part of the cover-up was done in the time up to the Warren Report. I think you have to read pretty deeply to decide something is wrong with the official story and a journalist without the background reading has to start from some assumptions . The early cover-up was good at normalizing the 'lone nut' idea, and the suppression of important evidence over time has stalled any momentum that might have generated good journalism. 

Everyone I know is not part of a cover-up, or is pressured into silence on the assassination. But, everyone I know looks at me with a mix of disinterest and concern that I may have a screw loose when I try to discuss it. 

 

Having said the above I do however accept the effective work of project Mockingbird, particularly because of the writing of Jim DiEugenio. I'm just not convinced its necessary or active any more.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Eddy says:

Everyone I know is not part of a cover-up, or is pressured into silence on the assassination. But, everyone I know looks at me with a mix of disinterest and concern that I may have a screw loose when I try to discuss it.

Having said the above I do however accept the effective work of project Mockingbird, particularly because of the writing of Jim DiEugenio. I'm just not convinced its necessary or active any more.

Right! It's not active, and doesn't have to be active.

Well put Eddy, as you've said, much heavy lifting was done in the year following the assassination, and it was pretty thoroughly pinned down by the end of the 70's.  Since then, all would be future news journalists and potential molders of future public opinion had  their teachers from high school, their professors in college, and their eventual  bosses pretty much drinking the LN Kool Aid, and they have no curiosity about it. It's a shame because if there was a broader range of news being presented, there might be less reliance on crazy internet sources.

But  facing the remaining disclosure to come in April, the JFK Assassination CT community  is completely fragmented, unable to put together a coherent agenda of subjects and demands for public disclosure, or put a real face on their investigation. You at least have to leave the public with some clue what the real issues are!  Instead we have a totally  passive, reactive stance. Outside of a real breakthrough in the case, there just aren't many opportunities like now. And now it looks like this is  lining up to be another historic opportunity  muffed.

Oops! Victimized again. Oh well, at least we'll  still have the "Deep State " to blame.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Kirk Gallaway

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Don Jeffries said:

Jim,

Remember that Arianna Huffington permitted no talk of "conspiracy theories" in her organization, and Jesse Ventura lost his place as a columnist with them because of that. Arianna would later lecture Luke Rudkowski of We are Change when he brought up the subject. 

I wasn't allowed to comment over at the HuffPost -- nor at DailyKos.

But I didn't have any problems at FireDogLake, TBogg, or Down With Tyranny.

As long as we're slanging cases for conspiracy based on highly technical proofs the JFKA cause will continue it's 17 year slide toward irrelevancy.

[Michael Walton]

11 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Politico isn't part of any "liberal blogosphere."

Really?

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/politico-media-bias